Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Complexity]

Are you really this desperate to fling your feces at me?

I'm not at all desperate, but doing so might would make me happy.

 

[annnnoid]

I'm not at all desperate, but doing so might would make me happy.

I once saw a two-year old do some feces flinging....seemed happy enough. You mean like that?

 

[annnnoid]

You still don't understand what I'm saying.

We don't have to put human intellect on a pedestal.

Regardless of our gifts and limitations, the simple fact is, if you and I are talking about something, rather than nothing or nonsense, then we have some idea of what it is.

If you're going to come to me with [this thing] is utterly inconceivable and incomprehensible and outside our universe and we couldn't recognize it if we encountered it, then all I can possibly say is that [this thing] is no thing at all and no one could possibly have a conversation about it.

But people have been talking about god and believing in god for some time now, so it can't be that, unless you just want to turn it into nothing, in which case we're back to having nothing to talk about.

What if the ‘idea’ of God does not reside in our rational epistemology, but in our ‘spiritual’ epistemology. This alternate epistemology does, after all, exist. It is exactly that by which we all navigate the tortured roads of meaning and purpose in our lives….seeking whatever it is that human beings seek in search of whatever it is that is actually worth searching for. And there is, most indisputably, that which is worth searching for….because people find it….and when they do, they often find it so compelling that all they want to do is share it with those who haven’t.

So this ‘idea’ can quite legitimately exist as an ineffable understanding that, because there is no other name for it, people refer to as God. The origin of meaning, the architect of reality, the truth of truth, the identity of love. I once described the anatomy of God as being mathematics. Do any of these, or the others that I’ve mentioned here (‘God has all our dreams in mind’…remember that one) have some variety of rational objection? Of course not, they are all essentially incomprehensible metaphors….but, and it is not irrelevant, ALL of our vocabulary – scientific or otherwise – is ultimately incomprehensible metaphor. What ‘God’ provides, is the simple ability to approach the metaphor…and maintain sanity in relation to it (existence, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, is blatantly insane). This isn’t speculation…this sanity upon which all of our lives depend is nothing but a consequence of something we are all but utterly ignorant of. And the only thing greater than our ignorance, is our ignorance of our ignorance.

You are applying rational conventions to a primary concept. This, as I said earlier, is a category error. The primary concept is merely that, it exists outside of rational conventions. Obviously, rational ideas have been created to ‘enclose’ God because that is what people do, but the place of ‘God’ in people’s lives (and I’m obviously speaking generally here) is outside of rational concepts.

The mistake you are making is assuming that people take whatever rational concept you are referring to and create of it some equivalent ‘God’ for themselves. First of all, this assumes people are rational…and this is demonstrably false (people do not do anything rationally…let alone create a ‘God’ in such a manner). Second, ‘God’ is nothing more than a placeholder for many believers. People don’t seek ‘God’ in their concept of ‘God’, however it is arrived at. Quite the opposite….by definition. People seek ‘God’ outside of every concept of everything (and, though you may find it incomprehensible, they find it). That, by definition, is ‘God’, and quite reasonably should be as well given how dubious our definitions ultimately are.

I found this on one of the other threads: “Sometimes it's hard to explain abstract concepts in words, but how else to explain them?” Our primary condition is that of ‘abstract concepts’…not rationally intelligible concepts (what do we rationally understand anyway?....nothing! [kind of scary for the science-obsessed skeptic but it is indisputable]). ‘God’ is the ultimate ‘abstract concept’. Naturally people discuss it, sometimes more specifically and explicitly, sometimes less. You are assuming that because people discuss it, ‘it’ must therefore exist under the same conditions as all else that people discuss….which you assume to be some kind of explicit intellectual state (rationalization). First, that is incorrect (there are no explicit states…everything disappears behind a veil of abstraction [or, as the great SF writer Ursula K. LeGuin once put it “all our words are merely approximations of meaning”) and, second, ‘God’ is the ultimate ‘abstract concept’. The definition of ‘God’…according to many believers…is not comprehensible. It is, though, ‘experienced’… in as many ways and shapes and forms as there are believers (often in ways that are utterly ineffable…except in the sense that they are ‘of God’)…thus there is belief.

I'm not asking for a full description. I'm asking for a sufficient one. That's all.

This sums up the mistake of your position. You fully believe that you are capable of adjudicating any and all descriptions of God. You’re a human being. You don’t know what you are, you don’t know where you come from, you don’t know where you are, and you don’t know who you are. You didn’t create you, you don’t create you, and you don’t understand you. You live in a place that by whatever measures we are capable of comprehending is infinite in every dimension we can recognize as being one. The geography you occupy in this place is all but insignificant and you will be here for the equivalent of a blink of an eye (all, of course, metaphorically speaking).

