“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein

Just read under a discussion of the question: If someone like Albert Einstein believed in God, why don’t atheists?

which I thought was interesting, on many levels.

God-believing Einstein and Deathbed-converting Darwin are favourite fantasies amongst the devout.

Atheists don’t believe in God by definition…

dv said:

Atheists don’t believe in God by definition…

Whilst that is true, I think the intention of the question was more along the lines of: how can anyone think that atheism is a tenable philosophical position, when a genius such as Einstein was a believer in God?

The fact that Einstein was not in fact a believer in God is of course only one of many reasons why it is a silly question.

Yes I was being a bit silly.

There’s quite a few quotes from Einstein on the matter.
I think he regarded himself as an agnostic.

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s quite a few quotes from Einstein on the matter.
I think he regarded himself as an agnostic.

To say that someone who says specifically that he “does not believe in a personal god” is an agnostic seems an odd choice of words to me.

I’m just amazed to have seen a genuine Einstein quote on the internet.

dv said:

I’m just amazed to have seen a genuine Einstein quote on the internet.

One of the reasons I posted it was I had to do quite a bit of searching before I found the source.

Also I don’t recall seeing it before (not that that can be taken as reliable evidence these days).

The source

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I’m just amazed to have seen a genuine Einstein quote on the internet.

One of the reasons I posted it was I had to do quite a bit of searching before I found the source.

Also I don’t recall seeing it before (not that that can be taken as reliable evidence these days).

I have heard Neil deGrasse Tyson quote it a few times in his public talks. Not that I have ever been to one but I have watched quite a few via YouTube.

Surprised you couldn’t find much, it has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

If he had any religion it would be some vague and generic sort of pantheism.

party_pants said:

Surprised you couldn’t find much, it has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Blame Bing :)

I also see that page says: “He clarified however that, “I am not an atheist”, preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a “religious nonbeliever.” “

I suppose I’ll have to go an say PWM was right now, so thanks very bloody much.

(It still seems odd to me to say that you are not an atheist if you are a religious nonbeliever though).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Blame Bing :)

everyone does

The Rev Dodgson said:

(It still seems odd to me to say that you are not an atheist if you are a religious nonbeliever though).

To me the argument over definitions of agnostic or atheist is one of the most pointless ever.

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Blame Bing :)

everyone does

My search string on Bing was “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions”

On google the same search has the Wikipedia page as the first hit.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

(It still seems odd to me to say that you are not an atheist if you are a religious nonbeliever though).

To me the argument over definitions of agnostic or atheist is one of the most pointless ever.

Why is that?

It seems to me to be quite reasonable to discuss the meaning of words that describe separate but close and possibly overlapping sets.

I’d expect Albert was impressed there was any order (of the various scales), a universe at all, and he was religious that way.

More a physics-type guy, not much love of ideology.

Not greatly known for his social philosophy, he did mention something about people being incapable of forming opinions contrary to the prejudices of their social environments (paraphrasing the gist).

transition said:

I’d expect Albert was impressed there was any order (of the various scales), a universe at all, and he was religious that way.

That seems to me to be like saying that someone who loved reading books and visiting museums was a sports_nut that way.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I’d expect Albert was impressed there was any order (of the various scales), a universe at all, and he was religious that way.

That seems to me to be like saying that someone who loved reading books and visiting museums was a sports_nut that way.

you responded very quickly, so no surprises there.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

(It still seems odd to me to say that you are not an atheist if you are a religious nonbeliever though).

To me the argument over definitions of agnostic or atheist is one of the most pointless ever.

Why is that?

It seems to me to be quite reasonable to discuss the meaning of words that describe separate but close and possibly overlapping sets.

It just seems so insignificant to me. I am happy to be called either.

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I’d expect Albert was impressed there was any order (of the various scales), a universe at all, and he was religious that way.

That seems to me to be like saying that someone who loved reading books and visiting museums was a sports_nut that way.

you responded very quickly, so no surprises there.

I’ll have a coffee before responding next time :)

But, OK, what you said does seem like a good summary of what Einstein said himself.

It still doesn’t make sense to me though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That seems to me to be like saying that someone who loved reading books and visiting museums was a sports_nut that way.

you responded very quickly, so no surprises there.

I’ll have a coffee before responding next time :)

But, OK, what you said does seem like a good summary of what Einstein said himself.

It still doesn’t make sense to me though.

I’ve always wondered why religion gets a free pass in its inability to prove anything something we wouldn’t accept anywhere else.

transition said:

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

It is my understanding that the great majority of those who follow the Abrahamic religions (including those who have spent their life studying the subject) believe that God is a real entity who has real interactions with them, and will continue to do so after their death.

That seems to me to be a great deal more than a metaphor.

>I’ve always wondered why religion gets a free pass in its inability to prove anything something we wouldn’t accept anywhere else.

even hard-nosed atheists are susceptible to ideology, especially the hungry ones deprived of metaphysics.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

It is my understanding that the great majority of those who follow the Abrahamic religions (including those who have spent their life studying the subject) believe that God is a real entity who has real interactions with them, and will continue to do so after their death.

That seems to me to be a great deal more than a metaphor.

but, in practice, is it?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

It is my understanding that the great majority of those who follow the Abrahamic religions (including those who have spent their life studying the subject) believe that God is a real entity who has real interactions with them, and will continue to do so after their death.

That seems to me to be a great deal more than a metaphor.

but, in practice, is it?

That depends on what you mean by a “metaphor in practice”.

If something firmly believes something has a real existence, then I wouldn’t call that a metaphor, even if I thought they were wrong.

>If something firmly believes something has a real existence, then I wouldn’t call that a metaphor, even if I thought they were wrong.

you can ask anyone to substantiate their God as something more than metaphor, and the question yields.

it raises the question of if a God exists would it (God) want to be anything more than metaphor.

transition said:

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

A metaphor is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else.

So what is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else that doesn’t exist?

transition said:

>If something firmly believes something has a real existence, then I wouldn’t call that a metaphor, even if I thought they were wrong.

you can ask anyone to substantiate their God as something more than metaphor, and the question yields.

it raises the question of if a God exists would it (God) want to be anything more than metaphor.

