JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 3rd May 2013, 10:45 AM   #7521
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
In my view (Dancing David may differ), prayer may make you feel better, and may make you behave in a different way. Not a better way, necessarily, but different. No effect other than that.
It depends on how you do it.

(that's what she said!)
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2013, 01:11 PM   #7522
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
The interior personal environment, although a good cleaning always helps.
Thank you for the answer.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2013, 04:44 PM   #7523
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,100
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Whether God exists or not is neither here nor there, its not important. A mystic might believe in God and access this God through prayer, meditation or intuition, another may be a deist and access some unknown deistic creator, another might withhold belief, but act as if God exists. It is the action which is important, not the belief.
That's an interesting take on it. But even assuming for the moment that you're right about action being more important than belief, does this not depend ultimately on your belief that the thing acted on is true? In other words, what is not important is not, whether God exists, but whether a person under discussion believes it.

What I mean is that if there really is a god, then a person of somewhat liberal mindset who is not wedded to ideas of given grace might well believe, as you do, that it is more important to act as if there's a god than to possess a grand theology. But the assumption here remains that there is a god whether some specific person in question believes it.

But does this whole idea not fall apart if there truly is no god? Certainly acting well in the assumption that a non-existent god wishes you to act well is still good, and if you need a god to make you do it, so be it, but the criterion for acting well is not, itself, theological.
__________________
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 12:06 AM   #7524
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
That's an interesting take on it. But even assuming for the moment that you're right about action being more important than belief, does this not depend ultimately on your belief that the thing acted on is true? In other words, what is not important is not, whether God exists, but whether a person under discussion believes it.
Yes I agree on this point, for someone who believes it is the belief which is the important motivator to action not the fact of the existence of God. Because they will act the same way whether God exists or not. But that belief is not a requirement, only the action is what counts, however the person gets there. There are for example a number of people who act in this "good" way out of choice, as a gift. For such people the issue of the existence of God is of little importance as they will act out of selflessness.

Quote:
What I mean is that if there really is a god, then a person of somewhat liberal mindset who is not wedded to ideas of given grace might well believe, as you do, that it is more important to act as if there's a god than to possess a grand theology. But the assumption here remains that there is a god whether some specific person in question believes it.
As in the example I give above of someone who acts out of choice. That person has reached a realization of the privileged position of humanity in nature. Which is that a human is the first (in the case of this planet) life form which is conscious enough to make a choice between acting in a way beneficial to its fellow life forms or un-beneficial. Or to put it another way to choose between good and evil. Thus this person has a realisation of conscience which becomes a strong motivation in their behavior.

Quote:
But does this whole idea not fall apart if there truly is no god? Certainly acting well in the assumption that a non-existent god wishes you to act well is still good, and if you need a god to make you do it, so be it, but the criterion for acting well is not, itself, theological.
Not strictly theological, it is spiritual. In spirituality God/god need not be well defined or proven. It is the spiritual attitude of the person which is the issue, ie their personal development.

An important milestone on the spiritual path is that point where the person does not doubt (in the case of someone who believes) or question any more the existence of god. Because the answer and the question have become entirely irrelevant to them. They have realized a set of goals and practices which they will carry out regardless. Backed up by an understanding of a purpose behind this world of existence we find ourselves in.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 12:18 AM   #7525
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
Which is why science has high value, and mysticism barely any.
It depends what value you are looking for. Science has very little value in its ability to inform us of what we should do and for what purpose. Whereas mysticism has quite a high value in this regard.

Lets take for example the issue of genetic manipulation. What does science tell us we should do with the discoveries in this field and for what purpose?

A mystic would say that genetic manipulation is something to be carried out under the scrutiny of the highest ideals of conscience and consideration for the entire ecosystem.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 12:24 AM   #7526
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
It depends what value you are looking for. Science has very little value in its ability to inform us of what we should do and for what purpose. Whereas mysticism has quite a high value in this regard.

Lets take for example the issue of genetic manipulation. What does science tell us we should do with the discoveries in this field and for what purpose?

