i'd really like to hear how this response has anything whatsoever with what i posted. i have to think you're smart enough to know that i was being sarcastic, so the best, most reasonable way to see your response is that you're trolling. so i guess we can establish that you have some issue with the former Cardinal R, or is it Catholics in general or the Catholic Church? i'm not a Catholic, never have been. i think it's scandalous how they ignore the pedophile priests, and i don't think the money they have paid out to the victims balances the score. but that has nothing to do with whether there is a god or whether he loves you. you can't stop him from loving you. and the amazing part is that he knows even better than anyone what prats we all are. except you, of course. you're a shining star.
I have been a member of Bigsoccer since 1999, I do most of my posting in MLS and USA national team. I didn't even know that there was a Sprituality Forum till a few years ago. So I mean that I have only been posting in this forum for a short time... but you tried to make me some uber-conspirator-evangelist. If you don't like it, don't read the thread. Other people enjoyed it and it started some interesting conversation, then after some 30 pages you drop by. A day late and a dollar short. The USA won the group. England looked listless most of the tourney.
I don't believe in Geocoaches any more than I believe in the non-sense of Flying Spaghetti Geocoahces.
But, I didn't say anything that you are accusing me of. If I did, prove it. I would respond to the Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis if I thought you were serious and not a troll.
I thought you'd say that. But I don't believe that to assume the existence of God is an error. I think Spinoza saw it very clear, how God fits in with the universe. Much more clear than I see it, actually. No, we have not established it. You have established it and I don't agree. I think it's clear from reading his writings -even though I fear they must lose a bit in translation- that by substance Spinoza means reality. But he did not mean physical reality, the only reality that a materialist sceptic such as you can accept. And that is precisely where his view is different from that of the materialist. He accepts the material, and yet sees so much more. His view is so much bigger than that of the materialist. Because, he doesn't limit reality to the material. I think he means substance as in essence. Beyond the physical imprints. Anyway, that is what I get from him. And yet Spinoza does understand the material laws as essential to the universe and to reality, which of course is a concept that humans in general see much more clearly in the 21st Century than they did during his time. In fact, he may have been a big influence in getting people to see it. As he sees it, substance-reality exists beyond the material but does not contradict the material. I agree with that. That is why his point of view -conceptually, not necessarily in all the details- is ageless, it does not contradict anything science may discover. That is what appeals to me. Spinoza is a great thinker because he reconciles my inner understanding of God and of reality with my rational belief in science and all the great discoveries that we as humans have made about our physical universe. And he does it in a very rational way. His thoughts build on Descartes, but there is so much more to Spinoza compared to Descartes. And it's amazing how his ideas do pass the test of time. Actually I dissagree with Spinoza on these ideas. I think he is arguing as a monist. I do think the mind is a different entity, which inhabits the body, as I said before. But I nevertheless find his theory fascinating and appealing, and if I was to accept monism, I'd say his monism would be the one that would make the most sense to me. And your last sentence of course I don't agree with. It makes sense to you, but it does not make sense to me at all. Of course, I believe that the mental state is not a product of the physical state. If there is one thing I believe with certainty is that I do exist, meaning my self, my intelligence, my will. And by that I mean I am not just a process of my body. Everything else -when it comes to metaphysics- I doubt. I believe in deity, but I also doubt the idea of deity, I believe I will outlast my body, but I also have doubts about the idea that I will outlast my body. But the one thing I don't doubt is myself I know the self, I know I exist. I know that there is a me who thinks, knows, understands, argues, a self who is independent, has free will, and who may or may not outlast my physical body, but nevertheless is so much more than mere chemical reactions in the brain caused by my physical body. I don't see where you're going with the problem of variability, or why it would render his ideas almost certainly false. And again, do I believe in the material universe, in the material laws, and in all that has been discovered through science and inductive thinking. So did Spinoza. I don't think he'd find a contradiction in the new discoveries that we have made since his time. Spinoza saw in these things the evidence for the existence of God. I don't see it as clear as he did, but I see the possibility. Great possibility. It does make a lot of sense to me. We know that there was a Big Bang that started the material universe. I believe it, based on the latest science. I don't believe it's inconsistent with Spinoza's thoughts, because Spinoza's "substance" is not the product of the Big Bang. Although, I personally am not closed to the possibility of finite deity that may have started with the Big Bang. It's just that it doesn't necessarily have to be so, and the infinite substance does make more sense to me. As far as Spinoza, I think the whole idea of Multiverse would fit very well with his views. But I guess you'd say that since we cannot practically see it and measure it, Multiverse is also an irrational idea, as surely as dualism of the mind is irrational and deity is irrational. I get why you think that way, but I just don't see things that way. And I think this Big Bang comment illustrates the difference between you and me and the way we think. It is not that I am right and you are wrong, or vice-versa. It's how we see the same thing, and yet see it differently. You see the Big Bang theory and its likelihood -of course based on certain assumptions, but nevertheless logical assumptions-, and