Or god is a metaphor and exists as background noise or an echo of the big bang

To be fair, in Einstein’s day religion played a much larger part in western culture.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

A metaphor is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else.

So what is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else that doesn’t exist?

what do you think?

If I say you are in-great-part what you don’t know, or perhaps even you are mostly what you don’t know, this is a statement likely true. I might call what you don’t know (of yourself, to keep it local) God. God I might call the limits of introspection, not to discourage you.

And of the bigger picture there’s always all-that-out-there you’ll never comprehend, which is a fortunate thing really.

transition said:

>If something firmly believes something has a real existence, then I wouldn’t call that a metaphor, even if I thought they were wrong.

you can ask anyone to substantiate their God as something more than metaphor, and the question yields.

it raises the question of if a God exists would it (God) want to be anything more than metaphor.

But that’s your opinion. There are very many people who would disagree with you.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

rev, give me an example of God ever being anything more than metaphor

A metaphor is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else.

So what is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else that doesn’t exist?

what do you think?

If I say you are in-great-part what you don’t know, or perhaps even you are mostly what you don’t know, this is a statement likely true. I might call what you don’t know (of yourself, to keep it local) God. God I might call the limits of introspection, not to discourage you.

And of the bigger picture there’s always all-that-out-there you’ll never comprehend, which is a fortunate thing really.

But we are here discussing the use of the word “God” as it is used by most people who use the word, not as you would like to use it, so it exists even if it doesn’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s quite a few quotes from Einstein on the matter.
I think he regarded himself as an agnostic.

To say that someone who says specifically that he “does not believe in a personal god” is an agnostic seems an odd choice of words to me.

A good scientist would not rule out anything. You must always allow for the possibility of new evidence. So agnostic fits quite well, in my opinion. I find myself in a similar space.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>If something firmly believes something has a real existence, then I wouldn’t call that a metaphor, even if I thought they were wrong.

you can ask anyone to substantiate their God as something more than metaphor, and the question yields.

it raises the question of if a God exists would it (God) want to be anything more than metaphor.

But that’s your opinion. There are very many people who would disagree with you.

give it to me, what I presented was an idea (as a question), just as God is an idea. Ideas such are the gift of the species, the play things of the play space, indulgences of the home in the head.

still, examples substantiating God as ever having been more than metaphor are non-existent.

though God the metaphor has more utility than is generally credited.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s quite a few quotes from Einstein on the matter.
I think he regarded himself as an agnostic.

To say that someone who says specifically that he “does not believe in a personal god” is an agnostic seems an odd choice of words to me.

A good scientist would not rule out anything. You must always allow for the possibility of new evidence. So agnostic fits quite well, in my opinion. I find myself in a similar space.

If atheism meant to rule out any possibility of there being a god of any sort, then I would agree with you, but I believe that the word applies to anyone who believes, on the balance of probability, that there is no god.

transition said:

still, examples substantiating God as ever having been more than metaphor are non-existent.

OK, so you are an atheist after all.

transition said:

though God the metaphor has more utility than is generally credited.

I probably agree, but I would call this metaphor anything but God, because that makes it confusing, because of the generally accepted use of that word.

>But we are here discussing the use of the word “God” as it is used by most people who use the word, not as you would like to use it, so it exists even if it doesn’t.

I can hear Albert talking to Humpty Dumpty.

• I can hear Albert talking to Humpty Dumpty.

Hey hey hey…

>I probably agree, but I would call this metaphor anything but God, because that makes it confusing, because of the generally accepted use of that word.

back to basics.

to have a generally accepted use requires God be defined. You might say supernatural, which to me suggests largely undefined, or perhaps undefinable.

so, I guess you could ask of me if that unknown of the physical world – the mystery – is ever thought of by atheists as, or in a similar way to religious people may think and feel of God?

perhaps awe. I think so.

transition said:

>I probably agree, but I would call this metaphor anything but God, because that makes it confusing, because of the generally accepted use of that word.

back to basics.

to have a generally accepted use requires God be defined. You might say supernatural, which to me suggests largely undefined, or perhaps undefinable.

so, I guess you could ask of me if that unknown of the physical world – the mystery – is ever thought of by atheists as, or in a similar way to religious people may think and feel of God?

perhaps awe. I think so.

No, I totally disagree.

There are of course a huge number of different god concepts, but each religion has well defined characteristics for its God(s), and many have a large range of characteristics in common.

To say that awe is equivalent to these religious gods makes no sense (to me).

(BTW, the latest New Scientist has an article about awe which you might enjoy if you can access it (or might not, dunno))

>To say that awe is equivalent to these religious gods makes no sense (to me).

Roll back the attributions a bit.

I was suggesting the sensation of awe (meaning and including those just under the threshold that might obviously qualify) – variously affected, inspired, thrilled, whatever, and you know it’s out there in the overused term awesome, like people want to be taken almost (in some sense). Carried away by the experience.

Might have Albert experienced something like awe, did the physics of the world intrigue him so. Probably.

transition said:

>To say that awe is equivalent to these religious gods makes no sense (to me).

Roll back the attributions a bit.

I was suggesting the sensation of awe (meaning and including those just under the threshold that might obviously qualify) – variously affected, inspired, thrilled, whatever, and you know it’s out there in the overused term awesome, like people want to be taken almost (in some sense). Carried away by the experience.

Might have Albert experienced something like awe, did the physics of the world intrigue him so. Probably.

Sure, that seems to tie in with what he said on the subjects.

It’s just that I don’t think it makes sense to tie the word “God” to such a sense, or similar metaphorical uses.

But that’s just me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>To say that awe is equivalent to these religious gods makes no sense (to me).

Roll back the attributions a bit.

I was suggesting the sensation of awe (meaning and including those just under the threshold that might obviously qualify) – variously affected, inspired, thrilled, whatever, and you know it’s out there in the overused term awesome, like people want to be taken almost (in some sense). Carried away by the experience.

