Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[2PhiloVoid]

But why? What effect does the phrase "it's meaningful to me" have on the independent meaning of the phrase πίνω το νερό? (I drink the water.) "Meaningful" is an abstract concept, but the verb "to drink" and noun "water" are pretty concrete. We're not stuck in a subjective web of fabricated meaning when trying to figure out what water is (philosophical issues of identity set aside). If we were, nobody would ever learn to speak in the first place and communication would be impossible.

Too much focus on the subjective spectrum of meaning ignores the fact that two year olds can learn to use words to refer to objects without problems. Obviously subtleties and complications come into the picture, and a whole web of subjective impressions come to be associated with words (this happens to me with Spanish a lot), but it's very possible to overstate the case for the subjectivity of language.

Perhaps. But somewhere in there @devolved and I have to wonder just what you mean by "drink," and by what kind of water, whether real or metaphysical, you're "meaning" to refer to. Since we ARE talking within the senses and contexts of religious culture and language here, particularly where God is concerned, then we're thrown in into all of this existentially with Avril Lavigne:

And then there's all that talk by Jesus about "drinking the Living Water................." Whatever does HE mean?

 

[Silmarien]

Perhaps. But somewhere in there @devolved and I have to wonder just what you mean by "drink," and by what kind of water, whether real or metaphysical, you're "meaning" to refer to. Since we ARE talking within the senses and contexts of religious culture and language here, particularly where God is concerned, then we're thrown in into all of this existentially with Avril Lavigne:

If I asked someone for a glass of water and they handed me a Bible, I think I would hit them with it.

If we're talking specifically about metaphorical language, the literary and cultural context of religious language, and so forth and so on, then yeah. We've gone beyond the level where we're referring to concrete objects and simple actions and have to deal with the complications that arise. But this doesn't eliminate the referential nature of basic vocabulary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I asked someone for a glass of water and they handed me a Bible, I think I would hit them with it.

If we're talking specifically about metaphorical language, the literary and cultural context of religious language, and so forth and so on, then yeah. We've gone beyond the level where we're referring to concrete objects and simple actions and have to deal with the complications that arise. But this doesn't eliminate the referential nature of basic vocabulary.

...that depends on how much "smartology" we think we need to impute to our discussion. Because, in a strange kind of way, what is now 'king' is ....

https://www.smartology.net/blog/context-now-king/

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I asked someone for a glass of water and they handed me a Bible, I think I would hit them with it.

...then I'd also have to ask what do you mean by "Bible," because we ALL know (corporately) that anything less than a full-size, hardcover 1611 King James probably won't have the impact that it should.

 

[devolved]

This doesn't work. If the phenomenal gives rise to the noumenal, then the phenomenal is the noumenal, and the Kantian thing-in-itself doesn't exist at all. Which means we lose the distinction between phenomenal and noumenal and still have access to reality as it actually is. Similarly, unless you are a type of dualist and think that the phenomenal is fundamentally simple and self-given, I'm not sure how the idea that one merely observes the other makes any sense at all. If you grant the phenomenal this type of independence, then it becomes an equally fundamental aspect of reality as it actually is and indistinguishable from the noumenal. There really is a point at which this sort of extreme subjectivism just collapses into incoherence.

Sure, phenomenal is the necessary given, but noumenal is not. It may exist out the necessity of the former to simulate some experience for the latter.

See "The Nines" with Ryan Reynolds for a loose metaphor.

I understand that extreme idealism seems to be counter-intuitive, but so is the idea of monistic universe collapsing into self-aware chunks. Somewhere down the line of that argument as I heard it verbalized by some... extreme idealism of "The Nines" kind (but incorporating some form of Egregore concept) begins to sounds like a more coherent alternative.

'm not sure. I don't really know what your objection actually is. I would think it self evident that words do not necessarily reflect reality, but I would be cautious of too subjectivist an approach to language, since basic words are referential. I don't need to speak more than 20 words of Greek for the statement πίνω το νερό to be meaningful to me.

My objection is to the idea that language reflects reality, as opposed to reflecting the conceptual model of reality that we have and maintain via cultural copying from brain to brain along with language.

