tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5646442390088910129..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Arguments from motiveVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27761209601812275722016-10-28T08:19:16.537-07:002016-10-28T08:19:16.537-07:00Process and process describe entities and states i...Process and process describe entities and states in time. Agency is (more or less) a description of intelligence and intention. <br /><br />That these things exist IN our world does not entail that they exist about our world, nor outside it. <br /><br />But process, progress, and agency are all perfectly useful descriptions of what we observe in our world. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32511103465237125292016-10-27T17:43:33.684-07:002016-10-27T17:43:33.684-07:00"because (of course) there are such things as..."<i>because (of course) there are such things as process, progress, and agency.</i>"<br /><br />Well then, you are no materialist! (And I am most glad that you are not.) Process, progress, and agency are part and parcel of, inextricably enmeshed with, and inseparable from teleology - which is anathema to materialism.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6895172317104760062016-10-27T12:53:55.257-07:002016-10-27T12:53:55.257-07:00Atheo refers to atheism. Materialism refers to phi...Atheo refers to atheism. Materialism refers to philosophical materialism.<br /><br />What is PM? The central premise of Materialism is that only matter/energy is real (materialistic monism). There is no other, spiritual reality. In a sense, then, materialism might be understood as denying metaphysics altogether, there is nothing beyond ('meta') the observable, material world. A corollary of Materialism is determinism. Every state of the universe results, merely by simple cause and effect, from the previous state. Everything is essentially mechanical in which case nature is purposeless and evolution has no goal or direction. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35925140376996790252016-10-27T05:49:34.387-07:002016-10-27T05:49:34.387-07:00Chris: "I thought the expression atheo-materi...Chris: "I thought the expression atheo-materialism was pretty clear. Philosophical materialism, as I understand it, rejects teleology straight away. And yet, as pointed out, the atheo-materialist talks in terms of process, progress, and agency all the time."<br /><br />I don't know who the atheo-materialists are (I've never heard the term before, anyway). I don't think I am one, because (of course) there are such things as process, progress, and agency. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89858581945460065512016-10-26T12:41:11.719-07:002016-10-26T12:41:11.719-07:00I thought the expression atheo-materialism was pre...I thought the expression atheo-materialism was pretty clear. Philosophical materialism, as I understand it, rejects teleology straight away. And yet, as pointed out, the atheo-materialist talks in terms of process, progress, and agency all the time. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39179432799661359992016-10-25T17:04:31.478-07:002016-10-25T17:04:31.478-07:00More people saying (as I did) that your terms are ...More people saying (as I did) that your terms are vague to the point of being meaningless, Cal. <br /><br />Also, Legion can share his knowledge of hunger with you - with anyone. It's real knowledge that can be shared. Maybe you meant to say that Legion's real knowledge cannot be experienced. <br /><br />Real knowledge can be obtained without having direct experience. Happens all the time. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73178448885798670212016-10-25T14:08:01.560-07:002016-10-25T14:08:01.560-07:00LoL: "As a critique of religious beliefs, you...<b>LoL:</b> "<i>As a critique of religious beliefs, you said that they "produce nothing", "make no progress", and "hinder productive investigative processes". If you are not speaking about science with those three descriptions, then my apologies. However, my statement still stands that even if a belief matches all three descriptions, that would still not equate to being untrue.</i>"<br /><br />Moreover, what do phrases such as "make progress" and "make no progress" even *mean* if atheism were the truth about the nature of realty? You can't "make progress" unless there is some end-goal, some <i>telos</i> to which one's movement is aimed; "to progress" is not *merely* to move or change.<br /><br />And, for that matter, even the word "process" doesn't really fit into an atheistic world, for that word also implies a <i>telos</i>. A "process" is not *merely* a series of events.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26686434783119489202016-10-25T13:36:57.682-07:002016-10-25T13:36:57.682-07:005 points to Cal for using the word "corrigibl...5 points to Cal for using the word "corrigible"! <br /><br />It's one of those words like couth, hinged (in the psychological sense), or gruntled that one very rarely encounters.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89055440157451179672016-10-25T12:47:53.364-07:002016-10-25T12:47:53.364-07:00Legion: "There we go. What makes something &q...Legion: "There we go. What makes something "real knowledge"? I suspect this is identical to what I was trying to get at, but I could be wrong."<br /><br />Real knowledge can be shared intersubjectively, and is corrigible. <br /><br />You can know that you're hungry, or now that you enjoy a taste, or know that you feel emotion, etc. And I don't discount those personal experiences, but they are incorrigible, and they cannot be shared -- I cannot have knowledge of them, as I don't experience your experiences directly. However, I can experience many things that you also experience, and these things that we can both experience constitute (for a lack of a better term) real knowledge about shared reality. Something approximately like that, anyway.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7350451110885732342016-10-25T11:59:07.418-07:002016-10-25T11:59:07.418-07:00"real knowledge"