Might have Albert experienced something like awe, did the physics of the world intrigue him so. Probably.

Sure, that seems to tie in with what he said on the subjects.

It’s just that I don’t think it makes sense to tie the word “God” to such a sense, or similar metaphorical uses.

But that’s just me.

And me. Especially since the majority of God-believers will tell you that’s not what they mean by God.

What they mean by God is what their holy men tell them and what it says in their holy books etc.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>To say that awe is equivalent to these religious gods makes no sense (to me).

Roll back the attributions a bit.

I was suggesting the sensation of awe (meaning and including those just under the threshold that might obviously qualify) – variously affected, inspired, thrilled, whatever, and you know it’s out there in the overused term awesome, like people want to be taken almost (in some sense). Carried away by the experience.

Might have Albert experienced something like awe, did the physics of the world intrigue him so. Probably.

Sure, that seems to tie in with what he said on the subjects.

It’s just that I don’t think it makes sense to tie the word “God” to such a sense, or similar metaphorical uses.

But that’s just me.

Albert had the job too of further introducing religion to physicalism (one of many), though doubt wanted it to be without shades between black and white. Probably knew the latter wasn’t entirely a trespass into the former anyway, religion operating very much in the field of unknowns, fixes and remedies, patching the knowledge, as it does.

Here’s the start of the NS article (about 1/4 of the full thing):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531360-400-awesome-awe-the-emotion-that-gives-us-superpowers/?platform=hootsuite

The Rev Dodgson said:

Here’s the start of the NS article (about 1/4 of the full thing):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531360-400-awesome-awe-the-emotion-that-gives-us-superpowers/?platform=hootsuite

thanx, got that up, read it a bit later :-)

• Here’s the start of the NS article

Here is another article on the same subject:

The extraordinary influence of awe on humans

furious said:

• Here’s the start of the NS article

Here is another article on the same subject:

The extraordinary influence of awe on humans

Coincidence?

Or did SMH nick the article from NS and change the words a bit?

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

• Here’s the start of the NS article

Here is another article on the same subject:

The extraordinary influence of awe on humans

Coincidence?

Or did SMH nick the article from NS and change the words a bit?

Or vice versa…

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

• Here’s the start of the NS article

Here is another article on the same subject:

The extraordinary influence of awe on humans

NS has an earlier date.
Coincidence?

Or did SMH nick the article from NS and change the words a bit?

Or vice versa…

• Coincidence?

Presumably they were both prompted by the same study recently released?

Awe, the diminished self, and collective engagement: Universals and cultural variations in the small self.

Way to fuck up a quote block, Rev…

furious said:

• I can hear Albert talking to Humpty Dumpty.

Hey hey hey…

comic reference

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

dv said:

Way to fuck up a quote block, Rev…

Thanks, I’m good at that :)

transition said:

furious said:

• I can hear Albert talking to Humpty Dumpty.

Hey hey hey…

comic reference

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

OK, but who is Alice and who is Humpty?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

furious said:

• I can hear Albert talking to Humpty Dumpty.

Hey hey hey…

comic reference

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

OK, but who is Alice and who is Humpty?

:)

Some bloke wrote a book and invented the characters, can’t recall his name …

furious said:

• Coincidence?

Presumably they were both prompted by the same study recently released?

Awe, the diminished self, and collective engagement: Universals and cultural variations in the small self.

That looks like a different approach to the subject to me. (Thanks for the link though).

it is usually alice and bob.

a cryptic reply.

:-)

, or actually, why would anyone NOT believe that there is {personal God}?

It is the correct position, as opposed to the belief that there is {impersonal God}.

SCIENCE said:

, or actually, why would anyone NOT believe that there is {personal God}?

It is the correct position, as opposed to the belief that there is {impersonal God}.

Fair enough.

Anyway all one needs to do is write the word atheist with a space between a _ theist

>OK, so you are an atheist after all.

I think absolute godlessness would be a tyranny

transition said:

>OK, so you are an atheist after all.

I think absolute godlessness would be a tyranny

certainly an anarchy.

just to be clear, we’re saying that people construct their own gods — subjective gods, personal gods

however, objectively, impersonally,

SCIENCE said:

just to be clear, we’re saying that people construct their own gods — subjective gods, personal gods

however, objectively, impersonally,

Personal God = A god who is a person, or person-like

as distinct from a vague cloud of … things …

SCIENCE said:

just to be clear, we’re saying that people construct their own gods — subjective gods, personal gods

however, objectively, impersonally,

Well I mustn’t be people. I have no sense of a god or any god. There are no deities in my thoughts. Other than in jokes like, “so there is a god?” when something out of the ordinary that is good just falls in my lap.

yes seems the same to us

Personal Jesus

SCIENCE said:

, or actually, why would anyone NOT believe that there is {personal God}?

It is the correct position, as opposed to the belief that there is {impersonal God}.

Well that’s certainly true in the sense that I presume you are using {personal God}, but I, and I think Albert, were using the term in a different sense.

That is a real entity that created the Universe, but is in a real sense still somehow a “person”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

, or actually, why would anyone NOT believe that there is {personal God}?

It is the correct position, as opposed to the belief that there is {impersonal God}.

Well that’s certainly true in the sense that I presume you are using {personal God}, but I, and I think Albert, were using the term in a different sense.

That is a real entity that created the Universe, but is in a real sense still somehow a “person”.

I’m still wondering where you found the above in the quote itself.. https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/newpost/?topic_id=9004"e_id=1099776

transition said:

>OK, so you are an atheist after all.

I think absolute godlessness would be a tyranny

I wonder what that means.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>OK, so you are an atheist after all.

I think absolute godlessness would be a tyranny

I wonder what that means.

I think he means trillions of tyrants.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

, or actually, why would anyone NOT believe that there is {personal God}?

It is the correct position, as opposed to the belief that there is {impersonal God}.

Well that’s certainly true in the sense that I presume you are using {personal God}, but I, and I think Albert, were using the term in a different sense.

