Can pseudo-intellectual philosophy sway the masses?

I would hardly call anthropocentrism covert. It is the basis for a civilized culture. I could as legitimately kill you for annoying me as a I could a fly buzzing around my nose. Anthropocentrism seems to be as innate to humans as the urge to reproduce. Christianinity developed it to a higher degree by the supposed Creator of the universe, stepping into the universe and explaining why Anthropocentrism appears to be the norm to a group of people in the Mideast 2,000 years ago.

I think he explained it like this. "I am the creator of the universe the Alpha and Omega (the uncaused cause). I like coming up with new ideas. I like sharing my ideas so I turned my ideas into physical reality by storing the information or words of my ideas in rotating spinors in the universe which I used to build matter and all the fields associated with the universe. I wanted somebody to share this Idea with so I made a bunch of beings who think like me so they can appreciate it with me. I even involved them in the process by allowing men to name things. I also gave everyone of them a separate body so they can have the freedom to experience it as a unique individual. THAT is why I created the universe. Blah Blah "free will" blah blah "sin" blah "sacrifice," blah blah " AND THEN the words describing my Ideas became flesh in Jesus. He delivered the message of reconciliation intellectually with his teachings, and physically with his blood" BLAH BLAH RENEWAL.

Seems to fit the evidence well enough to at least be considered as one of possibly many legitimate explanations of the universe that all "open minded" pragmatists should consider, discuss, and compare as he and all of us search for the truth.

Is it open minded and fair to outright dismiss Christ's explanation?(when I say "consider" I mean a legitimate option until it is proven wrong or at least highly unlikely)

When I say possible accepted explanation of the universe, I think The "Who" of design should be kept out of science, unless it scientifically fits. The possibility of an unnamed designer to fulfill the need established by the statistical improbabilities of Darwinian evolution happening without design should at least be be discussed by the scientific community.

Well I won't comment on biblical references, especially when the phrase 'search for truth' is used. (Pragmatists will only go as far as saying 'truth is what it is consensually beneficial to belief in'.). I would merely say that my raising of 'anthropocentrism' in terms of a discontinuity between humans and other species is related to the dangers of assuming 'cultural superiority' in anthropology. In that respect the 'Christ Story' is only one candidate as a useful vehicle in cultural transmission and societal control and appears to be predated by similar stories.

Your later point about evolution and design etc has been discussed extensively by 'scientists' and the majority reject any 'designer' argument. Rorty's position as a pragmatist is to argue that theism/designerism has its uses in emotional and psychological contexts but no longer has any legitimate place in 'scientific' contexts.

The term "matter" has always been highly elastic and mysterious. All basic concepts are, like "space" or "time". It has to do with our inability to conceptually grasp "essences". We're better at understanding how things WORK than at understanding what they ARE.

In our mind, in our representation of things, events are observer-dependent. We can in our mind isolate from the rest of the universe a sequence of "events", like the fall of a meteorite on earth some 60 ml years ago wipping out the dinos. In reality, that "event" was connected (caused by) outer-space "events", the dinos did not all disappear, etc. But meteorites do fall even when nobody see them falling.

For one thing, the dinos saw it fall...

You mean that you have a picture in your head now of the dinos seeing it then. That picture has current explanatory utility rather than independent existential import. The selection of the 'event' and the size of the 'event window' is yours.
BTW I agree with your rejection of what things 'are'. (I've probably mentioned the 'eprime' movement in philosophy which attemted to proscribe usage ofvthe verb 'to be') 'How things work' equates to confidence about 'prediction and control' and that is what science amounts to rather than the romantic claim of 'getting closer to the truth'.

I feel that you don't think I am a pragmatist because I am a Christian. I was raised Christian, left the faith for pragmatic reasons which lead me to be a deist. I was a deist not for idealistic reasons, but for pragmatic reasons, the main reason, was based on math, physics, statistics and patterns. The only idealism involved was, my refusal to break the laws of physics when explaining how order was introduced into the universe as matter and gravity. I believe some scientists refuse ID for three reasons. First, a lack of understanding of the reason gravity exists, second their assumption that it is not an emergent force, and third the Idealism of the personality type that seeks a doctorate in physics that is allowing a majority of phycisists to ignore, and deny the intelligence behind the design of the universe for so long. I can about guarantee it is not because physicists are smarter than the rest of society; and everybody that believes in a Diety just isn't smart enough to understand the physics behind being an atheist.

I have read Rorty, and he is not considered to be a pragmatist, he is a neopragmatist. He does not believe that science can describe the natural world, and he is so entrenched in that belief system I believe he is an idealist.

Please consider reading Bob Spiitzer with an open mind.

