Is it or isn't it?

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I miss him also.

Me too. He pulled me from the brink of Atheism, and left me an agnostic with extremely atheistic tendencies. But for God's sake, don't tell him.

I almost fell into his trap, early on. Fortunately he could not alter my perception, in the end.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

What Frank could not handle was that concepts of "knowledge " are tied to particular concepts of "reality". (The interdependence of epistemology and ontology). "Agnosticism" becomes vacuous when that point is understood.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

What Frank could not handle was that concepts of "knowledge " are tied to particular concepts of "reality". (The interdependence of epistemology and ontology). "Agnosticism" becomes vacuous when that point is understood.

Great. Now I've got THAT mess to clean up. sigh. Could take me years. I'm not fast. Thanks, though.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Not really a mess ! Very simplistically philosophy points to two positions.

Either "reality is out there" and "things have existence" independent of observers, or "reality is a construction" based on species specific and culture specific needs. In the first case, "knowledge is about "objective facts", and in the second, it is about social (paradigmatic) agreement as to "what works" or "what is useful".

The problem with "agnostics" is that they are stuck with type 1 (naive realism) without any "objective evidence" for a deity. I f they moved to type 2 they would take the position that "objectivity" is a myth, and that "evidence" lies in the eye of the beholder.

IMO the second position is superior because it transcends, and encompasses the first in that it allows for observer-observed interaction in accordance with developments in physics (post Heisenberg).

3 Replies

@fresco,

How does your explanation apply to morality?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The canon mentions eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection in many places.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

So then, by tying in the idea that "God is love" with your admonition that there should be a reconciliation betewen the demanding Mosaic Law and the teachings of Jesus, do you see Mosaic Law as unloving?

On the contrary.
It was necessary to identify the Messiah, without whom we would have no hope

So, Mosaic Law is loving insofar as it identifies the Messiah. What about Mosaic Law in and of itself, the 613 mitzvot, the commandments to perform certain acts and to avoid others?

It doesn't seem that you believe that reconciliation is required between the demanding Mosaic Law and the teachings of Jesus after all. Why then, the admonition that they be reconciled in the first place?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

. . . It doesn't seem that you believe that reconciliation is required between the demanding Mosaic Law and the teachings of Jesus after all. Why then, the admonition that they be reconciled in the first place?

More to it than that.

The law gives insight into Jehovah's thoughts and personality.

While the law was demanding and impossible to follow, those who respected it and did their best could say as did Solomon in (Proverbs 10:22) . . .The blessing of Jehovah"that is what makes rich, and he adds no pain with it . . .
(Emphasis mine)

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

How does your explanation apply to morality?

How does yours?

1 Reply

@mesquite,

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
How does your explanation apply to morality?

How does yours?

Quoting Fresco:
"In the first case, "knowledge is about "objective facts", and in the second, it is about social (paradigmatic) agreement as to "what works" or "what is useful"."

Standards of human behavior should not be subject to hair splitting, IMHO

2 Replies

@neologist,

"Morality" is about what works for "self" living with "self" or "others". The use of quotation marks implies that all those items are inter-relational constructions. That is not to imply that such constructions are arbitrary. They may be underpinned by evolutionary mechanisms, or societal forces transmitted and embodied in language.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Standards of human behavior should not be subject to hair splitting, IMHO

Standards of human behavior should not be based upon the fears and superstitions of ancient Hebrews IMHO.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

The law gives insight into Jehovah's thoughts and personality.

If Frank were here he would probably point out that the revealed thoughts were those of a scumbag with the personality of a psychopath.

1 Reply

@fresco,

So once again, all my problems can be traced back to my chronic objectivism. I think it's beginning to clear up, but very slowly. Seems I'm too egotistical to let go of my belief system, because of course, MY belief system isn't a belief system, it's reality. LOL at self.

0 Replies

@fresco,

In some cases there are absolutes

1 Reply

@mesquite,

mesquite wrote:

Standards of human behavior should not be based upon the fears and superstitions of ancient Hebrews IMHO.

Were those 'fears and superstitions' accurately described as such, I would agree.

mesquite wrote:

If Frank were here he would probably point out that the revealed thoughts were those of a scumbag with the personality of a psychopath.

By now Frank would have launched one of his scatological vituperations and I would be on the floor laughing.

I do wish he were here for punctuation.

1 Reply

@neologist,

"Absolutes" belong in the realm of naive realism. ( On other threads I have have commented on psychological desires for "closure").

Heller's "Catch 22" is a parody based on moral relativism, but relativism IS the essence social reality, irrespective of religious martyrs or those who play at withdrawing from "the world" behind monastery walls, or "robes of office".

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

By now Frank would have launched one of his scatological vituperations

Frank had a way with words. I hope hes doing well.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

The law gives insight into Jehovah's thoughts and personality.

Yea Jehovah is a homophobe...

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The problem with "agnostics" is that they are stuck with type 1 (naive realism) without any "objective evidence" for a deity. I f they moved to type 2 they would take the position that "objectivity" is a myth, and that "evidence" lies in the eye of the beholder.

If "objectivity is a myth," then why should I believe anything you say?

fresco wrote:

IMO the second position is superior because it transcends, and encompasses the first in that it allows for observer-observed interaction in accordance with developments in physics (post Heisenberg).

By your definition, Heisenberg was a "naive realist." How can his findings support your position that "objectivity is a myth" when he believed in objectivity?

1 Reply

Is it or isn't it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know