That is a real entity that created the Universe, but is in a real sense still somehow a “person”.

I’m still wondering where you found the above in the quote itself.. https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/newpost/?topic_id=9004"e_id=1099776

I found it in a Quora discussion, but is also in the Wikipedia page on Alberts religious beliefs. I’ll post the link in a minute.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well that’s certainly true in the sense that I presume you are using {personal God}, but I, and I think Albert, were using the term in a different sense.

That is a real entity that created the Universe, but is in a real sense still somehow a “person”.

I’m still wondering where you found the above in the quote itself.. https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/newpost/?topic_id=9004"e_id=1099776

I found it in a Quora discussion, but is also in the Wikipedia page on Alberts religious beliefs. I’ll post the link in a minute.

waiting..; )

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>OK, so you are an atheist after all.

I think absolute godlessness would be a tyranny

I wonder what that means.

I think he means trillions of tyrants.

OK, but why would he say that? He must be using his own particular idea of absolute godlessness I suppose.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I’m still wondering where you found the above in the quote itself.. https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/newpost/?topic_id=9004"e_id=1099776

I found it in a Quora discussion, but is also in the Wikipedia page on Alberts religious beliefs. I’ll post the link in a minute.

waiting..; )

Here it is (scroll down a bit)

https://www.quora.com/If-someone-like-Albert-Einstein-believed-in-God-why-dont-atheists

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder what that means.

I think he means trillions of tyrants.

OK, but why would he say that? He must be using his own particular idea of absolute godlessness I suppose.

Well, it is kinda what the thread is about. I see personal god as not a persona as such but how each of us may imagine god as a personal image or indeed as in godlinness wanting to be as clean as next to godliness must be reputed to be.? It is and has to be in each of our mind’s eye. That this may be influenced by others is simply because we may be easily distracted.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I think he means trillions of tyrants.

OK, but why would he say that? He must be using his own particular idea of absolute godlessness I suppose.

Well, it is kinda what the thread is about. I see personal god as not a persona as such but how each of us may imagine god as a personal image or indeed as in godlinness wanting to be as clean as next to godliness must be reputed to be.? It is and has to be in each of our mind’s eye. That this may be influenced by others is simply because we may be easily distracted.

To go further, if none of us had any vision of a god of any sort, what would we do?

SCIENCE is correct, the whole point of gods is that they’re human-style authority figures who impose a human-style social structure on the cosmos. Usually of a primitive and illiberal kind that recasts human beings as naughty infants.

Impersonal “pantheist” gods are a regrettable and pointless wank by people who ought to know better.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE is correct, the whole point of gods is that they’re human-style authority figures who impose a human-style social structure on the cosmos. Usually of a primitive and illiberal kind that recasts human beings as naughty infants.

Impersonal “pantheist” gods are a regrettable and pointless wank by people who ought to know better.

and if you have no gods at all?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE is correct, the whole point of gods is that they’re human-style authority figures who impose a human-style social structure on the cosmos. Usually of a primitive and illiberal kind that recasts human beings as naughty infants.

Impersonal “pantheist” gods are a regrettable and pointless wank by people who ought to know better.

and if you have no gods at all?

Usually means you’re able to distinguish between the world as it is and the world transformed by the human imagination.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE is correct, the whole point of gods is that they’re human-style authority figures who impose a human-style social structure on the cosmos. Usually of a primitive and illiberal kind that recasts human beings as naughty infants.

Impersonal “pantheist” gods are a regrettable and pointless wank by people who ought to know better.

and if you have no gods at all?

Usually means you’re able to distinguish between the world as it is and the world transformed by the human imagination.

OK. So I am actually sane then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>OK, so you are an atheist after all.

I think absolute godlessness would be a tyranny

I wonder what that means.

wouldn’t try’n extract too much from it, i’m quite a few shades insaner than usual at the moment (feel quite good though)

you know I see problems with atheism – more the extremes of physicalism – it seems to me to be antipsychological (of pop culture maybe, ideology that way), and i’m just thinking now that some religion doesn’t like psychology, it’s considered a departure from the word of God.

so here I am, I listen to Jimmy Swaggart’s channel a bit, I hear their ideas of psychology and actually understand it, even empathize (with their perspective).

then there’s extreme materialism, or physicalism properly, which to me can seem quite nasty.

some religious people might think I have a foot either side of the fence, and I do, but I don’t patronize religion/religious people. Similarly I don’t live the extremes of physicalism and deny the psychological. It seems no place at all to live, not kind and not supportive of the home in the head.

i’m very much the I is the individuating thing that generates self-aware consciousness, of that view, but too are glad of universals across the species that lend a lot to others being understandable.

i’m happy for godlessness to be diluted, including with religion.

transition said:

you know I see problems with atheism – more the extremes of physicalism – it seems to me to be antipsychological (of pop culture maybe, ideology that way), and i’m just thinking now that some religion doesn’t like psychology, it’s considered a departure from the word of God.

OK, so that’s where we differ. Atheism is a totally separate thing from physicalism which is a totally separate thing from psychology. There are atheists
who also dislike extreme physicalism (at least one, since I don’t recall reading or hearing anyone expressing it quite that way, but I’m sure there are many others), and there are theists who are also extreme physicalists.

To think “physicalist” when you read “atheist” just doesn’t make sense.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

you know I see problems with atheism – more the extremes of physicalism – it seems to me to be antipsychological (of pop culture maybe, ideology that way), and i’m just thinking now that some religion doesn’t like psychology, it’s considered a departure from the word of God.

OK, so that’s where we differ. Atheism is a totally separate thing from physicalism which is a totally separate thing from psychology. There are atheists
who also dislike extreme physicalism (at least one, since I don’t recall reading or hearing anyone expressing it quite that way, but I’m sure there are many others), and there are theists who are also extreme physicalists.

To think “physicalist” when you read “atheist” just doesn’t make sense.

It’s like saying that communism is the opposite of democracy. One is economic the other is political.

>To think “physicalist” when you read “atheist” just doesn’t make sense.

dunno, that I do, or more to the point that it’s wrong or unproductive to do it to the extent I do.