You, me, the dinos, we all have pictutes in our minds. It does NOT follow that there exist nothing outside our minds that these pictures try to represent. That would be a useless hypothesis which nobody actually entertains, not even you. As I once explained, I nelieve you look for your keys when you misplaced them, like anybody else. You don't assume they vanished into thin air the moment you stopped perceiving them.

There's nothing wrong with the verb "to be". The correct pragmatic consequence of our difficulties with the essence of things is that any essentialist (ontological) discution is doomed to fail, ultimately. That's what people mean when they say: "i don't want to discuss semantics".

As for time, the day we can travel back in time like we travel back to the east or south or west or north, i'll believe that it's just a dimension like any other.

I'll agree with the 'neopragmatist' label for Rorty because he includes the focus on language (die Kehre) which opposed traditional annalytic philosiophy from around the 1950s. But I don't see any evidence that you have understood him and I don't think 'pragmatism' of any philosophical sort can describe the 'realism' which you have expressed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q

I'll have a look at Spitzer, but 'open minds' are somewhat mythical.

frankly, fresco has been relaying click-bait Φ for years. At this point, i'm not a frequent enough participant on the boards to be a reputable critic, but let me ask you this: When was the last time he referred to himself as a "meditator"? Does that former "privileged" status have any bearing on his current posts? If not, what gem is his claim to superior knowledge based on now? He's a tourist...

re Spitzer...I've just started watching his video on the 'Big Bang' and in which he appears to be pushing the 'Genesis' story which the Pope first supported and then rejected on advice from the Vatican scientific advisor. I'll carry on, but if members of the same 'God club' can't agree amongst themselves it doesn't help the 'open mind' issue !
BTW Polkinghorne, the quantum physicist turned anglican priest, has rejected any religious involvement with science, and relies on 'the origin of human morality' as evidence for 'the existence of God'. His only problem there is that 'morality' could possibly be accounted for by evolutionaty theory.

Have you got nothing better to do ?

I've been around the forum for many years (as you well know as a declared follower) during which time I have occasionally referred to personal experience with meditation on the basis of my former involvement with Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti groups. As present, my role as acting secretary to a UK Philosophy Group necessitates me being familiar with 'the latest ideas', and taking my turn in producing discussion papers. The limited space on a forum precludes my normal multi page expansion of a topic and I therefore resort to a 'quick link'.

If you are not happy with this, I suggest you pm me your email address anf I will send you copies of recent papers.

Naw, not really...not at the moment.



I've been here for about 10 years, too. And i wouldn't consider myself a follower, but i have tracked your various Φ positions. And so...Right, as i said: you're a Φ tourist! Good luck sampling even more positions while furthering your academic career!

You are following Fresco, that makes you a follower, end of. What you consider is neither here nor there, but if you don't consider yourself as one of Fresco's followers then stop following him.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'phi tourist'. If you mean being aquainted with a number of philosophical positions rather than claiming 'expertise' in any one of them then I would agree (even though I have been been told I don't do too badly in most areas!). But in the 'presentation role' that others often put me in, my job is to attempt to 'compare and contrast' rather than immerse myself in any one of them. Indeed it is the evolution of ideas rather than the merits of any particular system which is itself an interesting philosophical and psychological issue. Analogy is essential to explanation even if some analogies may be over emphasized.
So if this 'admission' makes you feel better I'm happy for you ! And as regards 'furthering my academic career', alas its a bit late for that ! Healthy mental exercise is the main motivation for my efforts.

He means you're not seriously into it. Like a tourist does not usually care much about, say, the socioeconomics of the country he's visiting, you don't care much about any philosophy. You just sample an idea here, an idea there, and play with them superficially without trying to understand them, as I've shown with your "time is an illusion" line. Similarly a tourist will sample different types of food or sceneries but always superficially.

It would correct to say I don't take particular philosophical positions seriously. Indeed 'anti - philosophy' or 'philosophy as therapy' is how I would describe my attitude. In the extreme, philosophy could be described as little more than intellectual social dancing !
However, in as much as would be philosophers attempt to dabble in 'physics' (like with the of concept of 'time') it annoys me when they don't appear to know what they are talking about. (In that respect 'time' is prime example since counter intuitivity looms from the outset). Superficiality, there is an accusation which can go both ways.

You could describe it this way. I couldn't.

^ my take on the university-level philosophy courses I took - much more elegantly phrased

Philosophy is many things to many people, but some of us take it seriously.

Okay, I've had a look at Spitzer. He's a good U.S. style showman but those with 'religious faith' don't or shouldn't need the hammering in of his selective 'evidence' to support them. Most scientists have no need of an ad hoc Prime Mover/ID position and many understand that 'beginnings' have a dubious theoretical status.
Once more, I find myself saying, in terms of a pragmatists relativistic view of 'existence', God 'exists' for believers because it is a useful concept for them, but for an atheist the concept is useless. And as thinkers concepts are all we have !