 

[Silmarien]

Sure, phenomenal is the necessary given, but noumenal is not. It may exist out the necessity of the former to simulate some experience for the latter.

See "The Nines" with Ryan Reynolds for a loose metaphor.

I understand that extreme idealism seems to be counter-intuitive, but so is the idea of monistic universe collapsing into self-aware chunks. Somewhere down the line of that argument as I heard it verbalized by some... extreme idealism of "The Nines" kind (but incorporating some form of Egregore concept) begins to sounds like a more coherent alternative.

I'm a bit of an absolute idealism. I don't find any of the idealisms counter-intuitive at all. When I talk about the noumenon, I'm not specifically referring to physical reality.

That said, I would hold that the stronger forms of idealism destroy the distinction between phenomena and noumena altogether. If the phenomena is all that there is, then the phenomena becomes the thing-in-itself. The wilder and wilder you get, the more you'll be straining the categories of noumena and phenomena to the point of meaninglessness.

My objection is to the idea that language reflects reality, as opposed to reflecting the conceptual model of reality that we have and maintain via cultural copying from brain to brain along with language.

I don't differentiate between language and our conceptual models of reality. The two things are conjoined and each shapes the other, so I'm happy saying that language as an aspect of our conceptual model reflects reality, rather than that language reflects a model that then reflects reality.

 

[devolved]

That said, I would hold that the stronger forms of idealism destroy the distinction between phenomena and noumena altogether. If the phenomena is all that there is, then the phenomena becomes the thing-in-itself. The wilder and wilder you get, the more you'll be straining the categories of noumena and phenomena to the point of meaninglessness.

I wouldn't say that it detroys it. We are merely labeling sensory perception and the reality "up the chain" of that perception. It makes no difference whether such mechanism is entirely is of some collective conscious experience, or reality that produces a mind. Conceptually we can still maintain that category IMO.

I don't differentiate between language and our conceptual models of reality.

Language is a very high level abstraction of the models existing in our brain which are not constrained by language at all. Language is a "meme" when it comes to conceptual relationship to mind as a mechanism.

It doesn't have to reflect reality at all as long as it loosely conveys meaning in context of the model.

In fact, there are very few concrete and nominal concepts in the above paragraphs. These are almost entirely "head
-space" concepts that relate to other "head-space" concepts.

Some coversations would likely be closer to concrete reality, but that would not be the case for major portion of our language.

 

[Silmarien]

I wouldn't say that it detroys it. We are merely labeling sensory perception and the reality "up the chain" of that perception. It makes no difference whether such mechanism is entirely is of some collective conscious experience, or reality that produces a mind. Conceptually we can still maintain that category IMO.

If there is no reality "up the chain," then there is no category to which the word "noumenon" refers. You have a conceptual category referring to nothing and are calling it that which we cannot grasp. If you want to maintain that category, fine, but even in maintaining it, you're basically saying that there's nothing that we cannot grasp.

Language is a very high level abstraction of the models existing in our brain which are not constrained by language at all. Language is a "meme" when it comes to conceptual relationship to mind as a mechanism.

Yes, they are. Learn a new language and your models will shift slightly. Figure out the terminology and mode of expression of a certain philosophy and your models will be affected by that as well. The models aren't independent of the language--these things influence each other mutually. Speaking of which, one problem here is that you're relying so heavily upon the language of computer science that you're violating your own injunction against speaking of the noumenon by using words like "abstraction" to refer to aspects of reality that rely outside of our experience. This continues to be completely incoherent given that you claim that we cannot know anything besides the content of our models. We can't know how the model works and talk about abstractions at all.

Anyway, I think we're just going around in circles now, so I'm going to leave things here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there is no reality "up the chain," then there is no category to which the word "noumenon" refers. You have a conceptual category referring to nothing and are calling it that which we cannot grasp. If you want to maintain that category, fine, but even in maintaining it, you're basically saying that there's nothing that we cannot grasp.



Yes, they are. Learn a new language and your models will shift slightly. Figure out the terminology and mode of expression of a certain philosophy and your models will be affected by that as well. The models aren't independent of the language--these things influence each other mutually. Speaking of which, one problem here is that you're relying so heavily upon the language of computer science that you're violating your own injunction against speaking of the noumenon by using words like "abstraction" to refer to aspects of reality that rely outside of our experience. This continues to be completely incoherent given that you claim that we cannot know anything besides the content of our models. We can't know how the model works and talk about abstractions at all.

Anyway, I think we're just going around in circles now, so I'm going to leave things here.

I'm inclined to think of the noumena in more Chomskian terms, that is, I think [I think...?] our brains are hard-wired and 'preformatted' for the objective learning of language, but since the actual live use of language and the individual processes that accompany this include subjective and intersubjective interactions with our surrounding reality [reality...?] then there is a subjective context working as a sub-frame within the objective essence of both our biology and our physical world.

But, that's my view, and I'm open to being wrong or in expanding my perspective about it all.

 

[Silmarien]

I'll level with you. I think subjective restraints are real and something that we have to take into consideration. But I don't think that they're so severe as to make knowledge impossible and destroy metaphysics. If someone wants to wallow in their own subjectivity and insist that they can't know whether something exists instead of nothing, they're welcome to do so, but it's a very, very tiny leap of faith to get to the idea that the human mind can grasp reality, if only imperfectly, and there's literally no evidence pointing in the other direction. Only stubbornness.

If we can get to "the human mind can grasp reality," then we can get to "what must reality be so that the human mind can grasp it?" And that's where things start getting really interesting. (Yes, yes, yes. I love my cosmological and ontological arguments.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll level with you. I think subjective restraints are real and something that we have to take into consideration. But I don't think that they're so severe as to make knowledge impossible and destroy metaphysics. If someone wants to wallow in their own subjectivity and insist that they can't know whether something exists instead of nothing, they're welcome to do so, but it's a very, very tiny leap of faith to get to the idea that the human mind can grasp reality, if only imperfectly, and there's literally no evidence pointing in the other direction. Only stubbornness.

If we can get to "the human mind can grasp reality," then we can get to "what must reality be so that the human mind can grasp it?" And that's where things start getting really interesting. (Yes, yes, yes. I love my cosmological and ontological arguments.)

I can agree with a lot of that, really, but one caveat I'd tend to add is that I think the degree between objectivity and subjectivity will differ among the noumena investigated or encountered. I also like to think of our attempts at being objective with the metaphor of orbits around an entity---the closer we are to each other in time, space, and common experience within community [and not JUST within common community], then the more likely it is that our 'orbits' of perception and conception will be overlapping or very close to each other in a more parallel display. But, the more complex or displaced the entity is around which we contemplate, along with the degree of individual displacement in time, space and common experience within community we have from each other, then the more we're likely to divide from each other in subjective experience and in expressing what we each think is the full, 'objective' nature of the phenomenon we're encountering.

Depending on the entity under consideration which we think resides within a perceived noumena, we may or may not be on the same orbital path toward our agreement; it might even be that as we move and think through our own, individual orbits of thought, we almost never intersect, or just plain never intersect, with each other. So, we have to affirm with each other (although we might decide we can't affirm some things with others), that there really and truly is a difference in how we can assess the meaning and nature of, say, our Solar Sun, in comparison to the meaning and nature of, say, the Holy Son.

The way I conceptualize the epistemological and ontological paths we're each on cognitively, particularly as it may come to perceiving God in any way, shape, or form, is like this:

Of course, I think this will affect the extent to which we can actually be fully justified in holding each other accountable for how we each 'see' the world and 'see' the nature of the Christian faith. This is one reason I consider myself to be 'Inter-denominational' and I don't like to commit to any ONE path of Christian thought. I try to think of all of them in tandem, as much as possible. Of course, a singular person like myself can only hope to capture even a smidgen of a God's-eye view of Christian faith as God, in His Spirit, intends for it to be among all of us. And I will never claim, as a limited human being, that I can objectively ever fully know all of that........

 

[DogmaHunter]

... while I'm not precluding the possibility that your statements carry actual meaning (being that I'm not a nihilist about language), and since you are speaking to me, one who is degreed in social science and education (as well as having majored in high school in the Commercial/Graphic Arts), you're going to have to do better than posit that I am a Christian 'simply' because of ... marketing/advertising? I mean, I don't think the cognitive draw of Christianity operates in exactly the same emotional or cognitive way that, say, 'sex' does ... because in my experience robust Christianity tends to repel rather than to attract.