I inhabit contradictions some, you maybe like the clear sky more, I don’t mind a few clouds.

the thread’s about something of Albert’s use of the term God, as I recall, and whatever the contradictions are that I inhabit they did contribute to me contemplating the possibility Albert was using the term as a metaphor.

Is there much talk of how religious objection to abortion, euthanasia and marriage equality is unethical?

transition said:

>To think “physicalist” when you read “atheist” just doesn’t make sense.

dunno, that I do, or more to the point that it’s wrong or unproductive to do it to the extent I do.

Well you said you do. If you lump all atheists under the heading physicalist, then there will be a large proportion who are in the wrong category, so that seems both wrong and unproductive to me.

transition said:

I inhabit contradictions some, you maybe like the clear sky more, I don’t mind a few clouds.

the thread’s about something of Albert’s use of the term God, as I recall, and whatever the contradictions are that I inhabit they did contribute to me contemplating the possibility Albert was using the term as a metaphor.

We’ve already agreed that Albert does seem to be using the term God as a metaphor.

The discussion now is about whether that is actually a good metaphor, and whether people who call themselves atheists should be lumped into a category that rejects the things that Albert used the word “God” as a metaphor for.

I’m just saying that if any individual does not believe the “God” of any religion to be a real physical entity that interacts with us in some way (on the balance of probability), then it’s quite reasonable for those people to call themselves atheists, without making any other assumptions about what they make about the interactions between the physical brain and the feelings it produces in humans.

That’s all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>To think “physicalist” when you read “atheist” just doesn’t make sense.

dunno, that I do, or more to the point that it’s wrong or unproductive to do it to the extent I do.

Well you said you do. If you lump all atheists under the heading physicalist, then there will be a large proportion who are in the wrong category, so that seems both wrong and unproductive to me.

transition said:

I inhabit contradictions some, you maybe like the clear sky more, I don’t mind a few clouds.

the thread’s about something of Albert’s use of the term God, as I recall, and whatever the contradictions are that I inhabit they did contribute to me contemplating the possibility Albert was using the term as a metaphor.

We’ve already agreed that Albert does seem to be using the term God as a metaphor.

The discussion now is about whether that is actually a good metaphor, and whether people who call themselves atheists should be lumped into a category that rejects the things that Albert used the word “God” as a metaphor for.

I’m just saying that if any individual does not believe the “God” of any religion to be a real physical entity that interacts with us in some way (on the balance of probability), then it’s quite reasonable for those people to call themselves atheists, without making any other assumptions about what they make about the interactions between the physical brain and the feelings it produces in humans.

That’s all.

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlᵻpsɪzəm/ (About this sound listen); from Latin solus, meaning ‘alone’, and ipse, meaning ‘self’) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

Peak Warming Man said:

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlᵻpsɪzəm/ (About this sound listen); from Latin solus, meaning ‘alone’, and ipse, meaning ‘self’) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

Yes PWM you are right, the philosophical position on solipsism described above is a pretty good summary of my position on this issue.

I wouldn’t go as far as the metaphysical position though. In fact that seems downright anti-solipsist to me.

>Well you said you do. If you lump all atheists under the heading physicalist, then there will be a large proportion who are in the wrong category, so that seems both wrong and unproductive to me.

I suggested aspects of pop culture, as recall, without reading back.

Often God is (or can be a useful) metaphor for philosophy (metaphysics too), just the thinking on or of different scales. Encouraging it even. Exploring the external world, and that of the external world (science and physics too, even the math) has always come with something of a psychological journey.

>The discussion now is about whether that is actually a good metaphor, and whether people who call themselves atheists should be lumped into a category that rejects the things that Albert used the word “God” as a metaphor for.

well, there’s a bunch of concepts etc that exist (in minds) before words are given them. The concepts precede the language. I’m not sure formalization or the formalism that follow should dominate.

i’ll give you an example, since we’re trespassing into Albert’s mind and thoughts of past with speculations, him not being here to clarify.

take the idea of trespass. In the physical world this is when person/s enter some property where they are unwelcome – disallowed. There are laws related this. But the idea of trespass, or some workings of the mind preceded any formalizing of it.

so I put to you, that not all atheists are inclined to enthusiastically trespass into Albert’s use of the word God.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlᵻpsɪzəm/ (About this sound listen); from Latin solus, meaning ‘alone’, and ipse, meaning ‘self’) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

Yes PWM you are right, the philosophical position on solipsism described above is a pretty good summary of my position on this issue.

I wouldn’t go as far as the metaphysical position though. In fact that seems downright anti-solipsist to me.

Well to be perfectly Frank I saw that word at another place and had to look it up and I thought I’d look pretty intelligent using that word so I looked for a place to put it and the Einstein thread was the lucky place.

transition said:

so I put to you, that not all atheists are inclined to enthusiastically trespass into Albert’s use of the word God.

I never suggested that they are.

In fact I never suggested that all atheists are anything, other than that they do not accept belief in whatever is included in their own minds by the word “god”.

So in fact my definition of “atheist” is way cloudier than the one you are advancing.

Peak Warming Man said:

Well to be perfectly Frank I saw that word at another place and had to look it up and I thought I’d look pretty intelligent using that word so I looked for a place to put it and the Einstein thread was the lucky place.

Seems like the most appropriate thread.

Not that I’m saying that all atheists are solipsists, but some are.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well to be perfectly Frank I saw that word at another place and had to look it up and I thought I’d look pretty intelligent using that word so I looked for a place to put it and the Einstein thread was the lucky place.

Seems like the most appropriate thread.

Not that I’m saying that all atheists are solipsists, but some are.

I would suggest that very few atheists are solipsists. In fact we tend towards the opposite, placing much more confidence in empirical evidence than subjective experience.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

so I put to you, that not all atheists are inclined to enthusiastically trespass into Albert’s use of the word God.

I never suggested that they are.

In fact I never suggested that all atheists are anything, other than that they do not accept belief in whatever is included in their own minds by the word “god”.

