To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[punshhh]

If only you were able to cope with reading stuff that requires more than 140 words and a few minutes of concentration I would have told you to go buy some SIMPLIFIED series books on biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, anthropology, sociology and history, also perhaps psychology, and study some real world practical stuff. I think you would find some good answers eventually for how Wishful Thinking for WOO is not really a good way to search for a purpose.

I am well aware of what is written in these books, it is irrelevant to this question. Although there is evidence in there for the principle of purpose in nature. Perhaps it does not only occur in the living organisms we are acquainted with.

But I really think that maybe you should be searching for purpose in reality rather than WOO!

Already doing it.

 

[punshhh]

What exactly is an "idealist realm" is that the same as the "principle of purpose".... or is it some kind of really good kingdom like say Camelot?

Lol. Who knows, although if we are in an idealist universe, I expect there would be artefacts of it in our known world.

Do you have evidence for this "other realm" of Camelot other than Wishful Thinking Woo... will Merlin apparate into this non-idealist realm and help us navigate to this "idealist realm" and teach us the rudiments of the "principle of purpose"?

Philosophically an idealist realm and a materialist realm would be identical working from the world we find ourselves in. It would be impossible to distinguish between them. The world we find ourselves in is evidence of whatever realm we happen to be in. Unfortunately there is nothing else to compare it with to determine the reality of the issue.
The principle of purpose is a philosophical object, ie there is a process and reality of purposes occurring in nature. This is evidenced in its use by intelligent agents such as living organisms.

 

[wea]

Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher). (Karl Popper, 1975)

 

[wea]

The principle of purpose is a philosophical object, ie there is a process and reality of purposes occurring in nature. This is evidenced in its use by intelligent agents such as living organisms design.

sorry, couldn't resist

 

[punshhh]

Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher). (Karl Popper, 1975)

Realism is usefull in life. Not for answering philosophical questions about our existence.

 

[tsig]

To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

This thread is created due to the ongoing conversation in the thread called

Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

That thread is dealing with a subject/argument which comes up from time to time.

The claim is "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial" and I and others took the position that it wasn't a true claim.

My last post in that thread was made just before I had to go to work and in it I made the observation that "the question is a loaded one".

The question under scrutiny is "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" and is related to the claim "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial".


The argument continues of course, but I spent all morning thinking about the question and is it really a loaded question and if so, what is the better question, and is that just as loaded?

My thoughts evolved around these questions and I have come to the realization that the problem with the question has to do with belief.

But really, what has belief got to do with the question of god(s)?

By framing the question around belief, this only serves to separate individuals into 2 main categories, which are Theists and Atheists and thus every individual on the planet can be sorted into one or the other of these.

Q: Do you believe god(s) exist?

This is relevant only to certain types of atheists and theists, but not to anyone outside these types.
It assume and insists then that everyone has to be either/or and all else can then be a subset of these two main identifiers.

However, belief of any sort is not here nor there.

Personal belief of any sort is irrelevant. It might be precious to the believers, but that does not make belief relevant, or logical.

The correct question regarding god(s) existing or not should not be one involving belief or lack of belief.

The correct question therefore would be:

Q: Do you know god(s) exist or do not exist?

The possible answers therefore can be:

"I don't know" or "I do Know".

If "I don't know" then another question can be asked.

Q: Why don't you know?
A: Because I have found no way to know."

If "I do know" then another question can be asked.

Q:What way have you found this knowledge?
A: "_______________________________" < Place answer here.

Agnosticism is most likely not atheism in denial at all if the question was changed from a belief based one to a knowledge based one.
For that matter it most likely is not even a sub category of atheism, if the question wasn't framed around belief.

Believers constantly tell us that to 'believe in god' is just the same as to 'not believe in god' so why bother differentiating?

 

[punshhh]

sorry, couldn't resist

"Intelligent design" is a kind of evangelicalism I presume. I'm talking about ants building rafts to cross rivers and the like.

 

[wea]

I confess that was not fair

 

[punshhh]

I confess that was not fair

Its understandable though. It is not the first time that I have considered agency external to the system and been confused with intelligent design merchants. The difference is that I am a philosopher not a preacher.

 

[tsig]

Its understandable though. It is not the first time that I have considered agency external to the system and been confused with intelligent design merchants. The difference is that I am a philosopher not a preacher.

What's the difference?

 

[Leumas]

Its understandable though. It is not the first time that I have considered agency external to the system and been confused with intelligent design merchants. The difference is that I am a philosopher not a preacher.

What's the difference?

Newer Emperor's New Clothing, if you will, that requires less bogus invisible fabric and less time to fake tailor.

Since Intelligent Design is deliberately and cleverly disguised as a scientific theory it requires more than 140 words to debunk and one needs to spend more than a few minutes of concentration to read the scientific debunking details.

The AES "philosophizing" is nothing but linguistic legerdemain and semantic chicanery which one can dream up in a few minutes of wishful thinking while trying to feign a distinction from the already discredited and well disproven ID hypothesis.

Both however come under the category of using sleight of tongue and pen to put on a guise of respectability to the trite and well worn out god-did-it poppycock trying to peddle it off as a new product.

 

[punshhh]

Newer Emperor's New Clothing, if you will, that requires less bogus invisible fabric and less time to fake tailor.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about why you think, assert, that purpose is an artefact of the conditioned human mind and not applicable to the external world, apart from in a few animals.

