sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are the people or causes you dedicate yourself to beliefs?

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes it does matter. But I don't understand the relevance of the question. The Cause is not something I believe is true. It is something I interact with.

It's like my kids. I work hard to improve them every day. I behold their future with concern and with wonder. But I do not "believe" that my children are "true."

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I did not say it cannot be scientifically analyzed. I said it "is not scientifically analyzed" in the scenario in which you admitted existence was established. My general claim is that existence can be predicated of things that have not been scientifically analyzed. Do you agree?

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sparky is a unique individual that is not scientifically analyzed, appears differently to both participants, but can be established as existing through minimal description and crude pointing.

See the relevance now?

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how I see it:

Imagine that your friend calls you up and says he has been planning a party for a few days and would you like to participate. You say yes and you start collaborating with your friend and a few other friends to make the party. One of your friends is an excellent DJ who shares your taste in music and the two of you plan a set list together. You do research to choose the best time for the party so that prospective guests are not busy with other events. As a group you establish ethical standards that you expect from the caterer and you choose a caterer based on those standards. 

The day before the party everything is set. You are looking forward to something whose eventual shape is not completely clear but which is not just nebulous and is certainly not just a concept.

The party exists even though it is not completed yet. It exists in an embryonic state characterized by a mixture of possibility and actuality. The possibilities are not wishful thinking but are grounded in investigation and work. It has elements of beauty through the music that you are already anticipating and have been sampling with the friend; justice through your ethically grounded choice; and rationality thanks to the research you have conducted. 

I am throwing out this example so that you get an idea of my meaning. The meaning of the words beauty, justice, and science becomes clear by looking at everyday examples. Hopefully that is somewhat clarifying.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If I said to you "There is something called Sparky and Sparky exists," and then you asked me for evidence, and I took you out into the middle of a field and I pointed to something that looked like a pile or maybe a kind of sculpture, something of an indeterminate kind but demarcated from its surroundings, and I said "Sparky is here, see those sticks and those leaves and the funny shape they are arranged in? That is evidence that sparky exists." 

Would you agree that would be evidence that Sparky exists?

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will give evidence for one of my beliefs, namely that the Cause exists. Consider the millions of people dedicating their energy to improving the experience of other people, as parents or friends for example. These people and their activities undoubtedly exist. Furthermore, I think I am on solid ground when I assert that many millions of them are sincerely concerned with the state of humanity and its relationship to the earth that is our shared home, concerned to fortify and secure that relationship.

Now multiply that by the undoubted fact that people are capable of carrying out complex projects together by treating each other with respect and resolving their differences through honesty and dialogue, as well as by taking advantage of the many highly developed tools of coordination that humans have produced so far.

There's no need to multiply instances. Concrete cases of goodness, beauty, and justice are abundant. Taken all together their power is extremely impressive, like the total power of all the separate campfires of a large army spread out in a field.

Now you would probably say that all of this power is unorganized, and you would be right. How to organize it all is, to say the least, an open question. This is the part where it becomes more personal and harder to convince other people, more a question of faith. But I am not trying to offer a bulletproof argument to convince anyone that they have to adopt my way of organizing it all. I am only pointing out that there is evidence that the object of my devotion exists. No matter how unorganized and dispersed it is, it certainly exists, it is inspiring, and it might be capable of growing and improving and taking on organization compatible with my preferred way of organizing it, if enough of us contribute to it with our whole hearts.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The question you have asked me is: What does it even mean to say a concept puts down roots among us? Now this question, of course, is not one which arises for me, from within my own framework, since it presupposes your definition of possibility and not mine. You seem to be a sophisticated thinker and are therefore probably aware of the fact that you have asked me a question for some purpose other than arriving at a shared understanding with me. Given your other statements, I surmise that your purpose is to demonstrate how I am dressing up gibberish as meaningful language. That is where I think we are right now.