A mystic would say that genetic manipulation is something to be carried out under the scrutiny of the highest ideals of conscience and consideration for the entire ecosystem.
Oh get off of the ethicist's turf.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 12:55 AM   #7527
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Welsh Wales
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
It depends what value you are looking for. Science has very little value in its ability to inform us of what we should do and for what purpose. Whereas mysticism has quite a high value in this regard.

Lets take for example the issue of genetic manipulation. What does science tell us we should do with the discoveries in this field and for what purpose?

A mystic would say that genetic manipulation is something to be carried out under the scrutiny of the highest ideals of conscience and consideration for the entire ecosystem.
Science has proven its ability to deliver things that work. That's why it's high value. Why would I listen to a mystic, or a preacher, or an imam, or an anarchist, or a nazi, or a homeopath, or any other group that claims to know what to do and for what purpose?

Claims are easy, but without a track record or reason for me to believe a claim, why would I think that mysticism has a high value in telling me what I should do?
__________________
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 01:02 AM   #7528
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
Science has proven its ability to deliver things that work. That's why it's high value. Why would I listen to a mystic, or a preacher, or an imam, or an anarchist, or a nazi, or a homeopath, or any other group that claims to know what to do and for what purpose?

Claims are easy, but without a track record or reason for me to believe a claim, why would I think that mysticism has a high value in telling me what I should do?
My point was that science is ethically blind and mute. I would not suggest asking a mystic (or anyone else on your list) what to do at all. That is for you to decide in the light of your own experience and judgement.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 01:07 AM   #7529
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Oh get off of the ethicist's turf.
I have no intention of going there. But it does overlap a bit here and naturalism has to account for it in some way as it does appear to exist.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 01:09 AM   #7530
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Welsh Wales
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
My point was that science is ethically blind and mute. I would not suggest asking a mystic (or anyone else on your list) what to do at all. That is for you to decide in the light of your own experience and judgement.
So are you saying that mysticism is high value for you personally, rather than generally?
__________________
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 01:14 AM   #7531
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
So are you saying that mysticism is high value for you personally, rather than generally?
Yes, it is a philosophy in which values and ethical questions are addressed. Science fails to do this, when such questions are addressed it is not science, it is a philosophical (human) process.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 01:15 AM   #7532
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I have no intention of going there. But it does overlap a bit here and naturalism has to account for it in some way as it does appear to exist.
Oh do be quiet...ethics is multidisciplinary. Psychology, sociology, medicine hell science in GENERAL. Legal ethics are informed by multiple disciplines including science, logic, history etc etc. Naturalism isn't some discipline, you don't get to point a finger and demand it play a tune.

Oh you're infuriating sometimes. Mysticism is a philosophy it's not a discipline. It's a hedger's game at most. I haven't accused mysticism of being useless because it's not meant to be used; it's the bumper sticker that says "Keep myself weird".

Any hippy or stoner can throw their card into ethics; you're a stakeholder in the conversation after all. But if you want to use a discipline you can't say "aha mysticism" any more than I can say "aha naturalism". I'd say "aha epidemiology" or "aha legal ethics". Naturalism and mysticism INFORM views they don't have an "answer" because values don't HAVE ANSWERS they have positions. Science and naturalism inform them, mysticism does too. But mysticism does not act as a discipline. You don't practice dualism as a method of investigation you use it to inform your investigation.

And all things considered mysticism SUCKS compared to naturalism as means to inform on ethics. I do a lot of epidemiological analysis. I've had to take qualitative assessments of sociological studies and make a priori analysis. I don't use mysticism to inform me of these because mysticism is complete horsecrap. I use naturalism to inform me. I use toxicology information, I use psychology information. I have yet to garner any success with dualism and I've tried. The study of likelihood and personal values is actually VERY naturalistic though.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 7th May 2013 at 01:25 AM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 01:20 AM   #7533
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Welsh Wales
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes, it is a philosophy in which values and ethical questions are addressed. Science fails to do this, when such questions are addressed it is not science, it is a philosophical (human) process.
One among many. If only there were some way to look at the record of these various systems and philosophies, and determine which might lead to the best outcome...

Once we've decided what 'best' means, in this context.
__________________
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 04:28 AM   #7534
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Oh do be quiet...
I apologize for being infuriating, I know that I can be at times. I suggest you focus on the bigger picture of what I am doing here as I pointed out in post 7201. I didn't come here to do this, but fell into it as a hole needing to be filled.

Quote:
ethics is multidisciplinary. Psychology, sociology, medicine hell science in GENERAL. Legal ethics are informed by multiple disciplines including science, logic, history etc etc. Naturalism isn't some discipline, you don't get to point a finger and demand it play a tune.
Yes I know, it is in the OP though and I have pointed out the weakness in the wording more than once. I am drawing the distinction between the action of doing science with the action of considered thought. While considered thought is utilized in scientific work, as a phenomena it is a distinct activity more akin to philosophy and naturalism as a philosophy cannot ignore this distinction or the more subjective, ethical and ontological considerations of rational thought.

Surely if "naturalism" is going to "explain" existence then it must straddle the philosophy of existence, metaphysics, at the outset.

Quote:
Oh you're infuriating sometimes. Mysticism is a philosophy it's not a discipline. It's a hedger's game at most. I haven't accused mysticism of being useless because it's not meant to be used; it's the bumper sticker that says "Keep myself weird".
What was someone saying about preconceptions?

Quote:
Any hippy or stoner can throw their card into ethics; you're a stakeholder in the conversation after all. But if you want to use a discipline you can't say "aha mysticism" any more than I can say "aha naturalism". I'd say "aha epidemiology" or "aha legal ethics". Naturalism and mysticism INFORM views they don't have an "answer" because values don't HAVE ANSWERS they have positions. Science and naturalism inform them, mysticism does too. But mysticism does not act as a discipline. You don't practice dualism as a method of investigation you use it to inform your investigation.
Yes mysticism is a position, there are practices followed by someone with a mystical perspective which are distinct from what those with other philosophical positions might do. In the current western world mysticism is not practiced by general practitioners and taught in universities. These universities are shackled to the Aristotelian reductionism of the modern world.

Quote:
And all things considered mysticism SUCKS compared to naturalism as means to inform on ethics. I do a lot of epidemiological analysis. I've had to take qualitative assessments of sociological studies and make a priori analysis. I don't use mysticism to inform me of these because mysticism is complete horsecrap. I use naturalism to inform me. I use toxicology information, I use psychology information. I have yet to garner any success with dualism and I've tried. The study of likelihood and personal values is actually VERY naturalistic though.
Yes very naturalistic, as is mysticism infact. Why would you use mysticism in the modern reductionist world? There is very little place for it. Dualism is an academic philosophical term which I had not encountered until I began posting on this forum. It has little to do with mysticism and on analysis is a rather naive view, reminiscent of reductionist thinking.

As I said I have no intention of taking mysticism into the realm of ethics. If I do it will be on your invitation.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 04:42 AM   #7535
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,965
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Surely if "naturalism" is going to "explain" existence then it must straddle the philosophy of existence, metaphysics, at the outset.
Alternately, relevant subsets of naturalism could simply demonstrate that an explanation for "existence" in the first place is not necessary. Admittedly, logic does play a part in that, as it does in all of naturalism.

That, in fact, appears to be the case, which renders the subset of philosophy that you speak of rather moot.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 05:56 AM   #7536
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,100
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes I agree on this point, for someone who believes it is the belief which is the important motivator to action not the fact of the existence of God. Because they will act the same way whether God exists or not. But that belief is not a requirement, only the action is what counts, however the person gets there. There are for example a number of people who act in this "good" way out of choice, as a gift. For such people the issue of the existence of God is of little importance as they will act out of selflessness.

As in the example I give above of someone who acts out of choice. That person has reached a realization of the privileged position of humanity in nature. Which is that a human is the first (in the case of this planet) life form which is conscious enough to make a choice between acting in a way beneficial to its fellow life forms or un-beneficial. Or to put it another way to choose between good and evil. Thus this person has a realisation of conscience which becomes a strong motivation in their behavior.

Not strictly theological, it is spiritual. In spirituality God/god need not be well defined or proven. It is the spiritual attitude of the person which is the issue, ie their personal development.

