Existential Stuff Up!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 09:04 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:00 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I would place some credence to an ineffable moral cosmos, based on intuition, awe, and perhaps some degree of hope. Not hope for individualistic eternal life; rather a hope to learn more beyond a totally materialistic world view.
I do not see hard line atheism as totally obliterating such idealism.

So it might be true because you want it to be true?

No! If more exists beyond the physical realm it may not be good at all.
Former American atheist leader Madelyn O'HAIR described agnostics as 'gutless atheist's, based, I would assume, that she she saw them as fearful of extinction.
Extinction post mortem may or may not prevail........who knows?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 09:11 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:04 AM)Rik Wrote:  So it might be true because you want it to be true?

No! If more exists beyond the physical realm it may not be good at all.
Former American atheist leader Madelyn O'HAIR described agnostics as 'gutless atheist's, based, I would assume, that she she saw them as fearful of extinction.
Extinction post mortem may or may not prevail........who knows?

Then I don't understand what you mean by:
"I would place some credence to an ineffable moral cosmos, based on intuition, awe, and perhaps some degree of hope."

Can you explain or expand that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 09:17 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:11 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  No! If more exists beyond the physical realm it may not be good at all.
Former American atheist leader Madelyn O'HAIR described agnostics as 'gutless atheist's, based, I would assume, that she she saw them as fearful of extinction.
Extinction post mortem may or may not prevail........who knows?

Then I don't understand what you mean by:
"I would place some credence to an ineffable moral cosmos, based on intuition, awe, and perhaps some degree of hope."

Can you explain or expand that?

We can choose a purely materialistic basis for our existence or we can (without scientific proof) contemplate some greater cosmic meaning for our existence.
Note I say contemplate, as distinct from coercing others.
I don't see this as a feel good exercise; rather a looking outside the box, a contemplating if you like as to what could be further existential meaning(s)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 09:55 AM
Re: RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 09:40 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:17 AM)Rik Wrote:  Then I don't understand what you mean by:
"I would place some credence to an ineffable moral cosmos, based on intuition, awe, and perhaps some degree of hope."

Can you explain or expand that?

We can choose a purely materialistic basis for our existence or we can (without scientific proof) contemplate some greater cosmic meaning for our existence.
Note I say contemplate, as distinct from coercing others.
I don't see this as a feel good exercise; rather a looking outside the box, a contemplating if you like as to what could be further existential meaning(s)

Do you think "scientism" will lead humanity to less of this?

Any of these existential meaning come from within regardless. Attributions to extras factors are possible, but they are a limiting factor.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 09:40 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  We can choose a purely materialistic basis for our existence or we can (without scientific proof) contemplate some greater cosmic meaning for our existence.
Note I say contemplate, as distinct from coercing others.
I don't see this as a feel good exercise; rather a looking outside the box, a contemplating if you like as to what could be further existential meaning(s)

I don't have much of an issue with that as far as it goes; hypothesizing, even fantasizing, can be a useful way to view things form a new angle. The key is that any conclusions drawn from that process must then be evaluated for how they would be implemented in reality and what effect they would actually have. Useful ideas are ones that can be shown to have a demonstrably positive effect and that means they can be understood in materialistic terms.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 09:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:40 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  We can choose a purely materialistic basis for our existence or we can (without scientific proof) contemplate some greater cosmic meaning for our existence.
Note I say contemplate, as distinct from coercing others.
I don't see this as a feel good exercise; rather a looking outside the box, a contemplating if you like as to what could be further existential meaning(s)

Do you think "scientism" will lead humanity to less of this?

Any of these existential meaning come from within regardless. Attributions to extras factors are possible, but they are a limiting factor.

Yes! Extreme emphasis on material proofs, in my view, lead to a world view reflecting such.
I don't see 'attributions to extra factors' as limiting so long as esoteric considerations are dealt with openly, if this is possible. It is difficult to see how this might best be implemented to fit secular life; it might best be left to individual exploration. Norms and doctrines seem counter productive in this area.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 11:01 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:40 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  We can choose a purely materialistic basis for our existence or we can (without scientific proof) contemplate some greater cosmic meaning for our existence.
Note I say contemplate, as distinct from coercing others.
I don't see this as a feel good exercise; rather a looking outside the box, a contemplating if you like as to what could be further existential meaning(s)

I don't have much of an issue with that as far as it goes; hypothesizing, even fantasizing, can be a useful way to view things form a new angle. The key is that any conclusions drawn from that process must then be evaluated for how they would be implemented in reality and what effect they would actually have. Useful ideas are ones that can be shown to have a demonstrably positive effect and that means they can be understood in materialistic terms.
We also need to consider how atheistic evolutionary ideas may impact on any system of ethics. Even if absolutely true, does a system based on a haphazard, adaptive survival per se help us to live socially good lives?
Would even a remote leaning towards a universal cosmic goodness as hoped for (not proven) help balance the books.
As for "a demonstrable positive effect", this is made even more difficult by the varying systems such as utilitarianism, Kant's Moral Imperative,Situation Ethics et al.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 03:10 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 09:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Do you think "scientism" will lead humanity to less of this?

Any of these existential meaning come from within regardless. Attributions to extras factors are possible, but they are a limiting factor.

Yes! Extreme emphasis on material proofs, in my view, lead to a world view reflecting such.
I don't see 'attributions to extra factors' as limiting so long as esoteric considerations are dealt with openly, if this is possible. It is difficult to see how this might best be implemented to fit secular life; it might best be left to individual exploration. Norms and doctrines seem counter productive in this area.

I see much more evidence of the opposite. Distrusting science leads to anti-vaxxers and GMO protests, denying evolution and stunting childrens education. Where as looking for facts leads one to a much deeper truth than some philosophical mantra that is little more than a truism.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
15-10-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 03:35 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(15-10-2014 11:01 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't have much of an issue with that as far as it goes; hypothesizing, even fantasizing, can be a useful way to view things form a new angle. The key is that any conclusions drawn from that process must then be evaluated for how they would be implemented in reality and what effect they would actually have. Useful ideas are ones that can be shown to have a demonstrably positive effect and that means they can be understood in materialistic terms.
We also need to consider how atheistic evolutionary ideas may impact on any system of ethics. Even if absolutely true, does a system based on a haphazard, adaptive survival per se help us to live socially good lives?
Would even a remote leaning towards a universal cosmic goodness as hoped for (not proven) help balance the books.
As for "a demonstrable positive effect", this is made even more difficult by the varying systems such as utilitarianism, Kant's Moral Imperative,Situation Ethics et al.

What are "atheistic evolutionary ideas"? I know what evolutionary ideas are.
Evolution is a fact; denying it or minimizing its truth is not helpful - quite the opposite.
The conclusions of evolutionary theory inform us of the source or our basic moral sense, our emotions, our thinking. It is the basis for medicine and agriculture.

The melding of secular thought and humanist values has given us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Atheists abound in the arts as well as the sciences.

You seem to imply that a love of science precludes feelings of wonder and awe. If 'scientism' were indeed commonplace then we would certainly be diminished in spirit. But it isn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-10-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(15-10-2014 03:35 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  We also need to consider how atheistic evolutionary ideas may impact on any system of ethics.

No, we don't. Even ignoring the "atheistic" adjective as irrelevant since evolution is not dependent on atheism or vice-versa, evolution tells us how we got here, not what we should do now. It is the old "is-ought" distinction.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: