A struggling atheist

[JazzTrance]

Regarding my understanding of the history of Buddhism, I'm happy to stand corrected on abbreviation of its geographic spread (the only historical point I made). Regarding your argument (at least your implied argument in light of your quotation) with my summary of meditative practices between sects; I'm happy to email you a peer-reviewed piece I wrote on the topic in 2007 (well-received). I would post it here, but it is in excess of 5000 words, not including appendices (which include transcripts of interviews I conducted with Sangha members in, largely Theravada, Buddhist countries).

I would like to get away from Buddhism here though. Either I'm correct in my assertion that the passages from the Pali canon which you point to are evidence of social artefacts carried over from proto-Hindu religious practices at the time (including your reference to Devas) and are largely irrelevant to the Buddhist doctrine (see Thich Nhat Hanh's reading of rebirth for a less simplistic causal model of the idea, albeit a superstition-infused one I will concede), my assertion that faith in the Buddha equates to a faith in his teachings (not any sort of divinity), and my assertion that said reality in which faith must be held temporarily is a more naturalised understanding of reality (i.e. absence of a 'self'), in which case we should move on from Buddhism. Alternatively, my assertions are wrong, your reading of the texts is more apt, and in which case Buddhism does indeed fall into a distinctly religious category; in this instance, we should move on also, as my arguments against any sort of supernatural religion stand!

Notice, regarding my biases, how happily I will abandon a point of view without having to sacrifice my premises of reason? I have had no personal interest in Buddhism, aside from as a sociological/historical phenomenon, and even then not for the last 5 - 6 years. If I have falsely equated the Buddhist doctrine with my own views (whichever ones you mean by that) then so be it - Buddhism also falls victim to my atheism (although said Dharma experts whom you reference may take issue with that).

My own defence intact, I'd ask you if you wouldn't mind addressing my own responses directed previously to you, prior to this digression (sticking up for another responder)?

 

[JazzTrance]

In fact, I'd implore you to do so. Having just re-read your last paragraph, it strikes me as unnecessarily condescending, considering I did my best to respond to this in my last reply to you, and you don't seem to have addressed my arguments in the slightest.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Let's keep this discussion pleasant. There's lots of potential here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JazzTrance]

Let's keep this discussion pleasant. There's lots of potential here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes sir!

 

[AlexBP]

Alternatively, the belief that a table exists is perfectly coherent with all of our previously justified (i.e. certainly not supernatural) beliefs, lending credence to the idea that our entire way of knowing, our entire model of the universe, would not be weakened by the belief that the table does exist (incidentally I find this gross over simplification slightly weaker than a foundationalist argument, however equally powerful in its juxtaposition with any sort of ridiculous argument for a ‘personal’ god, not a deist god which requires a more metaphysical type argument to refute, probably a simpler argument, but a separate argument nonetheless). The important thing to take away from this is that philosophy can indeed be enlightening in the context of human endeavour taken holistically, filling in the blanks, not presenting gaps as you seem to have interpreted the discipline as, and then passively inviting an obviously man-made superstitious solution.

An almost analogous argument could be made regarding your analogy invoking your wife. Again, you perceive your wife visually, I could perceive your wife visually and we could agree that she exists, and we could agree on the nature of her existence. To cantilever this line of reasoning out so that it may encompass the supernatural (which by the way, is a constantly evolving and meaningless designation of that which ‘appears’ unnatural according to our current level of understanding of the laws of nature), is completely misleading. The idea that your wife exists does not run contrary to your entire system of justified beliefs (I emphasise the word ‘justified’, this does not include faith-based beliefs); on the other hand, the idea of a personal creator god undermines your entire system of beliefs in ways you probably don’t even realise until you stop to consider the implications of such a belief (all areas of academia as we know them would be rendered redundant).

You seem quite sure that the idea of God cannot co-exist with my entire system of beliefs. I do not share your certainty on this issue, and since your argument rests on that assumption, it's not convincing to me. As for your claim that "all areas of academia as we know them would be rendered redundant", that's so far out there that I can't think of any way to respond to it.

Regarding the notion that any violation of the laws of nature as we know them is so improbable that it should be dismissed, I again do not agree. It's logically possible that we live in a universe with no design whose unbreakable physical laws arose from nowhere. It's also logically possible that we live in a universe designed by a God, who created laws of nature and sometimes chooses to ignore those laws. There is no a priori reason to declare the first option vastly more probable than the second, and hence no reason to insist that supernatural occurences should be dismissed as ridiculously improbable.