So in fact my definition of “atheist” is way cloudier than the one you are advancing.

what I put to you was an idea, a device. I wasn’t asserting as you attribute.

in the idea was the possibility that God can be a sort of thought space, and the undefined materials for the latter.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well to be perfectly Frank I saw that word at another place and had to look it up and I thought I’d look pretty intelligent using that word so I looked for a place to put it and the Einstein thread was the lucky place.

Seems like the most appropriate thread.

Not that I’m saying that all atheists are solipsists, but some are.

I would suggest that very few atheists are solipsists. In fact we tend towards the opposite, placing much more confidence in empirical evidence than subjective experience.

It seems to me that solipsism is the only tenable position for anyone who accepts the scientific method.

That doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion about what is the most likely nature of external reality though.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

so I put to you, that not all atheists are inclined to enthusiastically trespass into Albert’s use of the word God.

I never suggested that they are.

In fact I never suggested that all atheists are anything, other than that they do not accept belief in whatever is included in their own minds by the word “god”.

So in fact my definition of “atheist” is way cloudier than the one you are advancing.

what I put to you was an idea, a device. I wasn’t asserting as you attribute.

in the idea was the possibility that God can be a sort of thought space, and the undefined materials for the latter.

OK, and all I’m saying is that I don’t think it is a good idea to call this sort of thought space “God”, because that word comes with all sorts of other baggage.

But you don’t need my permission to use the word how you please.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seems like the most appropriate thread.

Not that I’m saying that all atheists are solipsists, but some are.

I would suggest that very few atheists are solipsists. In fact we tend towards the opposite, placing much more confidence in empirical evidence than subjective experience.

It seems to me that solipsism is the only tenable position for anyone who accepts the scientific method.

That doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion about what is the most likely nature of external reality though.

Solipsism is usually regarded as the antithesis of scientific methods.

Solipsists have no confidence in the existence of anything except subjective mental experience.

Scientific methods work on the assumption that subjective mental experience is highly unreliable :)

Bubblecar said:

Solipsism is usually regarded as the antithesis of scientific methods.

Solipsists have no confidence in the existence of anything except subjective mental experience.

Scientific methods work on the assumption that subjective mental experience is highly unreliable :)

Yes, but didn’t you know that all philosophy, is wrong :)

What you said above seems to me pretty either/orist.

I think that all things are uncertain, but some are much more uncertain than others.

Also all experiences (and hence all observational evidence) are subjective, but some are much more subjective than others.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Solipsism is usually regarded as the antithesis of scientific methods.

Solipsists have no confidence in the existence of anything except subjective mental experience.

Scientific methods work on the assumption that subjective mental experience is highly unreliable :)

Yes, but didn’t you know that all philosophy, is wrong :)

What you said above seems to me pretty either/orist.

I think that all things are uncertain, but some are much more uncertain than others.

Also all experiences (and hence all observational evidence) are subjective, but some are much more subjective than others.

That sounds like normal scepticism rather than solipsism.

>OK, and all I’m saying is that I don’t think it is a good idea to call this sort of thought space “God”

yeah, well, i’ve been told electricity and water don’t go together well (that it’s dangerous), yet my solar batteries do just that.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Solipsism is usually regarded as the antithesis of scientific methods.

Solipsists have no confidence in the existence of anything except subjective mental experience.

Scientific methods work on the assumption that subjective mental experience is highly unreliable :)

Yes, but didn’t you know that all philosophy, is wrong :)

What you said above seems to me pretty either/orist.

I think that all things are uncertain, but some are much more uncertain than others.

Also all experiences (and hence all observational evidence) are subjective, but some are much more subjective than others.

That sounds like normal scepticism rather than solipsism.

I think the two are the same thing.

Except for extreme solipsism, which is actually solipsist, because it draws a firm conclusion on the nature of reality.

transition said:

>OK, and all I’m saying is that I don’t think it is a good idea to call this sort of thought space “God”

yeah, well, i’ve been told electricity and water don’t go together well (that it’s dangerous), yet my solar batteries do just that.

Not sure how useful that analogy is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, but didn’t you know that all philosophy, is wrong :)

What you said above seems to me pretty either/orist.

I think that all things are uncertain, but some are much more uncertain than others.

Also all experiences (and hence all observational evidence) are subjective, but some are much more subjective than others.

That sounds like normal scepticism rather than solipsism.

I think the two are the same thing.

Except for extreme solipsism, which is actually solipsist, because it draws a firm conclusion on the nature of reality.

There may be some varieties of solipsism that are compatible with scientific enquiry, but most are not.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>OK, and all I’m saying is that I don’t think it is a good idea to call this sort of thought space “God”

yeah, well, i’ve been told electricity and water don’t go together well (that it’s dangerous), yet my solar batteries do just that.

Not sure how useful that analogy is.

Yes’t was a bit of-this-earth. I could of course spend time correcting some curse in Albert’s use of the word God.

I mean what is it? Wasn’t Albert’s use of the word God right-thinking enough, does it stray outside the bounds of propriety for atheists?

or is this some residual linguistic determinism, like there’s the threat of ontological crisis.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>OK, and all I’m saying is that I don’t think it is a good idea to call this sort of thought space “God”

yeah, well, i’ve been told electricity and water don’t go together well (that it’s dangerous), yet my solar batteries do just that.

Not sure how useful that analogy is.

Yes’t was a bit of-this-earth. I could of course spend time correcting some curse in Albert’s use of the word God.

I mean what is it? Wasn’t Albert’s use of the word God right-thinking enough, does it stray outside the bounds of propriety for atheists?

or is this some residual linguistic determinism, like there’s the threat of ontological crisis.

I’ve already said why I don’t like the use of the word in that context. It just doesn’t make sense to me, that’s all. It’s like calling “white” “blue”. White can look blue under some conditions, but that doesn’t make it a good idea to use that word to describe “white” in general.

I don’t know where al this talk of “ right-thinking” and “bounds of propriety” is coming from.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

That sounds like normal scepticism rather than solipsism.

