• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

[MEGA] God v.2

^ I agree with this post completely. Being a subscriber to scientism (i.e. entertaining the possibility of only those phenomena with robust scientific evidence behind them) is as much a personal choice as subscribing to any other metaphysical framework. It's completely axiomatic; you cannot PROVE that all phenomena that truly exist are knowable to human science. But nor has scientism ever been falsified either, and that and its usefulness as a very good bullshit filter makes it attractive to people who have no motivation to favor any other metaphysical framework. But at the end of the day, the world as it presents to us does not force scientism.
 
ebola? said:
Briefly, 'god' is the background of conditions of possibility out of which we, the actual, emerge. . .but god also encompasses the actual in determining it. . .but god doesn't 'exist', per se, as it's a configuration bounding the actual in terms of possibility.

So this position is both atheist and pantheist, as god is everywhere but also could be construed as a 'nonexistent' asymptotic 'limit' case, beyond the bounds of the system of which we're a part (ie, the actual universe) and the limits of our ability to discern (to adequately know the universe as a system, one'd need observe the universe from the outside, an imagined fiction for us). It then follows that 'god' cannot be captured by logics, as god is the precondition for such logics.
Click to expand...

very heideggerian of you :)
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
^ I agree with this post completely. Being a subscriber to scientism (i.e. entertaining the possibility of only those phenomena with robust scientific evidence behind them) is as much a personal choice as subscribing to any other metaphysical framework. It's completely axiomatic; you cannot PROVE that all phenomena that truly exist are knowable to human science. But nor has scientism ever been falsified either, and that and its usefulness as a very good bullshit filter makes it attractive to people who have no motivation to favor any other metaphysical framework. But at the end of the day, the world as it presents to us does not force scientism.
Click to expand...

Warning: goin' off on a little tangent here. :D Not exactly replying to you MDAO, more using your comments as a springboard to jump off of. :)

Well science is very unique as a conceptual entity, IMO, especially when compared with other academic disciplines: because its based on a fallacy that is not widely recognized.

Most people assume that because a concept can make consistent predictions, it is therefore "the truth". The apparent ability of science to systematically rank the validity of ideas is very attractive to many people, I think, because it offers a false sense of solid ground on which to brace reality. However, one only has to look back into history to see this notion as inherently fallacious.

For instance, Kepler developed a remarkably accurate system for predicting the orbits of the planets around the sun. A system which we now know to be completely inaccurate theoretically, but perfectly capable of making good predictions. So its easy to see how "scientific evidence" is only slightly less bullshit than other completely 'unproven' bullshit. :D

However, this is not the way science is popularly percieved; for many people, scientific proof is akin to saying "this is the way it is!". Though history is pock-marked with evidence that this is clearly not the case.

And even today, in an age of unprecedented technological advancement, plenty of currently widely accepted scientific theories are iffy at best. Take for instance, the Standard Model of particle physics-- or the periodic table of the elements. Both of which are essentially board games that we play with ourselves in order to make predictions. They work on paper and in the laboratory, but still fail to explain much about the way things really are.

These two concepts are good examples, because they are both highly analogous concepts, and they also fly in each other's face. Chemistry's periodic table was seen by many as being "the way it is" as far as matter is concerned, but it turned out later that there was more going on, so another "game" had to be invented to explain yet more aberrant observations, thus reigning them back into the scope of prediction.

Scientism is, IMHO, a great example of how people think about a concept as outsiders to the concept. If you spend your time actually doing science, it becomes apparent quite quickly that there is far more to reality than can be explained through such crude means.

At its core, science really is an incredibly blunt and crude tool. In fact, the very nature of scientific genius is uncompromising stupidity: one must simplify enormously complex systems down to a level that can be understood by the limited human mind, while still retaining the essence of the fundamental relationships inherent to those systems. Its just the act of drawing rigid boxes around concepts that are inherently squirmy and nebulous; sure it makes prediction much easier, but it gets us no closer to understanding reality in any type of meaningful way.

Well now that I've gone and typed it up, I'm unsure as to whether I've actually said anything in this post. :D I'm just kicking a few ideas around, because I spend so much time surrounded by the concept of 'Science', its occurred to me that humanity has very little idea of what science actually even is-- or what it means, to be more precise. IMO, scientism is a great example of this confusion prompting people towards a dogmatic extreme.

Don't get me wrong, I think the natural sciences are very important. But they're not inherently superior to any other way of understanding the world, they are imperfect abstract representations of reality just like all the other various forms into which academic thought has congealed. If I'm trying to say anything, maybe I'm trying to say that we are all full of shit. :D Humans are just too dumb not to be, because our minds cannot comprehend the infinite complexity of reality. So maybe we should stop arguing about "the way things are", and instead start worrying about what concepts work to make people's lives happier and thus make the world a better place to exist. :)
 
Roger&Me, your last paragraph rings true with me. I take a very pragmatist / utilitarian approach to truth: what's true equals what works. I like this pragmatist definition of truth because it gives due weight to subjective experience and to what's known as 'common sense': if a statement is true to your firsthand experience of the world, you are in a position to deem it 'true', full stop. We all do this anyway. This doesn't give you a free pass to close your mind to new experiences, including those that might call into question what previously seemed like something you could hang your hat on. But it does acknowledge that consistency builds certainty, and both are in the eye of the beholder.

If someone tells me he believes in God because God speaks to him directly, I'm not going to immediately whip out my pad and prescribe him risperdone. I'm open to the possibility that some of us are privy to genuine realms of experience that are not a part of what we call consensual reality, and there's only something there to be 'fixed' if the person is having obvious troubles navigating life.
 
