Animae wrote:
I thing you are putting a lot of interpretation on my words, if there is anything that seems incomplete to you why not ask me what I mean before counter arguing your interpretation of my views?
I am forced to interpret what you are saying. If you don't want that, make your statements less open for interpretation. And also, if you feel that I've misunderstood you, explain what you really meant. What exactly would you want the society to be? So far everything you've said has held the implication that you don't care what truth may be and you accept even deliberate misleading for stability. Those are opinions I can't accept, either from practical or ethical point of view. If that isn't what you mean, tell just what is, then.
Mind telling where I have defended deception? As I said there is a difference between lying and not telling the truth.
Here and now you are defending deception. If you decide to tell the truth to a certain group of people and keep it away from another, you are doing a deceptive, elitistic act. Not all may be able to understand or accept all the truths, but they certainly have the benefit of doubt.
That’s a classical example of an invalid argument; just because someone you regard as “bad” did something does not necessary mean that that thing is wrong.
It can be fairly objectively stated, that the actions of the various tyrants in question didn't increase the general happiness of their subjects. Also, more often than not, they ended up harming themselves, as truths have a habit of emerging, even when covered up.
I dont think that information control is an efficient way to handle society yet as you interpret as defending, I countered that argument because it is invalid. If you have already defined truth and reality as something you find to your liking, why argue in the first place?
First you defend people I call tyrants, and their information control tactics and in the very next sentence you deny ever having done such a thing. Are you starting to understand why I have troubles keeping up with your opinions? And continuously you accuse me of having defined truth for my liking, when I'm questioning you for your opinions in the matter. And besides, if truth and reality were completely ambigious, this debate would be pointless. Does having solid view of reality a bad thing, when backed by logic and evidence - or lack thereof? You are defending another solid view, backed up by neither. And with that, you are pretending to be the more open-minded of the two of us. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinions, if new evidence emerges. What about you?
Once again, that is your interpretation of what I said, not what I actually said.
What you imply in your speech is no less important than what you actually say. You should be careful with your words. I repeat: if that isn't what you mean, say what is.
Is something less true because you don’t like its implication? That would be wishful thinking.
I was speaking of a social model, which is no solid truth. Ethically I cannot accept the implications of your suggestions - not because of their truthfulness, which is completely subjective, but because of what they would do to the society - namely, nothing good, within my set of values.
Perhaps you should look at what you have quoted. “All false in the sense that the thing we speak of only exist as part of systems that we had come to create.” Nowhere do I say “everything created is false”, in neither did I say anything about concepts being untrue.
Indeed? Let me refresh your memory. This is a direct quote from you:
My point is that lies are as powerful (and valuable) as truth as both are human concept of which ultimately all are false.
You said exactly and directly, that all human concepts are false, as you can see for yourself. Again, if you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.
Do you believe that we see and hear raw input? Reality that we fell is something so concrete suddenly seems a lot more “artificial” don’t you think?
You tell nothing I don't know. But its implications to our debate are negliable. We can't trust our senses absolutely, but we can trust that they describe us reality, albeit incompletely. Otherwise we stray into soplisism and that's a dead end.
How can an object that consists of particles that have uncertain places be in a certain place?
Ask that of a theoretical physicist. They all propably give slightly different answers, though. In any case, just as their calculations show that subatomic particles have uncertain positions, they show that the same doesn't apply in macroscopic level. You can't accept only half of a mathematical explanation.
Again I don’t disagree with you on that objects have a specific location as we perceive them.
And if we couldn't perceive objects with certain reliability, we'd end up stumbling all over the place and our senses would be no use, whatsoever. Unless you live in subatomic level, the uncertainity of particles is not an issue. It's also derailing the thread.
But I don’t think it’s the right solution to a problem to simply “explain it away”.
And yet you are doing it yourself. Double standards, anyone? I'm not explaining a problem away - I'm merely removing an unneccesary element. You don't need particle physics in a matter of social science.
My point is that making philosophical interpretation of physics is a bit risky, because we might make the same mistake that Newton made when he believed in the “clockwork universe”. Modern physics does definitely not encompass all aspects of reality. I usually call those who think it is "dogmatic materialist". I guess the lesson is; sometimes knowing can make you blind for the things you don’t know.
Again, I'm well aware that the modern physics doesn't possess all knowledge of the nature of reality. But no other method provides us as much information as physics. The things that physics doesn't understand are completely unknown and cannot be used to prove or disprove anything - if something is unknown it doesn't mean that exactly that thing could prove you correct.