(Richard Dawkins and his fans have revived the old argument from complexity: a cosmos with no God is less complex than a God capable of creating a universe, and thus the godless cosmos is more likely. I find this unconvincing for several reasons. First of all, he offers no clear definition or yardstick for complexity. But more significantly, Dawkins' cosmos is bursting with vast, possibly infinite numbers of parallel universes, some of which may spawn other universes from black holes or some such, and endlessly mutating laws and constants of physics. How can such a cosmos be less complex than a single God and a single universe?)

As for the particular reason why I reject the total rejection of supernatural occurences, I'd refer you again to Chesterton's Orthodoxy. In chapter four he begins his argument with Fairy Tales and notes that within a fairy tale the logical rules of our world still apply, but the physical laws do not. If Cinderella is younger than her stepsisters, then the stepsisters are older than Cinderella--that's a logical rule. Then Chesterton recalls his utter perplexity upon seeing that supposedly learned people were treating physical laws as if they were logical rules, when the test of imagination clearly separates them. We can imagine physical laws being untrue, but we can't imagine a fairy tale world where logical rules don't apply. The very word "laws" implies something that it's logically possible to break. In the government sense, no one would ever make a law that it was logically impossible to break. Furthermore, in order for a law to exist, there must be a lawgiver and a law enforcer. Law without enforcement is meaningless.

 

[JazzTrance]

You seem quite sure that the idea of God cannot co-exist with my entire system of beliefs. I do not share your certainty on this issue, and since your argument rests on that assumption, it's not convincing to me. As for your claim that "all areas of academia as we know them would be rendered redundant", that's so far out there that I can't think of any way to respond to it.

Regarding the notion that any violation of the laws of nature as we know them is so improbable that it should be dismissed, I again do not agree. It's logically possible that we live in a universe with no design whose unbreakable physical laws arose from nowhere. It's also logically possible that we live in a universe designed by a God, who created laws of nature and sometimes chooses to ignore those laws. There is no a priori reason to declare the first option vastly more probable than the second, and hence no reason to insist that supernatural occurences should be dismissed as ridiculously improbable.

(Richard Dawkins and his fans have revived the old argument from complexity: a cosmos with no God is less complex than a God capable of creating a universe, and thus the godless cosmos is more likely. I find this unconvincing for several reasons. First of all, he offers no clear definition or yardstick for complexity. But more significantly, Dawkins' cosmos is bursting with vast, possibly infinite numbers of parallel universes, some of which may spawn other universes from black holes or some such, and endlessly mutating laws and constants of physics. How can such a cosmos be less complex than a single God and a single universe?)

As for the particular reason why I reject the total rejection of supernatural occurences, I'd refer you again to Chesterton's Orthodoxy. In chapter four he begins his argument with Fairy Tales and notes that within a fairy tale the logical rules of our world still apply, but the physical laws do not. If Cinderella is younger than her stepsisters, then the stepsisters are older than Cinderella--that's a logical rule. Then Chesterton recalls his utter perplexity upon seeing that supposedly learned people were treating physical laws as if they were logical rules, when the test of imagination clearly separates them. We can imagine physical laws being untrue, but we can't imagine a fairy tale world where logical rules don't apply. The very word "laws" implies something that it's logically possible to break. In the government sense, no one would ever make a law that it was logically impossible to break. Furthermore, in order for a law to exist, there must be a lawgiver and a law enforcer. Law without enforcement is meaningless.

I'm not sure what to make of much of this post, as much of it seems overly abstract (to the point where concrete meaning is hard to discern). Having said that, I'll do my best to address a few key points I'm able to pull out.

When I speak of co-existence of the belief in god with "your" belief system, I don't necessarily mean yours personally per se (apologies, this probably could have been phrased better originally). What I mean by this is the most informed understanding on all matters, by all of the highest experts on those said matters, taken as a complete knowledge set; you or I may or may not be privy to part of, or all of, this knowledge set. I never speak of co-existence, I spoke of coherency; unfortunately this is not up to anyone to 'interpret'; this has a very specific epistemological meaning, i.e. whether your system of justified true beliefs is increased in coherency by a belief, or decreased in coherency. Note here that beliefs must be justified (which as I've argued, and as have all reputable philosophers argued ad nauseum, does not include religious belief), and I would contend that your entire system of justified true beliefs (or the collective system we spoke about earlier, if you'd desire a more 'academic' setting of the bar) would be decreased immensely in coherency by a belief in god. Whether or not you think that your epistemically 'unjustified' belief may "co-exist" with all of your other justified beliefs does not hold sway in debate, as this would be entirely a function how many true justified beliefs (i.e. knowledge!) you possess!