To simply tell me that since I live in the U.S., I'm a Christian because I have had no other choice is at least partly fallacious ... I mean, you didn't even survey me about my life experiences involving my own family and interaction with religion, or as to how any interaction I might have had as a child or teenager with religion could have been mediated by other social forces, whether those were ideological, familial, and/or psychological. So, while I do understand what you're getting at with your 'advertisting analogy,' and I don't think it's necessarily false, it isn't fool proof.

[yes, I had to edit what I said here just a tweak......]

Nevertheless, in the vast vast majority of cases, you can pretty accuratly predict someone's religion (if they are religious) purely by knowledge of their present / past geographic whereabouts.

This is the case because typically, religion is acquired from the age of pretty much 0. And that religion is determined by the parents. And the parents usually follow the religion that is dominant in that geographic location.

Tell me the religion of your parents, and I'll tell you what your religion is.
And I dare say that more then 9 times out of 10, I'ld be correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nevertheless, in the vast vast majority of cases, you can pretty accuratly predict someone's religion (if they are religious) purely by knowledge of their present / past geographic whereabouts.

Perhaps, but I think that in the context in which you're using the term, "religious," you're expressing a rather bland, simplistic denotation of it.

This is the case because typically, religion is acquired from the age of pretty much 0. And that religion is determined by the parents. And the parents usually follow the religion that is dominant in that geographic location.

The thing is, no matter what the geographical area, parents can't guarantee much in the long run for anything but the most rudimentary ideas about religion, or about any philosophical concept or moral matter. So, I think you're projecting way too much value into the potency that parents or culture can have in the shaping of a person's thoughts through the ENTIRE course of a lifetime.

Then, too, some aspects of the Reformer's Dilemma rub up against Cultural Relativism [link below] and you have to go around them. This isn't easy to do, especially if we THEN adapt their relevance to another frame by which to consider the supposed Outsider Test for Faith and it's rusty social assumptions regarding how people are supposedly 'fated' to believe this way or that way. In a sense, YOU are a reformer, DogmaHunter. It's kind of implied in your CF name.

Cultural Relativism

Tell me the religion of your parents, and I'll tell you what your religion is.
And I dare say that more then 9 times out of 10, I'ld be correct.

First, show me the exact definition of religion, in scientific terms, by which we ALL MUST kow-tow and agree with in order to identify what it is in and of itself. In the meantime, I'll leave you with some words on the conceptual meaning of religion given by Switchfoot, and you might consider that the way in which any one of us really defines religion might actually come through a cognitive process of synthesis in concert with all of the other experiences we have in the world:

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps, but I think that in the context in which you're using the term, "religious," you're expressing a rather bland, simplistic denotation of it.

The thing is, no matter what the geographical area, parents can't guarantee much in the long run for anything but the most rudimentary ideas about religion, or about any philosophical concept or moral matter. So, I think you're projecting way too much value into the potency that parents or culture can have in the shaping of a person's thoughts through the ENTIRE course of a lifetime.

Then, too, some aspects of the Reformer's Dilemma rub up against Cultural Relativism [link below] and you have to go around them. This isn't easy to do, especially if we THEN adapt their relevance to another frame by which to consider the supposed Outsider Test for Faith and it's rusty social assumptions regarding how people are supposedly 'fated' to believe this way or that way. In a sense, YOU are a reformer, DogmaHunter. It's kind of implied in your CF name.

Cultural Relativism

First, show me the exact definition of religion, in scientific terms, by which we ALL MUST kow-tow and agree with in order to identify what it is in and of itself. In the meantime, I'll leave you with some words on the conceptual meaning of religion given by Switchfoot, and you might consider that the way in which any one of us really defines religion might actually come through a cognitive process of synthesis in concert with all of the other experiences we have in the world:

Imo, you are extremely over complicating this.

Let's just keep it simple: do you agree that the vast majority of people grow up to believe the religion they were taught by their parents? Yes or no.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Imo, you are extremely over complicating this.

Let's just keep it simple: do you agree that the vast majority of people grow up to believe the religion they were taught by their parents? Yes or no.