An important milestone on the spiritual path is that point where the person does not doubt (in the case of someone who believes) or question any more the existence of god. Because the answer and the question have become entirely irrelevant to them. They have realized a set of goals and practices which they will carry out regardless. Backed up by an understanding of a purpose behind this world of existence we find ourselves in.
So, to make a long story short, theological or spiritual, the idea that belief does not count does, as you see it, depend on it's being right somewhere down the line. You do suppose a purpose under it all.
__________________
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 06:12 AM   #7537
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Alternately, relevant subsets of naturalism could simply demonstrate that an explanation for "existence" in the first place is not necessary. Admittedly, logic does play a part in that, as it does in all of naturalism.
Of course there is no necessity for an explanation of existence in our daily lives, it just is the way it is and we get on with it. However when the question is asked, as it is from time to time, to suggest that there is a naturalistic explanation is misleading. I am not saying that there is an explanation provided by mysticism either, only a recognition that there is a mystery there and to reconcile ourself/ourselves with it.

Quote:
That, in fact, appears to be the case, which renders the subset of philosophy that you speak of rather moot.
Unfortunately logic cannot help us. It can help us to realise what we can and can't say about it.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 06:23 AM   #7538
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
So, to make a long story short, theological or spiritual, the idea that belief does not count does, as you see it, depend on it's being right somewhere down the line.
I can't decide just what you mean here. Could you rephrase a little?

Quote:
You do suppose a purpose under it all.
I do suppose a purpose, but I realise that this may be my own delusion, or a circumstantial bias, so it is provisional.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 06:23 AM   #7539
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,831
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Of course there is no necessity for an explanation of existence in our daily lives, it just is the way it is and we get on with it. However when the question is asked, as it is from time to time, to suggest that there is a naturalistic explanation is misleading. I am not saying that there is an explanation provided by mysticism either, only a recognition that there is a mystery there and to reconcile ourself/ourselves with it.

Unfortunately logic cannot help us. It can help us to realise what we can and can't say about it.
Much like medicine does no good if you don't take it and a life preserver doesn't help when you ignore it.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 06:47 AM   #7540
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,965
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Of course there is no necessity for an explanation of existence in our daily lives, it just is the way it is and we get on with it.
This is dodging, punshhh. It does not address what I said.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
However when the question is asked, as it is from time to time, to suggest that there is a naturalistic explanation is misleading.
I think your comprehension of what was said is questionable, again. I didn't state that there was a naturalistic explanation, but rather that the relevant subsets of naturalism point to there being no explanation necessary. Those are two rather different things.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I am not saying that there is an explanation provided by mysticism either, only a recognition that there is a mystery there and to reconcile ourself/ourselves with it.
I'll agree that there's a lack of certainty when it comes to questions that cannot be investigated and a lack of complete certainty even for many or most questions that can be investigated. That's not really relevant to what I said, though, nor is it a stance remotely unique to mysticism. Either way, you may not have noticed, but I've refrained from commenting on mysticism, unlike some other posters here. Thus, there's really no need to try to insert a defense of mysticism into responses to me.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Unfortunately logic cannot help us. It can help us to realise what we can and can't say about it.
You realize that you're literally just contradicting yourself here and nothing more? You're not even addressing what I said there, for that matter.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 7th May 2013 at 06:49 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 07:22 AM   #7541
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,831
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This is dodging, punshhh. It does not address what I said.



I think your comprehension of what was said is questionable, again. I didn't state that there was a naturalistic explanation, but rather that the relevant subsets of naturalism point to there being no explanation necessary. Those are two rather different things.



I'll agree that there's a lack of certainty when it comes to questions that cannot be investigated and a lack of complete certainty even for many or most questions that can be investigated. That's not really relevant to what I said, though, nor is it a stance remotely unique to mysticism. Either way, you may not have noticed, but I've refrained from commenting on mysticism, unlike some other posters here. Thus, there's really no need to try to insert a defense of mysticism into responses to me.



