Greater still, is the believe of the atheist. Who believes that mankind (look at us on a time and evolutiniary scale and you'll know what I mean), will one day be able to understand all of it.
Who says The Atheist believes this? I, for one, expect our species will die out far short of any sort of GUT.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Tue 25 May, 2004 08:25 pm
Rex, I am what you might call an a-theist in that I don't find theism at all sensible. But that does not mean that I believe in a No-God and worship him. It is not an active belief; it's the absence of a belief. But you refer to it as a leap of faith based on ignorance. If someone proclaimed a belief to you that made no credible sense to you, would you reject it only on the basis of some kind of belief? Well, I guess you would; you would judge it on the basis of your worldview, a worldview (sensible or not) in which the proclaimed belief did not fit.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Tue 25 May, 2004 08:32 pm
Rosborne, it seems to me that this issue of the basic nature of Reality, whether it is natural or supernatural or a combination of both, is of no real consequence. It would be if we believed that some political leaders could use magic to punish us for insubordinaton--as some African chiefs have been known to do, by means of their court sorcerers. But lacking such a practical consideration, it is purely academic in the worst sense of the term. The concepts can do no more than to organize our attitudes toward the world but have no other significance. I do like to use the word, magic, but only metaphorically, as in the magic of love, art, and friendship.
0 Replies
rosborne979
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 07:38 am
Hi JL,
JLNobody wrote:
Rosborne, it seems to me that this issue of the basic nature of Reality, whether it is natural or supernatural or a combination of both, is of no real consequence. It would be if we believed that some political leaders could use magic to punish us for insubordinaton--as some African chiefs have been known to do, by means of their court sorcerers.
But many people do believe this. The words of priests whatever their persuasion, strongly affect the choices of a large segment of the population. They may not threaten their flock directly, but the implications of eternal damnation for disbelief are inflicted in early childhood and carried through life. This is a very strong coercive methodology, empowered by a fundamental assumption that the supernatural exists and that the priests know what it wants from us. So I guess I don't see Naturalism as merely an academic exercise in philosophy.
JLNobody wrote:
But lacking such a practical consideration, it is purely academic in the worst sense of the term.
It seems to me that this philosophical choice alone has affected the history of humanity with dramatic results, and continues to affect us even today. I would call that a very practical concern.
JLNobody wrote:
The concepts can do no more than to organize our attitudes toward the world but have no other significance.
But isn't that a pretty strong practical effect?
0 Replies
joefromchicago
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 09:12 am
kuvasz wrote:
yes, its why i am sitting here buck nekkid as i type.
You're thinking of "naturism," not "naturalism." That's the kind of mistake that can get you into big trouble at a philosophy conference.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 12:10 pm
Rosborne, you're right, of course. Supernatural beliefs, particularly re: the influence of religion on politics, IS very practical. I was referring only to intellectual problems as experienced by myself. To me it is no problem existentially or theoretically, but Jerry Falwell and now the Catholic church are very pratical political problems.
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 12:44 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
yes, its why i am sitting here buck nekkid as i type.
You're thinking of "naturism," not "naturalism." That's the kind of mistake that can get you into big trouble at a philosophy conference.
No wonder people were staring at that last symposium I attended.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 05:22 pm
Cav You remind me of that commercial on TV where two guys knock on a door within which a "streak" party was going on (people streaking their hair). When the door opened the two guys took of their coats revealing their birthday suits and asking "Is this where the streak party?"
0 Replies
Terry
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 06:25 pm
For me, naturalism is a basic assumption on which I base my understanding of reality. But I do not discount the possibility that there are more forces in the universe than are dreamed of by scientists or detectable by current technologies. Of course I'd like to believe that we have magical powers just waiting to be discovered, everything happens for some ultimate purpose, and that Paradise awaits out spirits after death. There is just no credible evidence that there is anything beyond the natural world, or any logical reason for the supernatural to exist.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 07:20 pm
I'm with Terry on this one; I live my life believing naturalism, but don't discount other forces at work, because we humans lack the knowledge to understand everything.