Since Intelligent Design is deliberately and cleverly disguised as a scientific theory it requires more than 140 words to debunk and one needs to spend more than a few minutes of concentration to read the scientific debunking details.

Please don't debunk it here. I am in agreement with your position on intelligent design.

The AES "philosophizing" is nothing but linguistic legerdemain and semantic chicanery which one can dream up in a few minutes of wishful thinking while trying to feign a distinction from the already discredited and well disproven ID hypothesis.

Are you not aware of philosophy?

Both however come under the category of using sleight of tongue and pen to put on a guise of respectability to the trite and well worn out god-did-it poppycock trying to peddle it off as a new product.

It appears you are not aware.

 

[Leumas]

I noticed you didn't answer my question about why you think, assert, that purpose is an artefact of the conditioned human mind and not applicable to the external world, apart from in a few animals.

I apologise for not reading carefully your entire post. It does feel a bit like being hit around the head repeatedly with a punch bag. Are you actually shouting, or is it just the way you type?

It would take an hour or more to read everything you just asked me to read.

Perhaps if you could keep your responses brief and to the point a little more, I would be able to cope.

All you needed to say was that it is a belief based on practical realism.

There, just one sentence. You should know by now that I will pick up your meaning quickly, without the need for lengthy explanation.

The answer to your question requires some background knowledge which you apparently do not possess.

And building upon that knowledge an explanation can go on from there but it would require your attention for more than a few minutes concentration and you would need to read carefully a lot more than 140 words.

Since by your own admission you are incapable of reading posts carefully and since you assert that you cannot cope with any post with any substance to it more than a couple of sentences, it would be an utter waste of my time to even start to explain to you what you say you cannot cope with.

Are you not aware of philosophy?

It appears you are not aware.

What you are under the impression is philosophy is nothing but pure sophistry.

To be able to tell if something is one thing and not the other you have to know the characteristics of both to be able to distinguish between them.

You have somewhere along the line been duped and somehow been taught sophistry as if it were philosophy and never ever even been exposed to actual real philosophy.

That is why you think your sophistry is philosophy.

 

[Myriad]

I noticed you didn't answer my question about why you think, assert, that purpose is an artefact of the conditioned human mind and not applicable to the external world, apart from in a few animals.

The answer is similar to the reason why one may assert that plot and characterization are artifacts of the linguistic content of a novel, and not intrinsic to the ink the novel is printed in, the paper it's printed on, the press that printed it, or the shelf it resides on.

 

[punshhh]

The answer to your question requires some background knowledge which you apparently do not possess.

Appeal to authority.

And building upon that knowledge an explanation can go on from there but it would require your attention for more than a few minutes concentration and you would need to read carefully a lot more than 140 words.

This renders you mute does it?

Since by your own admission you are incapable of reading posts carefully and since you assert that you cannot cope with any post with any substance to it more than a couple of sentences, it would be an utter waste of my time to even start to explain to you what you say you cannot cope with.

Never mind

What you are under the impression is philosophy is nothing but pure sophistry.

To be able to tell if something is one thing and not the other you have to know the characteristics of both to be able to distinguish between them.

You have somewhere along the line been duped and somehow been taught sophistry as if it were philosophy and never ever even been exposed to actual real philosophy.

That is why you think your sophistry is philosophy.

So all philosophy is sophistry then? I thought so.

What about the philosophical analysis of empirical data, is that allowed?

 

[punshhh]

The answer is similar to the reason why one may assert that plot and characterization are artifacts of the linguistic content of a novel, and not intrinsic to the ink the novel is printed in, the paper it's printed on, the press that printed it, or the shelf it resides on.

Yes I'm aware of such notions. But this analogy is unsuitable because plots are by definition only found in novels. If this were not the case, I could suggest that the ink and paper are props in a bigger universal novel. I can't do this however without asserting a "novel" on a cosmic scale. Something which is classic anthropocentricism.

Purpose is different, it can be observed in the empirical data occuring external to the human mind. "Novels" can't be observed in the empirical data, without an implicit requirement/reference of the human mind to identify them.

 

[Myriad]

Purpose is different, it can be observed in the empirical data occuring external to the human mind.

It can? How so?

Events have effects (specialization of cells in colonies lead to improved survival; plants poison the atmosphere with oxygen creating a niche for animal metabolism; asteroid kills dinosaurs; all eventually contributing to the subsequent existence of homo sapiens). But how is objective non-human purpose detected or measured amid all that?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Purpose is different, it can be observed in the empirical data occuring external to the human mind.

Please provide examples of "purpose" other than that of biological imperative necessitated by evolutionary success (survival) or humanities' own version of same.

 

[Leumas]

Also purposes may well be a kind of substrate(material) in another realm. An idealist realm for example.

Your assertion that the principle of purpose as understood by the human mind is not applicable to the external world is derisive.

Purpose is different, it can be observed in the empirical data occuring external to the human mind.

Please provide examples of "purpose" other than that of biological imperative necessitated by evolutionary success (survival) or humanities' own version of same.

It exists in the "idealist other realm" of Camelot... unfortunately Merlin has not yet aparated into our less than idealist "realm" to help us navigate to it.

But once we navigate there after having had enough instructions from Merlin into the rudiments of the "principle of purpose" we will be able to easily "observe the empirical data occurring external to the human mind" which shows clearly all of the "substrate purpose material".

 

[Elind]

Realism is usefull in life. Not for answering philosophical questions about our existence.

So, philosophy (thought) about reality is distinct from existence?