I must re-state here my reluctance to offer up arguments 'against' the existence of god (much more capable philosophers than myself are able to do so far more elegantly). Thankfully though, I don't need to; it is your own belief which bares a burden of proof, not rejection of said proposition. As a result, you need not be convinced of my arguments against the existence of god in order that your own faith should be shaken; this would simply require the refutation of your own arguments. Whether or not my argument is "convincing to you" is logically irrelevant here (however, I'm always happy to engage in said debate for a bit of fun). Normally, more on the level of my blog, I try to show that even pointing out the unachievable burden of proof is redundant; highlighting the man-made (or natural selection made) nature of religion should serve to disuade any thinking man from prostrating himself before a cosmic dictator.

Regarding Richard Dawkins, one of the greatest scientists of our time: I would like to formally disassociate myself from his philosophy.

Take your deduction as true for a minute, that a godless universe is equally as probable as a god-made universe (based on the rather vague assumption that "there is no reason to insist that supernatural occurrences should be dismissed as ridiculously impossible"); this does not seem like the kind of odds I would want to hedge my bets (in this instance my entire life) on! That aside, I disagree with that point entirely. It is as logically possible that we live in a universe designed by god as it is logically possible that we live in a universe designed by Santa Claus, possibility does not confer probability. The entire concept of 'design' is, quite frankly, childish by both cosmological and philosophical principles (philosophical principles in line with modern cosmological theory which states emphatically that nothing is knowable, a priori or otherwise, before a moment of singularity where time, and the laws of causation as we know them, break down entirely). The atheist position is that there is no god, or at least no justification for believing that there is a god, not that there is nothing 'greater' than or outside of the universe, which could of course be designated as anything and would be of a nature incomprehensible to us (not a petty creative intelligence of any sort). That is the failure of the traditional deist position in consideration of both relativity and quantum mechanics; how on earth you would take this failed line of thought, and cantilever that out to explain the existence of a personal creator god, as per your Christianity, is beyond me.

I can't say much on your final paragraph, although there seem to be some interesting thoughts there, so if you'd be so kind as to elucidate we could concentrate on a few of those ideas. How exactly does the idea of fairy tales relate to the physical universe (i.e. what is the explanatory power of this metaphor)? Note, just to reinforce the above point, that even fairy tales (the book of Genesis?) rely on causality peculiar to our universe. Regarding the conflation of logic and natural laws; I think the confusion here arises from the natural origin of mathematical axioms, the mathematics they enable being subject to formal logic, and then said mathematics being used to make incredibly clever predictions about our universe. In fact, I'm not sure exactly what your issue is with this, and struggled to separate this from the fairy tale metaphor. All of our physical laws, as described by logic (!) expressed mathematically, break down under aforementioned quantum conditions, again with no disparity to said rules of formal logic (including causation); your line of reasoning here seems circular at best, or self-defeating more probably.

Finally, as a juris doctor student in a nation predicated upon common law, I must take issue with your characterisation of laws. Firstly natural law and 'the' law (both constitutional and judicial) are completely separate (no, there is certainly no knowable objective morality), and are not subject to the same generalisations. Your argument here strikes me as entirely semantic (my commendations on your poetic expression though). Yes, man-made laws may be broken. No, natural laws may not be broken (again, should such laws vary outside of the space-time continuum, then this would not be the suspension of the natural order, but would require an expanded definition of nature, i.e. should never be conceptualised as 'supernatural'). Incidentally, I'm not sure that the etymology of "law" does invite a reading implying break-ability?? Your penultimate sentence (some sort of ontological truism), that the existence of law requires a lawgiver and law enforcer, is entirely unfounded; how do you know this? I'm not sure what your premises are for such a sweeping statement, indeed I can't claim this is a non-sequitur as I'm not sure what your (at least) two required premises are for this deduction. Of course, the conclusion itself is fallacious; man-made law requires a creator, but no enforcer (technically), and natural law requires neither. Law without enforcement is indeed pragmatically meaningless in civilized society, but this statement is itself meaningless regarding natural law (indeed it highlights the inappropriate interchangeability of applications of the word 'law', the sentence itself making no sense).

 

[AlexBP]

Just as a footnote: I didn't mean to say that the 'clergymen's' rhetoric was convoluted and corrupt, but that the dedicated apologist/theologian's rhetoric was convoluted and corrupt. ... the apologists' attempt to engage in logical dialogue is a charade (no real progress was ever made after Aquinas himself in the 13th century) designed to provide validity to the undiscerning lay-person, should they feel the need to convince themselves of at least some-degree of a reasonable foundation for the beliefs around which they have structured their lives.