^ but would Risperdal really fix the person or would it just be a pharm band-aid that might do more harm than good.

peace,
seedless
 
Band-aid. It just makes functioning in life a little more possible. It actually worsens the flat mood of schizophrenia and the depressive phase of bipolar, in a lot of cases. But at least it stops delusions and hallucinations.
 
If someone tells me he believes in God because God speaks to him directly, I'm not going to immediately whip out my pad and prescribe him risperdone. I'm open to the possibility that some of us are privy to genuine realms of experience that are not a part of what we call consensual reality, and there's only something there to be 'fixed' if the person is having obvious troubles navigating life.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. When I pray "God" answers me. Whether you want to call it "God" or "My higher power" is a matter of choice. To me they are one in the same. The highest part of me IS God, IS the universal consciousness, ever since I was a child I was able to "tap into" this... force.. this consciousness, this light, that didn't feel like "me".. It feels like looking backward down onto my ego mind and seeing little me there, living her life. And from within this higher place, I can see things that I can't always see from within my ego mind. I call this connecting to God, some might call it meditating or nirvana or other words. But it's all the same thing!

It would sadden me if people thought that was a "hallucination" just because they hadn't experienced it themselves. When I go to that place, I get love, healing, answers to my problems. If that's a hallucination, it's a pretty cool one. :D From within that place, I've seen God, or my definition of it anyway, and it's beautiful. I just wish people could see that you don't need any particular religion to connect to that; it's inside us all.
 
You can't tell me God doesn't exist and I can't tell you he does, well actually - we can say those things - but simply saying that wouldn't make us believe each other would it?

You're allowed to have your complaint - and others are allowed to preach at people, even if you think they shouldn't. But I don't think you don't have a right to complain either.

If believing in God makes people happy, then so be it, IMO. I've heard people explain people who get off drugs and onto God as 'replacing one crutch with another' - who cares tho really, if they want a life without drugs and having that kind of life is possible with believing in God in their case - good for them. I don't see any harm there. Sure people get subjected to bible bashing here and there - and there are people who believe in God who don't preach and bible bash - because they respect other's beliefs etc - but you never hear from those people do you?

I know you said your not anti religion etc, and I'm not saying you are - just another angle I thought I'd put out there...

Cheers,

Coopie
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
Band-aid. It just makes functioning in life a little more possible. It actually worsens the flat mood of schizophrenia and the depressive phase of bipolar, in a lot of cases. But at least it stops delusions and hallucinations.
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge proponent of psychology, but I've been told there is good evidence that delusions can be resolved cognitively in many cases. I haven't researched the matter myself; it would probably be an interesting thing to look into.

It's probably not common in the medical community to suggest such a route, but if the evidence turns out to look sound, it would probably be better for the person's health in the long run than maintaining them on risperdal.

It seems contrary to the Hippocratic oath to prescribe a patient such a drug without at least trying some less abrasive alternatives before deciding to continue the patient on the medication long-term.

But that's another matter for another thread entirely. :)
 
^ Indeed. There are healthy, functional people who hear voices or see things other people don't see, or swear they receive messages telepathically or are privy to some sort of secret knowledge. And if they're fine with these experiences, and the experiences don't get in the way of them holding down jobs, maintaining normal social relationships, or staying with the bounds of the law and socially acceptable behavior, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem to fix. Maybe these people truly are tuned in to things most of us aren't, or have a gift. Perhaps their experiences are an effect of brains that work differently than most people's. Or maybe both. But that's not for me to say -- I'm not a philosopher of mind or a psychologist. I'm just a physician.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
^ Indeed. There are healthy, functional people who hear voices or see things other people don't see, or swear they receive messages telepathically or are privy to some sort of secret knowledge. And if they're fine with these experiences, and the experiences don't get in the way of them holding down jobs, maintaining normal social relationships, or staying with the bounds of the law and socially acceptable behavior, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem to fix. Maybe these people truly are tuned in to things most of us aren't, or have a gift. Perhaps their experiences are an effect of brains that work differently than most people's. Or maybe both. But that's not for me to say
Click to expand...


Telepathy does happen - not that I'm claiming to posses any of the virtues mentioned by MDAO it does occur tho.
 
I believe in something, but it will never be "God".

Every day as my mind takes in more and more knowledge from past historical findings my thoughts have moved farther astray from any type of common belief found in this world.

I don't believe that there is no "God" per se because this word is way too vague for me. When one says they believe in God, it means nothing to me. So you believe that some power governs this world? Do you believe that some power governs this galaxy? Universe? It all just has collided together forming a bunch of rubbish that I dare not listen to any "believers" opinion no more. The idea that a single entity can control all at once is not far-fetched, but the evidence is nowhere to be found.

I'm currently only the age of 19 and have an infinite amount of studies to be done on such a touchy and "faith" based subject. Simply the idea that one can regard the bible as god's will or whatever bullshit one might call it is the most laughable idea to me. So in this universe, what are we, one light year from our sun? What is the radius in light years of this galaxy? Billions? At least millions. So you believe that we are infinitely lucky that "God" sent us these various pieces of work to one out of an infinite amount of planets out there?

I'd rather not type any more because I could go on forever. But this is an interesting discussion that I'd love to hear other people's point of views off of this one touchy subject.

I hope my opinion isn't hurtful to others beliefs, but I feel the need to express a base of abstract thought.
 
At least your thinking outside the box. Dont give up, theres definately more to this universe than earth and humans.
 
Wrong. We are one astronomical unit from are sun. Much smaller of a unit. Light takes about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, not a year.
Click to expand...

correct
149, 597, 870.7 kilometers
92,955,887.6 miles

Ofcourse the biblical, grey bearded, cloud dwelling god is a silly concept. But we are just too primitive to come to any conclusions on a scale the size of 'god'. Existance and life could be a mere coincidence or it could be a science experiment performed by highly advanced beings or anything in between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top