-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
;D I don't quite grasp pantheism to be honest. The word 'god' is just too entrenched in my mind as a meaning for a supernatural deity. Pantheism is really just an extension of existentialism anyway no?
I never split the thread either. I made this one separately so the pious folk could question the substance of atheism after it became apparent they had very little respect for neither the process taken to arrive at atheism as a choice or the ability of atheism to be the basis of a solid society and I thought that was deserving of it's own discussion.
I never split the thread either. I made this one separately so the pious folk could question the substance of atheism after it became apparent they had very little respect for neither the process taken to arrive at atheism as a choice or the ability of atheism to be the basis of a solid society and I thought that was deserving of it's own discussion.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I posted this in another forum,may as well post it here too.We were discussing the problem of 'what caused the big bang'.His argument was, like most theists that it must be supernatural,ie God.
My response......
Lets have a go at this using pure reason.I'm not particularly good at expressing myself, but i'll have a go nevertheless, and see if we can come to an understanding.
It seems to me when asking about the cause of the 'Big Bang', you (and most people) duck in and out of science, or empiricsm when it suits.Lets agree as you state in the first line "no one knows".Science will never give us the ultimate answer to this question so lets instead stick to rational thought,exclusive to all else.
We can do this using little more than a method as old as the Greeks,the Laws of Thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thought
The laws of thought are fundamental logical rules, with a long tradition in the history of philosophy, which collectively prescribe how a rational mind must think. To break any of the laws of thought (for example, to contradict oneself) is to be irrational.
Thinkers have argued about exactly what the 3 'laws' entail but for expediency lets just go with Bertand Russels defining of them.If we stay within them we might be able to end up 'saying' something meaningful.
1.Law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.' A=A
2.Law of noncontradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
3.Law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'
Lets start with 1. the A=A.or to put it another way A=not,-A.
For the purposes of reasoning everything can be defined by 'whatever it is'.It can also be defined as 'all ,other than all that it is not'
So what are we trying to speak about? When we talk about the natural in this word you use supernatural, the 'A' is literally everything,the totality, All.The 'All' is defined as everything that it is not ie. anything within All.Any 'thing', phenomena and so forth is less than the All.
Now,we both appear to agree that 'everything has causes' -empiricism can't alway tell us all those causes but we can agree this is the case.The law of excluded middle tells us "Everything must either be or not be." Thefore either everything is caused,or it is not.We 'know' somethings are caused,so everything must be caused-'God' as defined has no cause so within our structure he can't be considered.He doesn't exist.
Furthermore,if everything is caused, then there is always a 'before' and always an 'other' to create the causal relationship.
Therefore,we can say within reason and without contravening any of the rules of thought, and withoutout knowing the empiricsm involved in the 'Big Bang' (or whatever science says may be true in the future) that.....
There is no 'before' the big bang (or whatever)the All, it is always Ever
Aquinas and his buddies over the last 2000 years or so have not been able to logically prove 'first cause' and never will, so we can logically deduce following the Law of non-contradiction "that the inverse is true."
Very salient point.Disco08 said:
All isn't 'all AND god'.In pantheism(well my version of it anyway) ;D All=All, and just call it God.
So when i say 'God' I mean All,literally everything.
I'm part of the 'all' (nature) and i can only 'know' that I can exist for certain,and everything i perceive of nature is via my own senses.Therefore if I really must go down the worshipping path then logically I can only worship nataure ie. Me ;D
Or as Nietzsche would put it....
There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He.
lol Jacko.
Don't think the makers thought too hard about the description though
Bright crimson colour with mauve hue. The nose is subtle with notes of spice and stewed fruit emerging followed by chocolate, mocca and violet end notes. The palate is quite dry, the fruit being a touch subdued. Spice and stewed fruit flavours emerge, with fine dry tannins persisting.
OK, that makes more sense, but still leaves one question. Why?
Don't think the makers thought too hard about the description though
Bright crimson colour with mauve hue. The nose is subtle with notes of spice and stewed fruit emerging followed by chocolate, mocca and violet end notes. The palate is quite dry, the fruit being a touch subdued. Spice and stewed fruit flavours emerge, with fine dry tannins persisting.
evo said:
OK, that makes more sense, but still leaves one question. Why?