You have your beliefs about the prose written apologists and theologians, but it doesn't match my experience. When I think of the best apologists that I've read: Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, Craig Blomberg, Rodney Stark, Lee Strobel, Gregory Boyd, and Paul Rhodes Eddy, I recall all of them writing prose that's clear as day. I don't deny there are some apologists whose prose is not clear as day--Cornelius Van Til comes to mind--but if you're going to make blanket statements about apologists you should tackle the best ones out there. Though few people know it today, Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language might as well be a cut-and-paste job from various writings by Chesterton. Chesteron wrote extensively about the decay of the English language in official speech and journalism, and every point made in Orwell's essay can be found earlier in Chesterton. (Not that it stopped Orwell from bashing Chesterton ceaselssly.) Orwell's 1984 also owes quite a bit to Lewis's Space Trilogy.

But this all began with a post on your blog that contrasted the "modern public intellectual" and the "religious debater or writer". You claimed that the first speaks clearly and the second convolutedly. In my experience it's typically exactly the other way around. Christian apologists have substance and they want to make it as clear as possible, while modern intellectuals have no substance and want to hide that fact. Hence I'm not convinced by your argument.

 

[AlexBP]

Now we 'must' separate the wisdom you speak of, and which I agree with, from factual statements. You are once again cantilevering an idea, that wisdom need not be analytic and highly convoluted, and may be predicated largely upon human emotions, and inferring (please correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm doing my best to make the connection between your views on academia and your religiosity) that the existence of god, a hypothesis pertaining to truth value, may avert being subject to rigorous analytic scrutiny. I don't necessarily agree that there should be a separation of wisdom and fact, but that is the vibe I'm getting from your own arguments. Looking at philosophers of old and taking broad life lessons from their writings is completely different from engaging with said texts on a factual basis (that category is where religious texts sit, 'religion' broadly speaking being humankind's most primitive attempt at philosophy). Take a parallel field of human understanding like medicine - would you visit a doctor if you believed that that doctor had shunned modern medicine due to its complexity in favour of Leonardo da Vinci's own writings on human physiology?

Let me address the the last sentence in this paragraph first. Even when I was an atheist, I found this line of argument to be pretty weak. Medicine is different from philosophy, in that using E. F. Schumacher's classification of problems as "convergent" or "divergent", questions of medicine are convergent. Once a particular medicine is proven to cure a particular disease, everyone in the field agrees with it. The results can be seen in the fact that compared to 500 years ago, today people live longer and get fewer diseases and a given diseases is cured faster. But there are no such objective measures that prove today's philosophers better than those of 500 years ago.

I am perfectly willing to subject the question of God's existence to scrutiny. Whether that scrutiny is rigorous and analytic will be a matter of opinion. To me, it is quite rigorous. You may find it to be not rigorous. We've already seen that our opinions differ and what is the best way to approach these questions. You believe that modern philosophers are where we must turn for wisdom while I disagree.

I also agree with Aquinas when he says "the slenderest knowledge that can be obtained of the higher things is worth more than the most certain knowledge that can be obtained of the lower things", and this informs how I approach any question surrounding God. If you want to know what my approach is, the best I can do is point you to the chapter in Chesterton's Orthodoxy which I linked to earlier.

When I speak of co-existence of the belief in god with "your" belief system, I don't necessarily mean yours personally per se (apologies, this probably could have been phrased better originally). What I mean by this is the most informed understanding on all matters, by all of the highest experts on those said matters, taken as a complete knowledge set; you or I may or may not be privy to part of, or all of, this knowledge set. I never speak of co-existence, I spoke of coherency; unfortunately this is not up to anyone to 'interpret'; this has a very specific epistemological meaning, i.e. whether your system of justified true beliefs is increased in coherency by a belief, or decreased in coherency. Note here that beliefs must be justified (which as I've argued, and as have all reputable philosophers argued ad nauseum, does not include religious belief), and I would contend that your entire system of justified true beliefs (or the collective system we spoke about earlier, if you'd desire a more 'academic' setting of the bar) would be decreased immensely in coherency by a belief in god. Whether or not you think that your epistemically 'unjustified' belief may "co-exist" with all of your other justified beliefs does not hold sway in debate, as this would be entirely a function how many true justified beliefs (i.e. knowledge!) you possess!