You realize that you're literally just contradicting yourself here and nothing more? You're not even addressing what I said there, for that matter.
The self contradictory statement is rather the essence of mysticism.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 07:40 AM   #7542
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,965
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The self contradictory statement is rather the essence of mysticism.
I doubt that. But, as I said, I'm generally refraining from talking about mysticism.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 07:59 AM   #7543
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,831
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
I doubt that. But, as I said, I'm generally refraining from talking about mysticism.
You must close your eyes to see the Truth.

He who loses his life for my sake will save it.


“There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.”
― William James


That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking.”
― Peter Rollins

“As his (C. S. Lewis's) good friend Owen Barfield once remarked, Lewis radiated a sense that the spiritual world is home, that we are always coming back to a place we have never yet reached.”
― David C. Downing, Into the Region of Awe: Mysticism in C. S. Lewis


And 97 others here:


http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/mysticism
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 08:44 AM   #7544
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This is dodging, punshhh. It does not address what I said.
You'll have to give an explanation or example of naturalism demonstrating that an explanation is not necessary. As I said, no matter what justification you come up with, the question will still be asked. There's no escaping it.

Quote:
I think your comprehension of what was said is questionable, again. I didn't state that there was a naturalistic explanation, but rather that the relevant subsets of naturalism point to there being no explanation necessary. Those are two rather different things.
Necessary for what? this is not clear. If its a philosophy relating to existence, then it must address it or its not philosophy, its the word police.



Quote:
Either way, you may not have noticed, but I've refrained from commenting on mysticism, unlike some other posters here. Thus, there's really no need to try to insert a defense of mysticism into responses to me.
Ok.



Quote:
You realize that you're literally just contradicting yourself here and nothing more? You're not even addressing what I said there, for that matter.
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm accepting the truth of the situation. Do you consider logic to be in some way universal? or to have any reality outside of the mind?
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 09:05 AM   #7545
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm accepting the truth of the situation. Do you consider logic to be in some way universal? or to have any reality outside of the mind?
Do you consider mysticism to have any reality outside of the mind?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 03:36 PM   #7546
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,965
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
You'll have to give an explanation or example of naturalism demonstrating that an explanation is not necessary. As I said, no matter what justification you come up with, the question will still be asked. There's no escaping it.
IanS gave a few. Do the better ones really need to be restated?

As for the rest, that a question is asked is not an indication that it is particularly relevant to reality.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Necessary for what? this is not clear. If its a philosophy relating to existence, then it must address it or its not philosophy, its the word police.
No explanation necessary because there may well be nothing to explain in the first place.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm accepting the truth of the situation. Do you consider logic to be in some way universal? or to have any reality outside of the mind?
I'd suggest that this is not the thread for a discussion on that topic, but... meh. You were contradicting yourself. "X is not the case, however, X is the case" is exactly what you said. Again, though, worse than contradicting yourself, it was irrelevant. What I actually said was that the relevant area of philosophy is rendered moot under the stated conditions. You then trying to answer with an abstraction that might maybe be potentially relevant if I had said that something was the case and not that the issue itself was moot, is, well, a bad answer. Either way, I'm pretty sure that I've accepted the truth of the situation, too.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 04:02 PM   #7547
deaman
Philosopher
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,171
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
"X is not the case, however, X is the case" is exactly what you said. Again, though, worse than contradicting yourself, it was irrelevant. What I actually said was that the relevant area of philosophy is rendered moot under the stated conditions. You then trying to answer with an abstraction that might maybe be potentially relevant if I had said that something was the case and not that the issue itself was moot, is, well, a bad answer. Either way, I'm pretty sure that I've accepted the truth of the situation, too.
This is awesome!
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 11:22 PM   #7548
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
IanS gave a few. Do the better ones really need to be restated?
IanS gave some good summaries of current physics, but nothing relating to the question of existence.

Quote:
As for the rest, that a question is asked is not an indication that it is particularly relevant to reality.
It is rather important to reality as reality is a result of it.



Quote:
No explanation necessary because there may well be nothing to explain in the first place.
To exist is a positive event, logic requires a prior state as an origin. Nowhere has this origin been addressed or explained by naturalism. It can't because it is a study of that positive event, not the prior state.