….and yet, you are utterly convinced that you have sufficient ability to conclusively adjudicate the description of whatever it is that is, by definition, responsible for all this.

As David Fincher said, you’re in charge, you’re not in control.

But ignoring all that….I’ve presented you with a whole pile of ‘God conditions’….here and elsewhere. They may not ‘sufficiently’ describe God to you, but they sure do to a lot of believers.

So on what stone tablets is it written that God must be defined according to your ability to understand?

 

[Resume]

As David Fincher said, you’re in charge, you’re not in control.

As Voltaire said through Candide: "we must cultivate our own garden."

As Twain said through Huck Finn: "I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: 'All right then, I'll go to hell.' "

Literature is chock full of illuminating themes regarding free will, god, the supernatural. Why do you continue to quote only this Fincher fella? Oh and Attran? Have you read others?*

* By "read" I also mean watch YouTube videos.

 

[annnnoid]

As Voltaire said through Candide: "we must cultivate our own garden."

As Twain said through Huck Finn: "I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: 'All right then, I'll go to hell.' "

Literature is chock full of illuminating themes regarding free will, god, the supernatural. Why do you continue to quote only this Fincher fella? Oh and Attran? Have you read others?*

* By "read" I also mean watch YouTube videos.

Your rabid eagerness for an answer has convinced me…

‘This Fincher fella’ is David Fincher….the guy who directed The Social Network (Fight Club…Panic Room etc.)….one of the most, if not the most respected director in film today (not that it’s a competition…but the guy is a giant among giants…his movies are a mesmerizing exclamation of technical, artistic, and creative precision [but then there’s always Paul Thomas Anderson…and what isn’t there to say about Boogie Nights, Magnolia, or There Will Be Blood….searing stuff][...and there are others equally deserving...but does it really matter?]). Film, in case you haven’t heard, is all about one very simple thing (or very complicated thing….depending upon how you look at it): the verities of life. Human truth…in other words.

How many skeptics believe there is such a thing as human truth? Doesn’t get discussed much around here (a scary topic I suspect) but it is exactly that which all art, but film especially, is founded upon.

David Fincher summed up a fundamental feature of the human condition very accurately…so it’s just easier to dump everything on him than dig up anyone else. Anyway…he’s not dead yet. Lot’s of quotes are from dead folks. I don’t like to associate with dead folks.

As for Atran…(there are others I’ve quoted btw...), I just like him because in a room full of skeptics in a conference organized by skeptics for skeptics he had the balls to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Didn’t win him any friends there…but he didn’t care then, and I doubt that he cares now. He’s got credentials coming out his ying yang…he’s sharp as a diamond razor blade…and he’s very much respected.

Have you read others?*

….thousands. The best are always farthest from normal. One in particular.... but her remarks aren’t really fodder for a place like this (except, of course, obliquely).

 

[Resume]

Deleted

Hitchens death and a few drinks put me in a mood and I constructed a post unworthy of this forum. Apologies.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Non-cognitivism and mysticism*.

"You don't know what you are talking about."
"No, no you misunderstand. It is all totally incomprehensible."

Two of a kind. Really.



* I mean, once you leave out all the totally woo stuff.

 

[Belz...]

This sums up the mistake of your position. You fully believe that you are capable of adjudicating any and all descriptions of God. You’re a human being.

Your mistake is assuming that the reverse is true.

 

[tsig]

I hope the frustration of this thread passes and you will continue to post at JREF. It's tough having to live in the closet here (having to mask simple philosophical concepts to make them more palatable). Most people here would be fine with what you are saying if they could just get past some of their knee-jerk ick factor.

You don't mind making statements that imply that you have some deep insight into philosophical concepts that would be unpalatable here but you categorically refuse to discuss those concepts.

First you said that you have deep philosophical concepts that you have to mask to post here then you say you have no deep insights.

I did not say that. Simple and deep are not at all synonymous.

Right you are, you said we're to dumb to understand your simple concepts that you won't tell us what they are for fear of disagreement.

Are you really this desperate to fling your feces at me?

You threw it and I've been asking you what you meant by it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Your mistake is assuming that the reverse is true.

I don't think that is necessarily true. You just have to apply the proper filters. In reverse there is some kind of blahblah and it is not really rational anyway. *shrug*

 

[punshhh]

You still don't understand what I'm saying.

We don't have to put human intellect on a pedestal.