Okay, you've now put forth your argument. I find it unconvincing.

First, you say that "all reputable philosophers" have argued that religious belief is not justified. This is not true. To give one of an enormous number of counterexamples, my grandfather, Dr. Richard H. Popkin, was a reputable philosopher and also a man of deep religious convictions.

Second, you refer to "the most informed understanding" by "the highest experts on such matters", which you admit I "may not be privy to". Recall how this whole line of argument started. You claimed that belief in God would reduce the coherency of my belief system enormously. I challenged you to explain why. And now here we get to your reason why: because all experts say so. Of course, all experts do not say what you claim they say, but even if they did you'd only be using an argument from authority. It only amounts to telling me that I shouldn't believe my own experiences of Jesus Christ because certain experts tell me not to. By your own admission, I "may not be privy" to any reasons why I shouldn't believe my own experiences. I long ago made the decision that I was going to be an independent thinker rather than a slavish follower of any authority. Of course there are cases, such as when consulting a doctor on medical issues, when I trust an authority on subjects that I can't entirely understand, but only when my independent reasoning has lead me to believe that I should do so. In the broad case of modern academics tell me that there's a decrease in coherence when I believe in my own experiences with Jesus Christ, my independent reasoning has not given me any reason to trust them. (And I'd reiterate that the experts don't all say what you claim they say; I'm merely speaking to a hypothetical scenario in which they did unanimously agree with you.)

Broadly speaking, though, I am glad to hear you saying that you want me to shape my beliefs around what a certain set of authorities says. We get many atheists around here insisting that they're on the side of independent thought and intellectual freedom while Christians are all into slavish obedience. It's refreshing to see someone admit that it isn't true.

 

[JazzTrance]

Broadly speaking, though, I am glad to hear you saying that you want me to shape my beliefs around what a certain set of authorities says. We get many atheists around here insisting that they're on the side of independent thought and intellectual freedom while Christians are all into slavish obedience. It's refreshing to see someone admit that it isn't true.

Touche I guess we'll agree to disagree, neither of us finding the other person's arguments convincing (we'll both be beating our head against the wall attempting to elucidate our own points any further I think). In closing though, just a couple of points for us both to consider - if I don't find your arguments convincing and you don't find my arguments convincing, giving us both the benefit of the doubt, where does this leave a neutral party, considering the burden of proof lies with the claim-maker (not me!! I'm well aware of the old fashioned switching around of this argument). Secondly, I like to think of myself as a free thinker of the highest order (if we met I'm sure you'd find me an individual of serious integrity) - I conceive of atheism as almost the ultimate subversive/anti-establishment idea (the vitriol a simple idea can generate should be testament to this). My political views and social views are, for the most part, quite contrarian regarding the conservative position. However, authority is authority; if someone knows more than me on a certain topic, and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, then I will default to their expert opinion. I think not to do so represents not free thinking, but anti-intellectualism. Finally, I fully endorse each person's choice to adopt a religious position, regardless of whether my own humanistic values force me into a condemnation of voluntary submission (as I've said, I've always avoided the ridiculous idea that religion is a force completely for good, or completely for evil); my only 'tangible' issue with religion, is the raising of "religious children", and any forays of the religious into the secular world (lobbying in the gay marriage "debate" for example).

Kindest regards, I've appreciated the respectful debate.

 

[JazzTrance]

PS: stay tuned to my blog! I'll certainly be posting on non-religious topics, potentially of interest, in the near future.

 

[sandwiches]

No, I would not.

Subjectivity is truth. The practicing of truth can only ever be valid within the context of the practicer. It is meaningless to talk of the practicing of truth without reference to the one who practices her truth.

Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Reality, as far as we've been able to determine, is not altered by belief alone.

The idea that people can set out on a path of seeking out truth is fantasy. We have an idea of what the 'truth' is before we take the first step, and thus we're not really seeking anything. We're just trying to build on our own beliefs, preconceptions, opinions.

Sounds like you may be projecting your own beliefs. Some people, including myself, have had their beliefs changed against their will. What I mean by that is that I've learned things which have changed my beliefs drastically despite it being something I didn't wish to believe.

 

[Nooj]

Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Reality, as far as we've been able to determine, is not altered by belief alone.

You did not grasp what I meant when I said subjectivity is truth. That is philosophical jargon for the truth that a person's life embodies, a truth that can't be measured or poked or even truly observed (though you may be able to see its fruits). Here, truth is definitely altered by belief.