There we go. What mak..."real knowledge"<br /><br />There we go. What makes something "real knowledge"? I suspect this is identical to what I was trying to get at, but I could be wrong.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76960220853748477702016-10-25T08:37:28.168-07:002016-10-25T08:37:28.168-07:00Legion: "However, my statement still stands t...Legion: "However, my statement still stands that even if a belief matches all three descriptions, that would still not equate to being untrue."<br /><br />Again, your word "true" here, not mine. <br /><br />I'm not saying that human experience is useless -- on the contrary, I'm a big fan. I'm just saying that when it comes to justifying my skepticism about religious beliefs, I can point out that superstitious thinking produces nothing (reliable, predictive, etc., if I were to elaborate), makes no progress (same questions, same disagreements, no end in sight), and hinders productive investigative processes (see: religious objections to scientific theories like Evolution and man-influenced Global Warming). <br /><br />This leaves plenty of room for talking about the human experience, about our subjective experiences, etc. But it is my shorthand way for outlining my objections to superstitious thinking (the question I was asked) -- basically, it gets in the way or is superfluous to real knowledge, and I don't need it to enjoy the company of others, music, literature, or to notice that my bladder feels full.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10559627758938588242016-10-25T07:03:15.654-07:002016-10-25T07:03:15.654-07:00More the thought process behind having a full blad...More the thought process behind having a full bladder than the full bladder itself, but...<br /><br />As a critique of religious beliefs, you said that they "produce nothing", "make no progress", and "hinder productive investigative processes". If you are not speaking about science with those three descriptions, then my apologies. However, my statement still stands that even if a belief matches all three descriptions, that would still not equate to being untrue.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9130798350885917762016-10-25T06:08:00.285-07:002016-10-25T06:08:00.285-07:00Legion: "It's a tongue-in-cheek analogy p...Legion: "It's a tongue-in-cheek analogy pointing out the fact that truth and science are not equivalent. "Produces nothing", "makes no progress", and "hindering productive investigative processes" are not synonymous with "untrue", so I'm not certain what point you were trying to make there."<br /><br />Okay, several things. I haven't typed out the words "science" or "truth" in any of my comments.<br /><br />And why do you think that emptying a bladder produces nothing? <br /><br />Lastly, why do you think an organic process (urination) is relevant to a discussion about beliefs? Are you saying that the perception that one's bladder is full is divorced from the reality about the amount of waste held in that bladder. <br /><br />Legion: "...so I'm not certain what point you were trying to make there."<br /><br />The point was that I was asked to "make an argument for atheo materialism" (?), and so I thought I'd mention something about that. Then you brought up your bladder. <br /><br />SteveK can be trusted to try and sneer in his comments, while simultaneously revealing that he doesn't really understand the concepts being discussed. I have come to kind of like your comments, because I think they are usually consistent, and you seem smart enough to normally articulate what you find unsatisfying concerning others', as opposed to your own, beliefs. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30406028478896879912016-10-24T18:42:10.013-07:002016-10-24T18:42:10.013-07:00"This is almost SteveK like. You are better t..."This is almost SteveK like. You are better than this."<br /><br />It's a tongue-in-cheek analogy pointing out the fact that truth and science are not equivalent. "Produces nothing", "makes no progress", and "hindering productive investigative processes" are not synonymous with "untrue", so I'm not certain what point you were trying to make there.<br /><br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86532558214768726972016-10-24T17:19:05.726-07:002016-10-24T17:19:05.726-07:00SteveK; "Your words are represented as being ...SteveK; "Your words are represented as being equally as vague in my comment as they are in yours. That's my criticism, Cal."<br /><br />And the above is why your comments are met with a communal "meh" every time you write them; you seem to want to sound insightful, but no one can figure out a way to read them that can save you.<br /><br />Legion: "When my bladder is full, I need to empty it. Even animals know this. This knowledge produces nothing, makes no progress (and in many cases hinders productive processes)...but it is still true. Something does not have to be scientific in nature to be true."<br /><br />This is almost SteveK like. You are better than this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28906058208632469262016-10-24T17:18:49.950-07:002016-10-24T17:18:49.950-07:00We reached the curving brink of a steep bank