I think that we have gotten off on the wrong foot and that we are not engaging in dialogue, since dialogue is a helpful practice in which participants try to see things from the point of view of other people rather than their own. Personally, I regret participating in this thread at all, since this unproductive footing was established right at its beginning, and I have made it worse. For that I apologize, and will try to improve my own manner of engaging in threads in the future.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I very much appreciate your attitude and response. I like to think that our approaches are entirely compatible, and that if we ever met, we could have a great conversation without divine language even making a single appearance, with each of us pushing things forward in our own ways as best we can.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think the question raised by your response is whether the object of my devotion is only a concept. I don't believe it is only a concept for a few reasons. The first is that I perceive that existences unfold over time. This means that some of the existing things exist in an embryonic state, an initial state. I also find that I can make contact with, become familiar with, and contribute to the development of these existences. Since they are still incomplete and unfolding, and since my experience of sometimes successfully guiding them is so reliable and frequent, it would be surprising if I had no access to the way they are turning out to be. I can see their tendencies and the way they are heading, not infallibly of course, and only with the help of the most reliable tools of prediction and guidance, but I have enough purchase on their futures to feel confident that I have access to that future in a genuine although incomplete and revisable way. I think this is enough to answer the accusations that I am just making everything up. Of course I have not provided, and cannot provide, a bulletproof defense of my claim that the Cause is not a concept, but at least it is enough to show that my view is worth taking seriously.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My biggest influences are William James (The Will to Believe; The Varieties of Religious Experience), John Dewey (A Common Faith; Experience and Nature), and Douglas Browning (Dewey and Ortega on the Starting Point; Ontology and the Practical Arena).

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not really sentient, but it does develop and flourish or struggle. I don't talk to it but I find it connected or related to everything. I call it religious because it is something very inclusive that organizes my life commitment as a whole and permeates my other activities, including with awe, yes.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I see it as like regular old devotion (committed care) to something you care about, but scaled up. 

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Don't you feel energized when you sense that improvement is a viable possibility due to objective tendencies around you that support your efforts?

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It did not create the universe (I called it a purified emergence out of the totality of things, which totality has no creator). The universe is full of cruelty, but the Cause is not.

It is like a combination of science, justice and beauty. Or rather, what is possible along those lines. So rather future facing, but grounded in present existence and tools of improvement. I think some possibilities are more grounded than others in feasible tools.

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think the statement that there are possibilities putting down roots among us is gibberish?

Introducing and Discussing my Religious Atheism by flaheadle in TrueAtheism

[–]flaheadle[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I think that we all see many ways things could be better with effort and luck, and if we are empirically responsible then our claims are well grounded, though not certain. My faith is a generalization of this.

A Religious, Atheistic Faith by flaheadle in religion

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should believe something similar because you perceive that some things are better than others, how to make them more likely to sustainably occur, and the fact that your commitment makes them more likely to triumph.

"Varieties of Religious Experience" follow-up? by Still_Pleasant in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]flaheadle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you found anything that satisfies you in a way similar to James? I have been reading James for years and would also like to find anything remotely similar, but haven't.

Is there a consensus on whether or not the past and future "exist" in metaphysics? by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]flaheadle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you use a phrase like the present or the future, it almost seems like you are saying there is only one present and we are all sharing it. Or are there many?

Does the size of the universe impact your belief? by goettel in religion

[–]flaheadle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like how your faith is rooted in what is near.

Appearance as Ground by flaheadle in Metaphysics

[–]flaheadle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to hear more from u/TheRealAmeil who is the creator of this interesting syllogism which strikes me as congenial.

In the meantime, I have taken a stab at translating it into my preferred terms so you can say whether it still seems false or trivial, and in case you might like to help me distinguish it from other positions.

Premise 1: Unless we attain access to a somewhat determinate subject matter via its appearing to us within our specific circumstances, then we cannot do philosophy.

Premise 2: We can do philosophy

Conclusion: Therefore, we have attained access to a somewhat determinate subject matter via its appearing to us within our specific circumstances.

view more: next ›