But I want to say something about your statement about reality. Reality is not altered by belief alone, no. But by perception, which is in the eye of the beholder, and cognition, which is in the mind's-eye of the beholder, yes! Reality is what we experience.

Sounds like you may be projecting your own beliefs. Some people, including myself, have had their beliefs changed against their will. What I mean by that is that I've learned things which have changed my beliefs drastically despite it being something I didn't wish to believe.

I didn't say that we can't have our opinions changed. I didn't even say that we don't want our beliefs changed.

I said that we stepped in here with beliefs and opinions beforehand, and that we consider them to be truths.

We don't come into this business of intellectual dialogue as clean, chaste and innocent seekers. This is a clever lie which we tell ourselves. What if we were actually the vociferous, biased partisans that we claim the other side is? Wouldn't it be terrible if we convinced ourselves that we were oh-so-objective and keen for correction, but were engaging in dishonest practices all the meanwhile?

We've found what we want, which is why we defend what we have. Otherwise, there would be no debate. You and I would not hold onto the positions we hold onto with such tenacity, if we were not invested in these positions. That is, if we did not consider them to be true already. You see, if we did not think of them as true, we wouldn't be holding them in the first place!

In fact, I'd implore you to do so. Having just re-read your last paragraph, it strikes me as unnecessarily condescending, considering I did my best to respond to this in my last reply to you, and you don't seem to have addressed my arguments in the slightest.

I didn't mean my last paragraph to be condescending. I meant it to be confronting. I ask the same question to myself often.

I don't know what your arguments are. This is a fairly big thread and your blog is quite big. If you post a link to a post here or from your blog, I will read it.

 

[JazzTrance]

I don't know what your arguments are. This is a fairly big thread and your blog is quite big. If you post a link to a post here or from your blog, I will read it.

Refer to my three sequential posts on page 4, first one dated 2nd September 2012, 10:39 PM (regarding your metaphysical model of truth as contrary to any commonly accepted correspondence theory, and a few other points).

 

[Nooj]

In fact, the only section of your most recent reply that I take issue with is: "...but also because I think there is something divine about the concept." The first part of that paragraph and sentence, omitted from my quotation, I agree with fully, a sense of the transcendent. From there on in we see a complete leap of faith, assuming that you mean 'divinity' in a religious sense of the word, not in a step back from religiosity and into abstraction of spirituality (not that I have a problem with this inherently, but it certainly is not theism!).

I don't know what the difference is between religiosity and spirituality.

In summary, please correct me if I am wrong, surprise surprise our disagreement is simply over the existence of god! My atheism I stand by strongly, but this is a separate argument; our existentialism divorced of religiosity seems pleasantly parallel (aside from the obvious implications of said freedom - mine to choose ethically, mine to choose meaning, not mine to choose reality, and yours to choose...what exactly?).

We are not absolutely free. We are constrained in important ways. By our genetics, by our environment and by ourselves.

I believe we can choose how we see our reality. We are not gods who can alter every circumstance in the world to suit our whims. But we can choose what we think about the world and how we perceive the world (and perception = reality, so in that sense we really are choosing our reality).

Existentialists always like to talk about life as a project. But it's not just life. It's the world as a whole. Everything is another step in the narrative building that we do.

I think perhaps to compare proto-existentialism (Nietzsche), existentialism and other forms of what has politically incorrectly been dubbed 'continental philosophy', with contemporary analytic philosophy is confused. Subjective truth, as opposed to a correspondence theory of truth (upon which our entire idea of knowledge from Plato onwards is predicated) is absolutely not a point of contention in the metaphysics classroom. Subjective truth did not put man on the moon, a criminal behind bars or the historian's pen to paper.

The subjectivity of truth, i.e. correspondence to an actual physical state of affairs, or at least a state of affairs determined by logical inference (or a priori-based deduction), is a meaningless idea. Should the implications, and examples, be provided free of rhetoric and using any sort of formal reasoning then perhaps I'll give the idea further consideration.

I don't think I have compared existentialism to analytic philosophy at any point. Given that you say comparing the two is confused, I don't know why you are now comparing the two.

I talked about the practicing of truth, something that has little relation to putting men on the moon or a criminal behind bars or historian's pens on papers. The practicing of truth is expressed in the lived-experience of an individual. That is the truth that interests me.

A truth that is objective fails to interest me or involve me - by definition.

Ironically, subjective truth manifests itself only by human design in the instances where no objective truth exists - the most poignant example of this is ethics (the irony from a religious stand-point should be quite apparent here).

I'm not very good with irony. Can you please explain what you mean?