Because if you just stick with the atheism for purely scientific reasons then the job is only half finished.The next step is to 'transcend'(I don't really like that word but can't think of a better one) atheism and it's empircism the way all these decent philosphers have done,the way a Buddhist does.Without 'baggage'Disco08 said:
Sam Harris is saying the same thing, effectively, in that book of his you have.
I still don't really follow. I understand all is all and how great it all is, but calling it god seems to want to impart something to it which it is not. You can still 'worship' the beauty of all without having to call it god can't you? Besides, I like atheism for more reasons that science alone.
I'll get around to reading more books including the Harris one after Boston wins the World Series I guess, but to be quite honest I think all this philosophy is for deeper thinkers than myself. I'm quite happy leading the simple and peaceful life I lead right now. I don't feel like I need to find any more 'meaning'.
I'll get around to reading more books including the Harris one after Boston wins the World Series I guess, but to be quite honest I think all this philosophy is for deeper thinkers than myself. I'm quite happy leading the simple and peaceful life I lead right now. I don't feel like I need to find any more 'meaning'.
Yeah thats cool,I often wonder if I can be ferked myself and whether the payoff would be worth it anyway.It's alot of 'work'Disco08 said:
I enjoy reading so it's fun anyway even if i don't bother going the whole hog.
Incidently I don't think it's really about 'finding more meaning' but rather finding less.
I think language becomes a severely limiting factor in these discussions. What is the fundamental difference between atheism (that involves naturalistic explanations for phenomena) and pantheism (we will call those natural phenomena 'God')? Is there a functional difference? Do you view the world differently because of this view?
As for Sam Harris' views on 'spirituality' and 'mysticism', I agree with a lot of his views. Certainly humans have 'spiritual' experiences, where the experience transcends (there's that word!) the day to day experience. These are placed into a variety of different 'baskets', religion, god, new-age spiritualism, separation of consciousness from experience, drug-induce states, etc. So the trick is to analyse these as 'real', measurable and reproducible experiences. This is where I very much agree with Sam that there is no need for faith in analysing such experiences. Nor do I think such analysis detracts from the experience.
Evo, what did you think of his views on meditation and Eastern philosophies? It is an area where he has copped a lot of flak from the 'atheist side'.
As for Sam Harris' views on 'spirituality' and 'mysticism', I agree with a lot of his views. Certainly humans have 'spiritual' experiences, where the experience transcends (there's that word!) the day to day experience. These are placed into a variety of different 'baskets', religion, god, new-age spiritualism, separation of consciousness from experience, drug-induce states, etc. So the trick is to analyse these as 'real', measurable and reproducible experiences. This is where I very much agree with Sam that there is no need for faith in analysing such experiences. Nor do I think such analysis detracts from the experience.
Evo, what did you think of his views on meditation and Eastern philosophies? It is an area where he has copped a lot of flak from the 'atheist side'.
I would agree with that.Panthera tigris FC said:
It really amounts to a different way at looking at reality, I suppose.
The're just labels really.I don't see that I'll suddenly start using the word 'God' ,as Duckaman has pointed out it's superfluous.In fact it creates unnecessary confusion if it's expressed to people who think of God in the Abrahamic sense.
The problem is if i use another word like Ultimate or Totality or All then they don't mean an awful lot to other people either.
Probably the one thing defining thing I've learned from philosophy so far(and i still have miles to go myself)is how complicated the word 'real' is. And furthermore how open to misuse it is by philosophers,mystics ,gurus, new-agers,christians and scientists alike.
Existentialism and for that matter most of the Eastern philosophies main purpose is defining that word.The question of 'what is existence?' and "what defines real?"
I wasn't aware that he'd coped flak for it.I'd be interested to read any links you have of these criticsims to see what people are saying.
Personally I don't have any problem with someone meditating.I don't do it personally but i may consider it in future.
It seems to me merely empting ones mind so one is then in a state to clearly think about 'what IS'.I can't see why anyone should have a problem with that.If anything there should be more of it.
The world could do with less pre-conceived notions and dogmatic thinking as far as i'm concerned.
I would think the rational repsonse on a person learning that Sam Harris,a guy knowledgable in neoroscience,psychology and has studied the Abrahamic texts exstinsively says Eastern Philosophy has some value that people would be curious,rather than critical.