0 Replies
Tiaha
1
Reply
Thu 27 May, 2004 05:15 pm
I think that... the supernatural, really IS natural. it just doesnt seem to be in the physical.... supernatural foruces are really just natural forces that happen to be debated and denied. So, in that sense, yes, I do believe that natural forces.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Thu 27 May, 2004 06:28 pm
I agree, Tiaha. The supernatural is no more than the natural that has not been explained "naturally." Before germ theory, for example, many people explained the etiology of illness supernaturally. In the Maya region of Mexico illness was explained as punishment from ancestor spirits for unconventional behavior or witchcraft, usually motivated by envy. Now that germ theory is catching on SOME illnesses are no longer explained supernaturally. A range of illnesses are explained as caused by germs and cured by western style medicine. But where doctors fail, as in cases of cancer or tuberculosis that came to medical attention too late, the explanation remains supernatural. The Maya I have known refer to these two kinds of illnesses as "good" and "bad" illnesses.
0 Replies
ReX
1
Reply
Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:36 pm
Re: Do you agree with the philosophy of Naturalism?
I suppose the question should be changed to:
Naturalism - Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
-which a human mind can grasp.
We all agree the first to be true then? But WHAT is able to grasp this set of systems is still to be defined. God, nobody, human minds, ...
0 Replies
Chuckster
1
Reply
Mon 23 Aug, 2004 07:04 pm
Therin lies the delimna. All that order implies puposeful intent. You won't be the first who inquired as to the designer and was forever shaken by the notion of a Diety.
0 Replies
Chuckster
1
Reply
Mon 23 Aug, 2004 07:06 pm
It has been called "the old fixaroo".
0 Replies
ReX
1
Reply
Tue 24 Aug, 2004 06:58 am
No need fir a deity, but perhaps, for starters, let's throw away scientific positivism and yes, let's continue by discarding humanism and the western era of enlightenment.
0 Replies
Chuckster
1
Reply
Tue 24 Aug, 2004 08:15 am
Yes "LET'S". Wait! Stop.
Naturalism actually paved a way to insinuate a concept of a higher power. That was my point.
What is your nilhistic agenda about? "discarding" this and that like some ignorant army that clashes by night?
You Europeans... living on your faded broken dreams of former grandeur...with a declining,aging population being over-run by Arab immigrants who openly despise each of you. Might as well dismantle every vestige of civilization as you go.
0 Replies
ReX
1
Reply
Tue 24 Aug, 2004 11:43 am
Einstein claimed there are two ways to look at the universe(or life), but of course, he did believe in god:
One is as thought, nothing is a miracle. The other, as though, everything is.
I believe that nature(and supernature as I'll call it this time) is divine enough, because of its nature, that there is no need for a divine creature that creates. There is only creating.
Perhaps you can't grasp that, but I hope that in either case you don't mean what you've said just now.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Tue 24 Aug, 2004 12:57 pm
Chuckster, I see the conclusion you draw from Europe's demographic problems as a hyperbolic non-sequitur. I too hope you didn't mean it, that you were only expressing some generalized anger.
Rex, I appreciate your statement that "nature...is devine enough, no need for a devine [creator]."...There is only the devine and essentially mysterious creative process.
0 Replies
ReX
1
Reply
Wed 25 Aug, 2004 03:23 pm
Statement I heard today: Wow, just last monday, that gigantic lighting...Man, I love lightning, it's spectacular. Awesome. It's like beyond nature. But it's nature none the less, I guess that's the point.
(Not high, just an ordinary Joe and I didn't feel like translating it into something that makes you feel in control of what is)
To those who feel like they need clarification, we were driving back from aikido and saw a lightning, small one. He brought it up. He is not a truly profound person you could say. But as confucius would say, we are all teachers and as he would say: Bushido, life in every breath
You remind me of that commercial on TV where two guys knock on a door within which a "streak" party was going on (people streaking their hair). When the door opened the two guys took of their coats revealing their birthday suits and asking "Is this where the streak party?"