The subjectivity of truth, i.e. correspondence to an actual physical state of affairs, or at least a state of affairs determined by logical inference (or a priori-based deduction), is a meaningless idea. Should the implications, and examples, be provided free of rhetoric and using any sort of formal reasoning then perhaps I'll give the idea further consideration.

When you say that truth is correspondence to an actual physical state of affairs, does that mean that you are a materialist?

Regarding your comments on my awareness of bias and motivation; I devote an entire blog entry to this!! I highlight therein the vast bias inherent in the religious position. That aside, not wanting to repeat myself, regarding my own bias; I make every effort not to make any comments which may not substantiated reasonably.

Okay. I don't want to belabour the point and by no means am I singling you out.

We call a person who receives information but then alters it to favour his position or omits it because it is unfavourable, a biased person. But that is at the superficial level. The person must consciously recognise that this data does not suit his purposes.

But can bias exist subconsciously? Without us even noticing it? That would be a truly subtle and diabolical form of bias, one that not only sieves through what comes in and what comes out, but has a hand in our very thoughts, inclinations and feelings. These things happen under the radar; I never choose my thoughts from a lineup. There are immensely powerful currents under the surface of conscious thought. Which is why I talk not only of biases, but motives and intentions. They do nothing less than constitute why we think the way we do.

It's all well and good to tap with a hammer at our beliefs. How rarely do we swing that hammer at our own heads...

I ask rhetorically what would be the implication in your own life of an abandonment of reason?

I don't know what reason is. Can you please tell me what it is?

Do I abandon reason or does reason abandon me? The two are quite different.

Why do the faithful abandon reason only in a direction which supports their own unfalsifiable 'objective' truth claims? And, the million dollar question, why do those who parade existentialism as having any sort of analytic value invoke pseudo-formal logical arguments to show that logic (intellectualism itself) requires justification?

I don't know. Is there anyone who does that?

 

[JazzTrance]

Religiosity versus spirituality - adherence to a world religion and some sort of holy book, versus a sense of the transcendent. I feel a sense of transcendence and human connection looking into the wondering eyes of a tribal elder, the hairs on my arms stand up when I listen to John Coltrane or Bob Dylan, I feel awe when I look through a telescope, I cry when my friends die. I don't believe in god or fall down on my knees at any sort of alter, or before any sort of authority, who creates me sick and orders me to be well, who requires that I simultaneously love him and fear him.

I agree that we are not free, and that we are determined. But the constraints you pointed out 'determine' that we may make choices - to that end we may be held morally accountable. Absolute freedom though, it would appear, does not exist. Is this relevant? Probably not.

I'm not sure whether your reversal of my 'confusion' statement is facetious or not, but you should know (or you do know??) that I am clearly not confusing the two ideas. When you say that a truth that is objective does not interest you, do you not see that god's existence is an objective claim? Regarding your interpretation of life, your perception of reality - that's fine, and it may manifest itself in great works of art, but you can't make objective claims in this way. If you are not arguing that God exists, then you obviously were not being facetious, and I have misinterpreted your entire point.

Re. irony - in this first instance, subjective truth as a means for design (I'm not going to spell out the situational irony there), and in the second instance, subjective truth as an enabler of an ethical civilization (the irony here is that the religious demand enforcement of an 'objective' morality as the basis of ethical society, and yet here you stand advocating subjectivity, but in regard to 'actual' objective truths).

Am I a materialist? Probably yes in the sense that you are talking about. But are you not? The entire idea is redundant in modern academia. What would be an alternative to the material? That which exists outside of the universe, the universe of course being potentially the only entity in which 'material' (derived from 'matter') exists? Our current method of 'knowing' would simply be extended should something outside of matter (and energy) truly become knowable. Modern 'materialism' allows for time to be stopped - this is not the materialism of Isaac Newton. The entire idea of a rejection of materialism, from our pathetic corner of a single universe, seems misinformed or uneducated at best (willfully primitive at worst). What would you cite as a violation of materialism?

I agree regarding personal bias, but I don't think I show any which should compromise my arguments. Reason - argumentation based upon formal deductive and inductive logic, nothing more, nothing less (in the Western sense of the word). I have nothing to lose by abandoning my current position. The religious person's bias is inherently more distorting because of his or her vested interest in the validity of their claims. But again, yes I agree entirely with your characterisation of bias.

Not sure what you mean by contrasting your abandonment of reason with reason's abandonment of you - this seems like a personification of reason? I have no idea how to approach this point formally.