it leads you to believe that the "extension" didn't exist. I see the big bang theory and it's likelihood -again accepting certain logical assumptions- and yet I see that I don't have to accept that Spinoza's "extension" didn't exist. What I see is a great mystery behind the Big Bang. Maybe Multiverse, maybe something else. I see a great mystery behind the beginning of Time, just as I see a great mystery beyond the limits of Space. Just as I see a great mystery in my own existence, as a sentient being, and I see a great mystery in deity. I value and I believe the rational explanations for the beginnings of the material universe and for the amazingly regular movements of nature. I wonder at such things, I am grateful that I live in times in which so much has been discovered about our natural universe and its origins. But I also see beyond that which has been discovered, and sense that there is more, much more to life, to the universe, and to myself. Maybe you will think that this is irrational. That's cool, I realize you wont be moved, you are like a strong tree planted with deep roots on a few basic assumptions, and you reject other possibilities as irrational. I sense you cannot be moved from there. And hey, nothing wrong with that. It is not my intention to move you. To put it another way, as the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi said, "A frog in a well cannot be talked to about the sea". His point is, the frog in the well limits his reality to what he can see in the well, because he exists in the well, he cannot accept anything else. Now, to use Zhuangzi's analogy, if "the sea" represents my metaphysical beliefs, I guess I can tell you that I can hear the calling of the sea, and that I can sense the sea, but I also admit that I cannot see the sea clearly, and cannot explain it clearly. I admit that. So, what happens is that others who also hear the sea calling and can sense it, or perhaps who can see it clearer than I can see it, hear what I say, and understand what I'm saying. They know exactly what I'm talking about, because they experience it too. But to those who do not hear its calling of the sea, or who cannot sense it, who don't see any reason to seek the sea, because it may not exist, my comments will not make sense. The frog in the well knows very well what he believes. He limits himself to the well, but he throughly studies the well, because the well is rational. The well in my analogy is all the material world that we can make out for certain within the limits of our perceptions and with the help of science and inductive thinking. I guess I tried to explain how I see reality, as best as I could. But I accept that it is a mystery, and that my understanding is limited, so also my ability to explain it is limited. For some people, I suppose it will sound irrational, but not for others. I throughly enjoyed this discussion. I'll take a break from it for now, but I'll keep reading, I hope others are willing to add something more of value to the topic. Hopefully it will not devolve into the same old predictable clashes that other such threads have devolved into. And Benztown, thanks for indulging me and for taking the time to argue rationally, and for analyzing my posts and having the patience to go point by point and tell me where you disagree, doing so with a basic respect for my ideas, even though I do get the sense that you must believe I'm full of shit. Anyway, I want to quote the first post I made in this thread, because I do think it puts some perspective on this awesome discussion we've been having, a long discussion that I think did clearly confirm some of the points that I had brought up in that particular post. Cheers!
No, what he did was to actually presuppose that god exists and went on from there. Not surprising when you look at the time he lived in. But unless you've been living under a rock for the last 300 years, you can't just presuppose the existence of god. His existence is in fact NOT established, and if that's the case, you can't build a logical argument on top of that. Yes, that's how I understand it as well. No, he doesn't see more, he presupposes more. Yes, that's why it's irrational. If you can't possibly test for it, you automatically get the problem of variability, leading to an infinite amount of equally valid yet contradicting conceivable beliefs. That's what I have tried to explain throughout the last couple of posts. I could easily vary his ideas, without having any consequences on the world as we experience it. For example, Spinoza claimed that god (the one substance) has an infinite amount of attributes, two of which are accessible to us. I could say, that god has just two attributes, or three, or four, or five, or six, etc... Each of these claims has absolutely the same amount of evidence going for it (zero), each of these claims is perfectly compatible with the world we live in as well as internally coherent and all of these claims contradict one another. So we have an infinity of claims, each of which we have to accept as equally likely and only one of which could be true (if that). So the probability of any one of these claims being true (including Spinoza's) is 1/infinity=>0 (at best). And that's just what you get when varying one single aspect of Spinoza's metaphysics. You can do the same with any unprovable assumption, like the assumption that there is only one god. I could just as well assume that there are two gods, or three, or four, etc... Anyway, David Deutsch makes a similar point in this video (which I already posted in the science thread). It's not exactly the same point I'm making, but he does explain the difference between good and bad explanations rather nicely: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A"]YouTube - David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation[/ame] No, Spinoza didn't, Spinoza didn't make an argument for god, he presupposed god and then made an argument for his metaphysics from there. This is speculation of course, but I'm sure that if Spinoza lived today, he'd be an atheist, because his entire worldview is dependent upon his presupposition of god existing which I'm sure he wouldn't be making today. And I didn't claim that to be. But it's obviously the origin of what Spinoza called "Extension". And this is not a matter of belief, but simply one of definition. Extension was defined by Spinoza to be everything that has a physical body, today we probably would interpret