.....dude, you're talking to a person (me) who thinks that Philosophical Hermeneutics simply applies----which means it's all not only complex, but that most things which involve real life applications of human nature, human society, including science, are extremely complex. So, I'm sorry to be unmanageably disagreeable with your desire to "keep it simple," but I'll never agree with anyone that anything worth our time and understanding outside of basic logic is ever.....simple.

I'll answer your question if you answer a question in return, my friend.

 

[Silmarien]

Imo, you are extremely over complicating this.

Let's just keep it simple: do you agree that the vast majority of people grow up to believe the religion they were taught by their parents? Yes or no.

I think you're oversimplifying it a bit, Dogma.

We're into the Information Age now. The West is more post-Christian than Christian at this point, so all bets are off when dealing with people who grew up nominally Christian. It's not at all uncommon to ditch a childhood Christianity and become Buddhist instead these days.

I'd technically be in your 9/10, but my childhood "Christianity" included divination, reincarnation, and... uh, lots and lots of dinosaurs (I was a militant anti-religious evolutionist). Does the fact that you grew up nominally Christian matter if you spent your time in Sunday School snickering about the apparent ridiculousness of the Old Testament stories? Because that's not all that rare in the post-Christian world.

It was a perfect storm that landed me in Christianity. If I'd had my way, I would be practicing Advaita Vedanta Hinduism instead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.....dude, you're talking to a person (me) who thinks that Philosophical Hermeneutics simply applies----which means it's all not only complex, but that most things which involve real life applications of human nature, human society, including science, are extremely complex. So, I'm sorry to be unmanageably disagreeable with your desire to "keep it simple," but I'll never agree with anyone that anything worth our time and understanding outside of basic logic is ever.....simple.

I'll answer your question if you answer a question in return, my friend.

So, do you agree or not, that the vast majority of religious people are following the religion they were taught by their parents?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you're oversimplifying it a bit, Dogma.

We're into the Information Age now. The West is more post-Christian than Christian at this point, so all bets are off when dealing with people who grew up nominally Christian. It's not at all uncommon to ditch a childhood Christianity and become Buddhist instead these days.

I'd technically be in your 9/10, but my childhood "Christianity" included divination, reincarnation, and... uh, lots and lots of dinosaurs (I was a militant anti-religious evolutionist). Does the fact that you grew up nominally Christian matter if you spent your time in Sunday School snickering about the apparent ridiculousness of the Old Testament stories? Because that's not all that rare in the post-Christian world.

It was a perfect storm that landed me in Christianity. If I'd had my way, I would be practicing Advaita Vedanta Hinduism instead.

That's neat.

Now, if I would go to a random town in Texas and stop a random person in the street and ask him what his religion is, on which of these would you be putting your money:
- christian
- buddhist
- muslim
- hindu
- scientologist



I'ld put my money on "christian", any day of the week. How about you?

Now, if I would go to a random town in Saudi Arabia, stop a random person in the street and ask him what his religion is, then same question...

I'ld put my money on "muslim", any day of the week. How about you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, do you agree or not, that the vast majority of religious people are following the religion they were taught by their parents?

Have you had the opportunity to interview the majority of people on this planet while they are on their deathbeds to see if they unswervingly hold to the childhood beliefs they had at, say, AGE 7? [YES or NO?]

No???? That's ok, though. I didn't think you'd be able to get around to it really.......................

 

[Silmarien]

That's neat.

Now, if I would go to a random town in Texas and stop a random person in the street and ask him what his religion is, on which of these would you be putting your money:
- christian
- buddhist
- muslim
- hindu
- scientologist



I'ld put my money on "christian", any day of the week. How about you?

Now, if I would go to a random town in Saudi Arabia, stop a random person in the street and ask him what his religion is, then same question...

I'ld put my money on "muslim", any day of the week. How about you?

Texas is heavily Evangelical and Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. The Christian right does try to limit information, and in Saudi Arabia, apostasy is punishable by death.

You're picking very extreme examples. If you asked someone in France, Norway, or the U.S. East Coast, you would have a harder time of it. You need to factor in that large segments of the Western world are open and religiously pluralistic now before running with an argument like this.