"Is there anyone who does that?" My argument is obviously: faith-based believers regarding the first question, and theologians regarding the second question (remove 'existentialism' and insert 'philosophy'/'logic' to take that statement out of the context of our own debate).

Kind regards.

 

[The Engineer]

I've just read the A response to Kony 2012.

I completely agree with you on the issue of military intervention in general. Good to know that there are still people out there who don't think you can solve any problem by just killing a dictator. I'm not completely against military intervention, but I'm against using it too liberally. It worked in Cambodia while it was under the rule of the Khmer Rouge, for example, but that was because those guys practically enslaved their whole population and killed a good chunk of it. The subsequent invasion by the Vietnamese killed less people than the Khmer Rouge did and I think it might have even stabilized the country. If an evil regime is killing off a seizable portion of its own population and will likely collapse within a decade, military intervention is probably one of the smarter things to do. Now, was Iraq about to collapse? Lybia? Syria? I doubt it, and I also highly doubt that the military intervention saved more people than it killed.

Just like you, I was pretty disappointed when I first heard about Kony 2012. Disappointed because everyone was so shocked that atrocities like the ones committed by Kony actually happen, even though he wasn't exactly the most obscure warlord before Kony 2012. I heard about him years before he became popular (I hate sounding like a hipster), and no one gave half a crap about him then. Why should I take it seriously when people talk about him now?

The only thing I disagree with is whether military intervention against Kony is really such a bad idea. I'm not saying it's a good idea, either, and it could backfire horribly if done wrong, but I'm not seeing another potential solution for the Kony problem. Education and economic progress are all good and well, but they are not going to protect a population from an army of psychos.

 

[JazzTrance]

The Engineer,

Once again, truly appreciate you taking the time to have a read (also pleasantly refreshing to be able to discuss something aside from the religious posts).

Firstly, very glad that you agree with my sentiments. I agree completely with your last comment also - while I don't think we can say whether intervention would be necessarily positive or negative, the level of dialogue certainly needs to be raised a notch or two.

Do you mind if I ask what the nature of your work was in Cambodia? Were you in Phnom Penh at the time? I'd love to hear what the feeling was on the ground at the time regarding the true origin, or catalyst at least, of the country's devastation; visiting Tuol Sleng nowadays (understandable given the tourism industry), or visiting a Cambodia oriented NGO presentation, the idea that Kissinger-directed bombings during withdrawal from Vietnam gave rise to Pol Pot's 'army' still seems to be misrepresented (or not represented). I'd love to hear exactly how the Khmer people felt in the 70s.

As a side note to anyone else reading: the War Remnants Museum in Saigon paints a much more realistic (i.e. horrifying) picture of the US legacy in South East Asia. A must-see for anyone spending time in Vietnam.

 

[The Engineer]

The Engineer,

Once again, truly appreciate you taking the time to have a read (also pleasantly refreshing to be able to discuss something aside from the religious posts).

No problem.

Firstly, very glad that you agree with my sentiments. I agree completely with your last comment also - while I don't think we can say whether intervention would be necessarily positive or negative, the level of dialogue certainly needs to be raised a notch or two.

Looks like there's no disagreement after all. It's certainly true that the dialogue about whether a military intervention is necessary or not should be a bit more complex and thorough than posting a video on youtube and people saying whether they liked it or not.

Do you mind if I ask what the nature of your work was in Cambodia? Were you in Phnom Penh at the time? I'd love to hear what the feeling was on the ground at the time regarding the true origin, or catalyst at least, of the country's devastation; visiting Tuol Sleng nowadays (understandable given the tourism industry), or visiting a Cambodia oriented NGO presentation, the idea that Kissinger-directed bombings during withdrawal from Vietnam gave rise to Pol Pot's 'army' still seems to be misrepresented (or not represented). I'd love to hear exactly how the Khmer people felt in the 70s.

Sorry, we seem to have a misunderstanding here. I never was in Cambodia, I'm just interested in the country.

As a side note to anyone else reading: the War Remnants Museum in Saigon paints a much more realistic (i.e. horrifying) picture of the US legacy in South East Asia. A must-see for anyone spending time in Vietnam.

Thanks for the information!

 

[JazzTrance]

Sorry, we seem to have a misunderstanding here. I never was in Cambodia, I'm just interested in the country.

My apologies! In my haste I read "It worked in Cambodia" as "I worked in Cambodia"!

Kind regards.

 

[The Engineer]

My apologies! In my haste I read "It worked in Cambodia" as "I worked in Cambodia"!

Kind regards.

You shall be forgiven.