I think the two are the same thing.

Except for extreme solipsism, which is actually solipsist, because it draws a firm conclusion on the nature of reality.

There may be some varieties of solipsism that are compatible with scientific enquiry, but most are not.

I meant to say “which is actually anti-solipsist”.

I don’t know anything about the different brands of solipsism.

All that I’m saying is that a logical approach to the scientific method must be solipsist, because we cannot be certain that anything we observe (or rather remember observing) has any connection with external reality. I don’t see any way round that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

All that I’m saying is that a logical approach to the scientific method must be solipsist, because we cannot be certain that anything we observe (or rather remember observing) has any connection with external reality. I don’t see any way round that.

Scientists don’t need to be “certain”. Unlike solipsists, they simply assume the world is real, and then design observations and experiments that are objective enough to be able to demonstrate what that world is like.

They’ve been enormously successful at that, as all kinds of practical applications of scientific research demonstrate.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

All that I’m saying is that a logical approach to the scientific method must be solipsist, because we cannot be certain that anything we observe (or rather remember observing) has any connection with external reality. I don’t see any way round that.

Scientists don’t need to be “certain”. Unlike solipsists, they simply assume the world is real, and then design observations and experiments that are objective enough to be able to demonstrate what that world is like.

They’ve been enormously successful at that, as all kinds of practical applications of scientific research demonstrate.

Using the definition of solipsism provided by PWM, there is nothing in what you write above that is contrary to solipsism, other than the words “Unlike solipsists”.

I am sure that there are people who call themselves solipsists who would agree that solipsists cannot assume the world is real, but as I said before, tis seems to me to be anti-solipsist.

>Unlike solipsists, they simply assume the world is real

It’s not as if the classic solipsists do anything philosophically superior to that :)

Or even different from that, apart from their claims. Descartes for example claimed to reach “Cogito ergo sum” via a process of extreme scepticism, but that was purely theatrical. In reality he’d begun with the assumption that “if (something) thinks, then it exists”, and then concluded: “Since I think, I exist.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Using the definition of solipsism provided by PWM, there is nothing in what you write above that is contrary to solipsism, other than the words “Unlike solipsists”.

I am sure that there are people who call themselves solipsists who would agree that solipsists cannot assume the world is real, but as I said before, tis seems to me to be anti-solipsist.

Huh? Solipsism holds that we’re not entitled to assume the world is real.

As PWM’s Wiki quote says:

As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Using the definition of solipsism provided by PWM, there is nothing in what you write above that is contrary to solipsism, other than the words “Unlike solipsists”.

I am sure that there are people who call themselves solipsists who would agree that solipsists cannot assume the world is real, but as I said before, tis seems to me to be anti-solipsist.

Huh? Solipsism holds that we’re not entitled to assume the world is real.

As PWM’s Wiki quote says:

As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

The “metaphysical position” above is what I am saying is anti-solipsist, since just as we cannot be sure that anything observed is real, we also cannot be sure that it is not real.

The “epistemological position” says nothing about what we may assume, it only talks about what we may be certain of (nothing).

So this epistemological position seems entirely consistent to me with the scientific method.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Using the definition of solipsism provided by PWM, there is nothing in what you write above that is contrary to solipsism, other than the words “Unlike solipsists”.

I am sure that there are people who call themselves solipsists who would agree that solipsists cannot assume the world is real, but as I said before, tis seems to me to be anti-solipsist.

Huh? Solipsism holds that we’re not entitled to assume the world is real.

As PWM’s Wiki quote says:

As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

The “metaphysical position” above is what I am saying is anti-solipsist, since just as we cannot be sure that anything observed is real, we also cannot be sure that it is not real.

The “epistemological position” says nothing about what we may assume, it only talks about what we may be certain of (nothing).

So this epistemological position seems entirely consistent to me with the scientific method.

No, because the epistemological position of science is: introspective “knowledge” is unreliable, only disciplined study of the world outside of one’s subjective experience is of value.

And this is also true when studying the mind. To biologists, for example, the mind is a product of evolution by natural selection. We are genetically programmed to assume the world is real (regardless of intellectual postures) because that assumption is necessary for our survival.

Bubblecar said:

No, because the epistemological position of science is: introspective “knowledge” is unreliable, only disciplined study of the world outside of one’s subjective experience is of value.

And this is also true when studying the mind. To biologists, for example, the mind is a product of evolution by natural selection. We are genetically programmed to assume the world is real (regardless of intellectual postures) because that assumption is necessary for our survival.

If your statement of the accepted epistemological position of science is correct then it makes no sense. Everything we perceive or recall perceiving is subjective experience and is therefore uncertain.

But it is reasonable to assume that some things are more uncertain than others.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

No, because the epistemological position of science is: introspective “knowledge” is unreliable, only disciplined study of the world outside of one’s subjective experience is of value.

And this is also true when studying the mind. To biologists, for example, the mind is a product of evolution by natural selection. We are genetically programmed to assume the world is real (regardless of intellectual postures) because that assumption is necessary for our survival.

If your statement of the accepted epistemological position of science is correct then it makes no sense. Everything we perceive or recall perceiving is subjective experience and is therefore uncertain.

But it is reasonable to assume that some things are more uncertain than others.

What you overlook is that solipsists don’t agree with you :)

To them, subjective experience is the only thing we can assume is “real”, as long as we don’t ascribe a reality to it that is external to the mind.

In other words, it’s pretty much the opposite of how science works. Science sees subjective experience as no more real than anything else, and something that needs to be studied in as objective a way as possible in order to accurately describe it.

“Objective description” begins with the assumption that the world external to the mind is indeed real.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

No, because the epistemological position of science is: introspective “knowledge” is unreliable, only disciplined study of the world outside of one’s subjective experience is of value.

And this is also true when studying the mind. To biologists, for example, the mind is a product of evolution by natural selection. We are genetically programmed to assume the world is real (regardless of intellectual postures) because that assumption is necessary for our survival.