Reality either had an origin, which is currently unknown, or no origin and is doomed to regression (well its doomed to regression either way). It's a lack of logic all the way down, I'm afraid.



Quote:
I'd suggest that this is not the thread for a discussion on that topic, but... meh. You were contradicting yourself. "X is not the case, however, X is the case" is exactly what you said. Again, though, worse than contradicting yourself, it was irrelevant. What I actually said was that the relevant area of philosophy is rendered moot under the stated conditions. You then trying to answer with an abstraction that might maybe be potentially relevant if I had said that something was the case and not that the issue itself was moot, is, well, a bad answer. Either way, I'm pretty sure that I've accepted the truth of the situation, too.
You are mistaken, it is not contradictory to state that there is a circumstance about which logic cannot help us to provide an explanation, while continuing to use logic in reference to states about which it can help us provide an explanation or consideration.

Its not one or the other in all cases, such an assumption is highly illogical.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 11:25 PM   #7549
punshhh
Illuminator
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rural England
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Do you consider mysticism to have any reality outside of the mind?
No mysticism is a mental attitude. By definition it has no reality outside the mind. Basically its another take on the world we find ourselves in.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 11:32 PM   #7550
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,919
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
No mysticism is a mental attitude. By definition it has no reality outside the mind.
Then it's all BS that someone is just imagining, with no basis in reality.

It can be simply dismissed as nonsense.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2013, 11:43 PM   #7551
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,421
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
No mysticism is a mental attitude. By definition it has no reality outside the mind. Basically its another take on the world we find ourselves in.
You just defined imagination.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2013, 01:28 AM   #7552
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
No, mysticism is a mental attitude. By definition it has no reality outside the mind. Basically its another take on the world we find ourselves in.
To really find out about the world we are in we use science. You are describing imagination. Einstein imagined lots of things, but he was proven to be correct by experiment. How many mystics have had their imaginings tested and proven to be correct? I have inserted an important comma into your post.

Last edited by dafydd; 8th May 2013 at 01:32 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2013, 05:21 AM   #7553
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,965
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
IanS gave some good summaries of current physics, but nothing relating to the question of existence.
Actually, some of it was indeed relevant, even if it was simply supporting one of the available options.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
It is rather important to reality as reality is a result of it.
As opposed to reality and existence simply being one and the same?

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
To exist is a positive event, logic requires a prior state as an origin. Nowhere has this origin been addressed or explained by naturalism. It can't because it is a study of that positive event, not the prior state.
And... I never found this line of argument convincing, for the same reasons why I never found the "but there must have been a beginning" objection to "something always existed" to be convincing. Either way, scientifically and philosophically, we really don't have any better reason to accept that questioning this proposed origin of existence is valid than we have for accepting that questioning what the last argument that Merlin and Gandhi had before they created our universe is valid.


Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Reality either had an origin, which is currently unknown, or no origin and is doomed to regression (well its doomed to regression either way).
I'm afraid that I don't understand what premises you're using to try to make this statement. In particular, I don't understand what, exactly, the "doomed to regression" is referring to. Are you narrowing the "reality" to mean only our current universe? If so, it does become understandable, but rather irrelevant to the topic that we were on. If it's on the same line as before? Then I'm simply at a loss to how you could reasonably say that. Feel free to try to enlighten me. I did just get off a long night of work, so I might be missing something.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
It's a lack of logic all the way down, I'm afraid.
Admittedly, I'm not really seeing the validity of yours.

Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
You are mistaken, it is not contradictory to state that there is a circumstance about which logic cannot help us to provide an explanation, while continuing to use logic in reference to states about which it can help us provide an explanation or consideration.
You realize that differentiation is important, when using a subject in multiple ways in the same statement? Unless, of course, you really want to appear to be conflating concepts dishonestly. Either way, two points of direct note. First, again, logic was not being used to provide an explanation in the first place, which makes your point irrelevant. Second, you still haven't addressed what I originally said.


Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Its not one or the other in all cases, such an assumption is highly illogical.
Generally, something either is or is not the case. When it's both, it's generally due to ambiguities in what's being questioned.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th May 2013 at 05:32 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.