that as the physical world in general. But either way, neither of these things existed at the moment of the Big Bang (there wasn't even physical space where anything could extend into), so if the attribute of extension perfectly reflects the essence of the substance as Spinoza wrote, the substance could not have existed either. Thanks to the problem of variability I tried to explain above, I'm sure that Spinoza could easily have altered his metaphysics so that it could account for the Big Bang as well, had he known about it. But that's exactly the problem. That's what makes it irrational. A very good example is in fact the theology/metaphysics of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You probably consider that to be a waste of time, but actually it's not, it's a great demonstration of the irrationalities inherent to all religion. Around the FSM, there is in fact an extensive and perfectly coherent metaphysical belief-system. It's internally consistent, and it's also absolutely consistent with the world we live in, with science and everything. It's weird, but still in absolute agreement with all the facts. Every religious believer of course just dismisses the FSM as ridiculous, but the point is that they can't produce any argument whatsoever why the FSM shouldn't be real, because every argument they would come up with would automatically bring down their own faith. Similarly, all the arguments you made for the existence of your version of god are equally valid in regard to the FSM. Is it therefore rational to believe that it exists? You're redefining "extension". Either we stick to Spinoza's definition, or if we don't, we also have to leave his reasoning. Yes, we're all in the well and what you hear could be the sea, but it could also be your frogly imagination or a stork, waiting to eat you. Before it's rational to believe in a sea, you first need to establish by which mechanism you sense that sea, how you can be sure that this sense is correct and not a figment of your imagination. Only then are you justified in your belief. Until then, it's irrational. This is once again completely misrepresenting my views (and probably that of most atheists). I'm not saying we shouldn't seek the sea, I'm saying we shouldn't believe it exists until we have evidence. The example actually makes this sound stupid, because we know frogs, we know wells and we know the sea. We know this all exists. We can't imagine not knowing all these things and simply take the frog perspective. Plus, this analogy also presupposes the existence of the sea/god, at least that is what is implied. So I think the cave analogy I gave earlier better captures the position we're in: See, the point is essentially the same as in the frog story, only that I don't presuppose anything, so it's easier to actually visualize the situation of the person going into the cave (knowing just as much as we do) as opposed to the situation of the frog (not knowing what we know). There could be a giant hall behind the wall of rock, there could be a massive diamond, there could be liquid magma...but until we have objective evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to assume that there's just more rock behind that rock, no matter which voice you hear calling into your inner ear. Let's put it this way: I do have a lot of respect for you personally, and I also respect your ideas, but of course I still find them irrational and I think that you're deluding yourself, trying to rationalize the irrational. But that's nothing personal, I think we all have a tendency to delude ourselves...and the more intelligent we are, the better we're equipped for rationalizing things. That's why I try to never argue from the end, but always from the beginning, so that I run as little a risk as possible at deluding myself. Of course that's not practicable for every day things...I did lot's of irrational things in my life and I continue to do so, and to be honest, it's usually the greatest fun to do the wrong thing at the right time (although you only ever find that out afterwards). But when it comes to metaphysics, I try to follow the ideal methodology as rigorously as possible, because it ensures me to have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible about the world we live in. I also enjoyed our discussion, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have stayed in till now. It was certainly very interesting as I encountered a very different view than what I usually get, so I had the opportunity to think in new ways and come to novel conclusions (at least to myself) which is always a lot of fun. I hardly ever debate creationism anymore for example, because it bores me to death, it's always the same cooky-cutter type arguments (if you even wanna call it "arguments").
Kudos to ASF and Benztown for an excellent and very interesting discussion. I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks, and thanks to the many people who responded in kind.
Fair enough. I thought you were one of these clowns who start threads on here like something44 or whatever TF his name is. DIE, HERETIC!!! Well, that's the same crap as Descartes came out with which, if memory serves, goes something like... "God must exists because the human mind has come up with the idea of god and it can only have come from him" WTF??? Well, on that basis the flying spaghetti monster, pixies, elves and the rest must also exist yer muppet. Aren't you forgetting someone?
Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says Not that surprising, since many believers I know are navel-gazers that never quite get past their own beliefs.
For comparison purposes, the survey also asked some questions about general knowledge, which yielded the scariest finding: 4% of Americans believe that Stephen King, not Herman Melville, wrote "Moby Dick." I will admit, if given both those choices I would have picked Melville, but if they just asked me who wrote Moby Dick I would have said Hemingway.
Funny way of putting it since part of the purpose of navel-gazing (i.e. meditation) is transcending one's beliefs by learning to see things as they are. I think the under-educated unwashed masses that scored poorly in this survey are guiltier of excessive television-gazing than navel-gazing.
But the fact is there is a lot of narcissistic bullshit at the root of a lot of what passes for "spiritual growth" techniques, which is what navel-gazing as a derogatory term is referring to.