const...We reached the curving brink of a steep bank<br />constructed of enormous broken rocks;<br />below us was a crueler den of pain.<br /><br />And the disgusting overflow of stench<br />the deep abyss was vomiting forced us<br />back from the edge.<br /><br />(Dante, <i>The Inferno</i>, Canto XI, lines 1-6)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91192933448450175862016-10-24T16:00:13.981-07:002016-10-24T16:00:13.981-07:00Whatever it is, it's unsavory.Whatever it is, it's unsavory. Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82748183306319997292016-10-24T14:46:17.953-07:002016-10-24T14:46:17.953-07:00Can you smell what the scientism is cooking?Can you smell what the scientism is cooking?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41917907170722878892016-10-24T14:24:13.613-07:002016-10-24T14:24:13.613-07:00"Um, because religious beliefs are based on a..."Um, because religious beliefs are based on a process that doesn't work (it produces nothing, has made no progress, and hinders productive investigative processes)"<br /><br />When my bladder is full, I need to empty it. Even animals know this. This knowledge produces nothing, makes no progress (and in many cases hinders productive processes)...but it is still true. Something does not have to be scientific in nature to be true.<br /><br />Science isn't the only form of knowledge, so saying religious beliefs aren't scientific in nature as a criticism is a very poor criticism indeed.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15325359303862452332016-10-24T14:00:33.393-07:002016-10-24T14:00:33.393-07:00Your words are represented as being equally as vag...Your words are represented as being equally as vague in my comment as they are in yours. That's my criticism, Cal.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68693287325913248402016-10-24T13:50:59.398-07:002016-10-24T13:50:59.398-07:00Why does it say about criticism like SteveK's,...Why does it say about criticism like SteveK's, that it can't seem to represent my words correctly?<br /><br />Does anyone think here think that misrepresenting amounts to actual criticism? <br /><br />Because I think it amounts to a kind of pretending. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9738525956057329562016-10-24T13:05:16.308-07:002016-10-24T13:05:16.308-07:00Tut-tut. Your claims are so vague as to be meaning...Tut-tut. Your claims are so vague as to be meaningless. <br /><br />All processes produce something<br />All processes that produce something, work<br />All processes that work, make progress<br />Religious beliefs are based on a process (says Cal)<br />Religious beliefs produce something, work and make progress<br />SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63320120019489112672016-10-24T12:50:01.219-07:002016-10-24T12:50:01.219-07:00Chris: "I am somethng of a lurker here. I hav...Chris: "I am somethng of a lurker here. I have noticed that Cal has been commenting on this blog for a while and has a rather muscular style. Yet, not once, not even a little bit, have I ever heard him say anything in the way of an argument for atheo-materialism. Why is that?"<br /><br />The case for "atheo-materialism"? Not knowing what you really mean by that, I'd guess that you mean why take my skeptical stance toward religious beliefs? <br /><br />Um, because religious beliefs are based on a process that doesn't work (it produces nothing, has made no progress, and hinders productive investigative processes), and because investigative methods that eschew supernatural thinking are the only ones that provide real knowledge. (Before anybody protests, please read my words CAREFULLY.)<br /><br />Isn't that (incredibly) obvious from what I've written here? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16433258274423743182016-10-24T11:11:55.001-07:002016-10-24T11:11:55.001-07:00Definition of "incredible": impossible t...Definition of "incredible": impossible to believe.<br />Synonyms for "incredible": unbelievable, beyond belief, hard to believe, unconvincing, far-fetched, implausible, improbable, highly unlikely, dubious, doubtful.<br /><br />"<i>The interesting question is whether or not incredible (in the technical sense) claims are best explained by psychological motives.</i>"<br /><br />Wow! It looks like Cal and I are once again in agreement here. The really interesting question is whether or not such an incredible (in the dictionary sense) claim as "There is no God" is best explained by psychological motives.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91695732585307043062016-10-24T10:44:38.514-07:002016-10-24T10:44:38.514-07:00Me: ""The question is, Are there any goo...Me: ""The question is, Are there any good reasons to believe that something like the Christian god exists?"<br /><br />Prokop: The answer is, yes there are. Just a few, among the multitude:<br />- There is something rather than nothing."<br /><br />This is not an argument for the Christian god. (I doubt it's really an "argument" for anything.)<br /><br />Prokop: "- Good and evil objectively exist."<br /><br />This is not an argument for the Christian god. (It's also demonstrably false.)<br /><br />Prokop: "- Music."<br /><br />This is not an argument for the Christian god. <br /><br />Prokop: "The example/witness of the Saints."<br /><br />Bad reasons -- every religion has its martyrs, and the rest, what you call witness, is hearsay and stories -- stories that are accounts of things that ONLY happen in, well, stories. Hmm.<br /><br />Prokop: "- The rock-solid case for the Resurrection, still triumphant after 2000 years of trying to disprove it. (This ought to be first on any list. Christianity stands or falls on the Fact of the literal, physical, historical, actual Resurrection of Christ. No Resurrection - no Christianity. Yes Resurrection - why are you not a Christian?)"<br /><br />Um, by the "rock-sold case for the Resurrection" I think you mean, a story. And one that has the problem of conflicting with all of our background knowledge. So, really, the opposite of rock solid. Stories that conflict with our background knowledge are about as flimsy as it gets. <br /><br />-------------<br /><br />But really, the interesting question here isn't how much you all think you have good reasons for believing what you do (I trust that you do, even though I see such obvious problems in your claims) -- the interesting question is whether or not incredible (in the technical sense) claims are best explained by psychological motives. I'm not sure about that one way or another -- I think that religious beliefs, like conspiratorial ones -- might prove more the exception to psychological tendencies than other undemonstrable beliefs. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.com