Sorry it took me some time to come back to you Roboramma.
Depending on what you mean here, I may agree with you - the idea that all of the answers about life can come from science is, obviously, ridiculous.
On the other hand, I don't know of anyone who suggests that, nor do I see what it has to do with reductionism.
Well, as I have said, I think everyone knows it is ridiculous but sometimes there seem to be posts which skirt perilously close to that view. I think it is, as Ichneumonwasp suggests, that sometimes people overstate the role of science when they are correcting problems they perceive. I do think it is reductionist, but as I have stated many times I think it does not actually represent the views of those posters: indeed usually this can be seen by reading more of their comments.
To go on with what you say here, I'd like to see more of those kinds of discussions here. Less attacking the idiocy we see in the world, more exalting the beauty. But the latter certainly happens, and is a large part of what drew me to this community.
I think we need both. It is important for groups to identify what draws them together, and insofar as the people who post here are a group it is legitimate to use shorthand and simplification when talking to each other. I think that is not helpful when talking to folk who do not share core perceptions, however, and there are many who post here who do not. I value attempts at addressing the points raised in all their complexity, because I think there are many different points of view even amongst the self-identified sceptics. Some of the people who post here are very good at helping me to see aspects of issues which I have missed or have not seen as relevant. I really value that. And I agree with you that I would like to see more positive discussion of the sceptic position and what it can give us: rather than always concentrating on the negative of others' positions. That sometimes seems rather sterile. The question of inspiration was raised. I think human beings need that and I think that a sceptic/atheist position can provide it as much as any other system of thought. Sometimes I think we do not let that be seen very much and I think that is a pity
Again, I can agree with that, with an addendum - there is an experience of beauty and wonder when seeing a rainbow that exists separate from the understanding of what it is. On the other hand, there is a second experience of wonder that can come from that understanding.
This can, of course, be true of "false understanding" - people who believe the rainbow is a sign from god, for instance, can have intense feelings of wonder brought on by that. But the truth, in my opinion, is equally amazing.
Absolutely. I certainly did not mean to say that understanding what it is is not amazing. As you say, I merely wished to identify what Blauregen called the "exaltation" which arises from such phenomena independent of that understanding. That exaltation is there whether one understands it or not.
Sure.
Similarly I can get a sense of awe from reading Kipling, without thinking that Mogli was a real child, or that wolves can, in fact, talk. There can be something truly amazing about fictional worlds, but I can have that amazement without thinking that they are real.
Yes. I do not think literal belief is in question here.
And there are ideas from such worlds - things like honour or compassion, strength or sacrifice - that do have some real existence. I can find those things, for instance, in The Lord of the Rings without thinking that Galdalf really was a living, breathing, wizard.
Yes.
In other words, none of this requires believing in things that aren't true.
I agree. But clearly some do not, since it is being argued that such things as honour etc cannot be "true". This is the fundamental point of disagreement, surely. If you believe them to have a "real existence" (as I do) you are believing in things that are not true, by the definition proposed by some here. That definition is, for me, too narrow, for the reasons you give. That is what I am calling reductionist. To me that is the essence of this debate.
And I agree that those can be very valuable. But what I think is valuable about them is the parts of them that are true. Moreover, I think that the false parts can either be overlooked, or are dangerous.
I agree. But again the opposing argument appears to be that there are no parts of such things that are "true"
We have in our culture stories of historical figures that are considered heroic. Yet they were just human beings. The heroism of them - in some cases very real - was certainly tempered by flaws. In our cultural stories we hold those people up as examples, and I think that's valuable, and can be inspired by them, but on the other hand it's also very important to realise that we are all just people - there are no demi-gods among us.
To truly believe such demi-gods (as I call them) exist, people without flaws, leaders who can solve all of our problems, leads to cults of personality. I consider that dangerous. On the other hand, to recognise that great people of the past were great, to hold them up as an example to aspire toward, and yet understand that they had flaws, is I think very valuable.
I would go further. I think that the idea of the hero in our culture is always dangerous and always to be resisted. What I find inspiring is that ordinary people can do extraordinary things and think extraordinary thoughts. But it is the actions or the ideas which are important. From time to time a biography is produced which brings out the flaws in some celebrity. It happened with Philip Larkin, for example.There usually follows a debate about whether character flaws of a major kind should affect our attitude to the work. How could they? Is it possible to believe that there are people who are great in every aspect of their lives? Does racism or sexism or a proclivity to pull the wings off flies render a great poem worthless? It is infantile. I think the solution is to take what is good or inspiring and separate it from the producer. I do not aspire to be like a "great" person: but I can aspire to some of their ideas and ideals and that is what counts
Sure, I think that religion though can be a good example of the problems with using falsehood to "exalt us". What is valuably inspirational about religion is true - even if it is an abstract truth derived from a false story. What's dangerous about it is the falsehood treated as literal truth.
That's why I say that it's better to whittle away the falsehoods, or at least to recognise them as such - as metaphors for instance.
Again I agree. But again there are those who deny that anything about religion is, or even can be, true.
It is an illusion if you mean that it isn't perfectly true, or true all of the time. On the other hand it's more true of science than it could be. I don't think that holding up an ideal and knowing that it isn't perfectly practiced is a bad thing, or that it constitutes believing in a falsehood.
If there were no truth in it at all - either in it's practicality or usefulness - then it would be a reason to discard it.
I mean - why do you think it's a good illusion?
My purpose in bringing up the ideal of freedom of research was to show it is exactly the same type of "illusion" as the others which were mentioned as inspiring. As I said, I think those illusions are necessary to us and they have value. It
is more true of science than it could be. In part it is more true
because we have the illusion. It is an aim/ideal which we can articulate and we can argue for and defend when it competes with other conflicting ideals. It is not in itself "scientific". But without it it would be harder to resist attacks on academic freedom, since we would not have a "story" to tell about why that is an important value. Like your "heroes" it does not exist in objective form, and that is why I call it illusion: but that does not make it unimportant. And it does not make it false, even though it does not actually refer to anything in the real world. Once again there are those who would say it is false because it has no "objective" existence. And that is what I am disagreeign with, Not sure if that is any clearer. I am trying
I sort of agree with you here - it makes sense to have ideals that can never be achieved. On the other hand, that doesn't preclude knowing that they can't be acheived. Given that, how is aspiring toward those ideals believing in a falsehood?
If I draw a circle on a piece of paper, taking care to make it as round as possible, am I believing in an illusion because it is impossible for me to make a perfect circle? I don't think so - I know I can't make it perfect, but do my best regardless. My knowledge of the impossibility of my "dream" here doesn't detract from my ability to use my "dream" as something to which to aspire.
As I said: for me it is not. But those who are debating me deny that an ideal can be "true". I am not entirely sure if that necessarily implies it is false and I do not wish to attribute that simple dichotomy if it is not what they mean. What I think you are missing is the fact that it is the ideal itself which they deny as "true" or capable of being "true". Whether you know it is unattainable is somewhat secondary and does not answer the objection being raised. At least that is how it seems to me
Edit: If I disagree with anything it's the implication that I found in the opening post that it is useful to believe in falsehoods. I can actually accept that there are times when it
is but in general I don't think it is. I'm not sure if you are saying this Fiona, and if not I don't think I disagree with you - rather I probably misinterpretted you. Anyway, I'll find out if you reply to my post.
I am not advocating belief in falsehoods and I hope that is clearer now. I am saying that there is more than the very narrow version of "true" which has been proposed. As I understand you post you agree with me that such things as "compassion" can be "true" and can be valuable to us. I do not think we are disagreeing really but if I misunderstand then I will be interested to hear more