Regardless of our gifts and limitations, the simple fact is, if you and I are talking about something, rather than nothing or nonsense, then we have some idea of what it is.

If you're going to come to me with [this thing] is utterly inconceivable and incomprehensible and outside our universe and we couldn't recognize it if we encountered it, then all I can possibly say is that [this thing] is no thing at all and no one could possibly have a conversation about it.

But people have been talking about god and believing in god for some time now, so it can't be that, unless you just want to turn it into nothing, in which case we're back to having nothing to talk about.

Oh hello again Piggy its been a while.

By the way I do know what your saying and you're ignoring my definition of god. So if your going to tell me what my definition is at least remember what I said it was, ie an intelligent manipulator*. For which I have provided evidence, observable independent of human bias. The one response you did give to this definition was tainted by human bias.

To go beyond human bias you have to deal directly with principles observable in nature. However "Humpty Dumpty" they may at first appear.


* I have begun to use "manipulator" rather than "creator" because of ambiguity in definition.

 

[the PC apeman]

You threw it and I've been asking you what you meant by it.

Too bad that your recent egregious loaded question has lowered my estimate for the chance of a productive exchange even more than before. But I am willing to answer some Yes/No/Mu questions for a while to see how it goes. That's about the limit of my generosity with you at the moment.

 

[The Norseman]

By the way I do know what your saying and you're ignoring my definition of god. So if your going to tell me what my definition is at least remember what I said it was, ie an intelligent manipulator*. For which I have provided evidence, observable independent of human bias. The one response you did give to this definition was tainted by human bias.

Once again, you have not been able to provide a coherent, supportable definition of your god-concept.

I have begun to use "manipulator" rather than "creator" because of ambiguity in definition.

Here's a major flaw: you think you're being less ambiguous, but this illustrates the fact that you seem to treat "manipulator" and "creator" as essentially synonymous, thus bringing on more confusion because no one really knows what definition or word you'll decide to use next or conflate with whichever other term you happen across.

You do this and yet still expect people to think that you're actually providing a coherent and rational response.

 

[tsig]

Too bad that your recent egregious loaded question has lowered my estimate for the chance of a productive exchange even more than before. But I am willing to answer some Yes/No/Mu questions for a while to see how it goes. That's about the limit of my generosity with you at the moment.

In order for there to be a productive exchange both people have to bring something to the table.

So far other than insults and a condescending attitude you seem to have nothing.

 

[Complexity]

Oh hello again Piggy its been a while.

By the way I do know what your saying and you're ignoring my definition of god. So if your going to tell me what my definition is at least remember what I said it was, ie an intelligent manipulator*. For which I have provided evidence, observable independent of human bias. The one response you did give to this definition was tainted by human bias.

To go beyond human bias you have to deal directly with principles observable in nature. However "Humpty Dumpty" they may at first appear.


* I have begun to use "manipulator" rather than "creator" because of ambiguity in definition.

Nonsense. *

* This remark has been certified as being free from human bias

 

[Complexity]

Too bad that your recent egregious loaded question has lowered my estimate for the chance of a productive exchange even more than before. But I am willing to answer some Yes/No/Mu questions for a while to see how it goes. That's about the limit of my generosity with you at the moment.

Your remarks have been condescending (you poor 'philosopher', having to dumb it down for the rest of us!) and are neither appreciated nor valid.

There are many here who know a great deal more than you do about philosophy and who have respect for good work and contempt for that of the pretentious in any field.

Show us what you've got, but be aware that it may not be receive universal applause. I'll give you a fair hearing until you demonstrate that you don't deserve one.

That's about the limit of my generosity with you at the moment.

 

[the PC apeman]

There are many here who know a great deal more than you do about philosophy

I have no doubt of this. Those were not the people confused by the Intro to Philosophy concepts like substance.

That's about the limit of my generosity with you at the moment.

This isn't terribly relevant since I'm not asking anything of you.

 

[tsig]

I have no doubt of this. Those were not the people confused by the Intro to Philosophy concepts like substance.


This isn't terribly relevant since I'm not asking anything of you.

In order to get into Intro to Philosophy I have to agree that things I can't sense exist?

ETA: you haven't said any thing about these advanced concepts that will cause our poor brains to explode.

 

[Complexity]

In order to get into Intro to Philosophy I have to agree that things I can't sense exist?

ETA: you haven't said any thing about these advanced concepts that will cause our poor brains to explode.

He thinks that the use of arcane jargon indicates that advanced concepts are being discussed.

He is wrong.

 

[tsig]

...no, but Intro to Philosophy might give you some idea just how idiotic this statement is.

Does philosophy always lead to insults?