If your statement of the accepted epistemological position of science is correct then it makes no sense. Everything we perceive or recall perceiving is subjective experience and is therefore uncertain.

But it is reasonable to assume that some things are more uncertain than others.

What you overlook is that solipsists don’t agree with you :)

To them, subjective experience is the only thing we can assume is “real”, as long as we don’t ascribe a reality to it that is external to the mind.

In other words, it’s pretty much the opposite of how science works. Science sees subjective experience as no more real than anything else, and something that needs to be studied in as objective a way as possible in order to accurately describe it.

“Objective description” begins with the assumption that the world external to the mind is indeed real.

This is just yet another example of either/orism, no doubt brought upon by evolution.

All “external experiences” rely on internal recall, and internal processing of the (assumed) external data, so we can’t divide our experiences neatly into subjective and objective. They just occupy different positions along the subjective/objective continuum (and we can’t know what that position is, even relatively).

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is just yet another example of either/orism, no doubt brought upon by evolution.

All “external experiences” rely on internal recall, and internal processing of the (assumed) external data, so we can’t divide our experiences neatly into subjective and objective. They just occupy different positions along the subjective/objective continuum (and we can’t know what that position is, even relatively).

We know about how the brain works by studying it as objectively as we can, using all kinds of sophisticated instruments.This approach has yielded vast amounts of demonstrable knowledge, while solipsism offers zilch – it has very little intellectual content of any kind.

some of atheism must require God to exist, sorta it’s not that, or, i’m not that.

similarly some religious people need atheists for their identity.

transition said:

some of atheism must require God to exist, sorta it’s not that, or, i’m not that.

similarly some religious people need atheists for their identity.

didn’t make much sense that first sentence, read too literally anyway.

add (believers in) God

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is just yet another example of either/orism, no doubt brought upon by evolution.

All “external experiences” rely on internal recall, and internal processing of the (assumed) external data, so we can’t divide our experiences neatly into subjective and objective. They just occupy different positions along the subjective/objective continuum (and we can’t know what that position is, even relatively).

We know about how the brain works by studying it as objectively as we can, using all kinds of sophisticated instruments.This approach has yielded vast amounts of demonstrable knowledge, while solipsism offers zilch – it has very little intellectual content of any kind.

We don’t really have any idea how the brain works. Consciousness is completely unexplained.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is just yet another example of either/orism, no doubt brought upon by evolution.

All “external experiences” rely on internal recall, and internal processing of the (assumed) external data, so we can’t divide our experiences neatly into subjective and objective. They just occupy different positions along the subjective/objective continuum (and we can’t know what that position is, even relatively).

We know about how the brain works by studying it as objectively as we can, using all kinds of sophisticated instruments.This approach has yielded vast amounts of demonstrable knowledge, while solipsism offers zilch – it has very little intellectual content of any kind.

We don’t really have any idea how the brain works. Consciousness is completely unexplained.

and gravity, that’s a real mystery. and magnets.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is just yet another example of either/orism, no doubt brought upon by evolution.

All “external experiences” rely on internal recall, and internal processing of the (assumed) external data, so we can’t divide our experiences neatly into subjective and objective. They just occupy different positions along the subjective/objective continuum (and we can’t know what that position is, even relatively).

We know about how the brain works by studying it as objectively as we can, using all kinds of sophisticated instruments.This approach has yielded vast amounts of demonstrable knowledge, while solipsism offers zilch – it has very little intellectual content of any kind.

There you go with the either/or again.

transition said:

transition said:

some of atheism must require God to exist, sorta it’s not that, or, i’m not that.

similarly some religious people need atheists for their identity.

didn’t make much sense that first sentence, read too literally anyway.

add (believers in) God

OK, if there were no believers in God, then there would not be a named group of people who do not believe in God, just as there not a named group of people who do not believe that the hidden face of the Moon holds a precise image of Donald Trump’s face, or many other strange and unheld beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Falsifiability and testability

“….One can indirectly manipulate the world through the medium of the physical body, but it seems impossible to do so through pure thought…”

Not sure about this, you’d need to exclude not doing things as a form of manipulation. Yet everyday individuals through thought alone don’t do a range of things, influencing what happens.

just as there not a named group of people who do not believe that the hidden face of the Moon holds a precise image of Donald Trump’s face

I’m going to start a FB group now. Just have to think of a catchy name to get the punters in.

Boris said:

just as there not a named group of people who do not believe that the hidden face of the Moon holds a precise image of Donald Trump’s face

I’m going to start a FB group now. Just have to think of a catchy name to get the punters in.

Scientology.

Boris said:

just as there not a named group of people who do not believe that the hidden face of the Moon holds a precise image of Donald Trump’s face

I’m going to start a FB group now. Just have to think of a catchy name to get the punters in.

I was going to do it, but it would mean that I’d have to sign up to facebook.

transition said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I suppose I ought to go and read that, before lecturing Bubblecar about the real meaning of the word.

Boris said:

just as there not a named group of people who do not believe that the hidden face of the Moon holds a precise image of Donald Trump’s face

I’m going to start a FB group now. Just have to think of a catchy name to get the punters in.

https://www.facebook.com/Beaverlick-Christian-Church-860619160649230/

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I suppose I ought to go and read that, before lecturing Bubblecar about the real meaning of the word.

making it up is good too. I like it.

Interesting thread, rev.

I’m thinking back to high school, and a couple of ministers (RI/RE) that allowed (encouraged) class members to talk about (and ask) anything they wanted, and that anybody could leave the room anytime they liked.

It was the same room a lot of physics books were kept, one at least of that I stole, and still have.

transition said:

Interesting thread, rev.

I’m thinking back to high school, and a couple of ministers (RI/RE) that allowed (encouraged) class members to talk about (and ask) anything they wanted, and that anybody could leave the room anytime they liked.

It was the same room a lot of physics books were kept, one at least of that I stole, and still have.

So you are The Book Thief?

>So you are The Book Thief?

I not read that, or seen the movie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_Thief

transition said:

>So you are The Book Thief?

I not read that, or seen the movie

…but lived the part.