I am a bit curious that you can conceive the implications of reality not being logically consistent. Logic as we call it may very well be artificial just like the other things that we claim to be so real. That would mean that the only reason behind our perception of reality as being logical is because reality is created in such a fashion in our minds. In such a sense we would see things as following cause and effect only because it’s the rules that our minds abide by. But reality would have to follow rules even if they differ from ours right? If you redefine logic to fit the actual rules of the outside world logic would no longer be logic as we know it.
Logic is known as logic, because its universal. No subjectivity is allowed within its realm. 2+2=4, no matter who or what you are. Logic is not dependent on senses and unless our brains and enviroments are deliberately designed to deceive us, we can expect logic to be free of our minds, as well. Because if it's not, if there is no need for logical consistency, everything can be anything and nothing needs to make sense. Or as my philosophy teacher once put it: "If cow is an animal and cow is not an animal, the moon is made of cheese". If logical consistency breaks, any conclusion can be the right one.
If the external world (the true reality as we don’t see it) could be inconceivable, could not other “inconceivable” thing be possible, such as a logically inconsistent world?
If that is correct and our senses exist only to mislead us, anything, whatsoever can be true and nothing we can think of can possibly express any of it. In that case no explanation is worth anything, at all. What you are doing here is exactly what you accused me of doing, explaining things away. If you choose to believe in logically inconsistent universe, no logical conclusion I make can affect you in any way and there is no need for you to offer logical explanations for your claims or actions. And in that case this debate is pointless and so is every point either of us has made, until now.
Just because something is improbable does not mean that it cannot be. I just proved that God existance could be possible in various scenarios, and now you discard my argument as improbable?
I never said that existance of a God-like entity is a complete impossibility, though the existance of absolute omnipotence is. But it is so highly impropable that an entity just like described by a faith-founded religion exists, that for practical purposes presuming its existance is pointless, especially since no evidence available points its way. A sentient creator of any kind at all is somewhat closer to possibility, but since existance of such an entity would explain no major philosophical question, its largely irrelevant whether it exists, or not, from a philosophical standpoint, at least. I believe I've already explained this.
Do you understand now why I said that the search for the entity God was irrelevant to this discussion?
You certainly have given no reason, whatsoever to gain such an understanding. Giving an explanation next time might help, a bit.
Yet if I recall correctly you where the one to argue that religion was something harmful, claiming that secular ways where better.
I have not claimed that religion is inheritly harmful - just that its not inheritly benefical and can be harmful in a number of situations. In times when it attempts to step in the way of science or even ursup its place, it can only be harmful.
As the ideas of theism and atheism are in no way compatible, there should be a constant competition between the two ideas.
No. Since you forget the differences between different individuals and groups of people, as well as the various degrees of agnosticism from between the two worldviews.
If religion is no longer beneficial, and atheism is why is not the obsolete design replaced? And if it had lost its use why would it still evolve?
If the creatures moved on land, why there are still fish in the sea? Because the ecological niché hasn't gone anywhere. There are still billions of people whose minds are ready to accept religious explanations and as long as there is one, the religion isn't going to go anywhere.
And I don't argue to defend atheism, but science. Atheism requires faith, as well and thus is a religion, in itself. In your mind atheism and religion oppose each other, but in fact they are two parts of one and same thing.
If they are oversimplified and wrong why don’t you disprove them?
That's what I've been doing here, isn't it? Read for yourself.
Are you certain? I am somewhat skeptical.
Ofcourse I'm only limited to observations, but the evidence points that way. Ask yourself, how can different religions co-exist peacefully? No matter how you look at it, their teachings are inconsistent - if one is right, then the others are wrong. Yet despite of this, conflicts for religous reasons alone are incredibly rare. Even the most well-known example, the Chrusades had very political reasons and almost all the time, the religion was only the reason in name.
How can you be the servant of a one true God if you don't try to convert everybody in danger of going to Hell? And if you are certain that all unbelievers are in danger of going to Hell, why aren't you more concerned over yourself, if you're actually a true believer or not? Very few people have this kind of taughts, as far as I've been able to confirm. Their faith is empowered simply by habit and peer-pressure.
Is that not the same thing? Wouldn’t that make you the best adapted?
No. The best adapted in one time-period may be the worst in another. Just because the religion was the best bet in the early times of civilization doesn't mean that's the case, any more. It's not completely unbenefical and it still can have social merit in many societies, so it's not going to dissapear any time soon, but it's no longer the best choice available.
Chance is a part evolution as far as I know.
Indeed it is, but chance for benefit can quickly turn into chance for disadvantage.
I was thinking about believing an idea and not merely the existence about the concept.
Please elaborate. I have trouble understanding this sentence.
When did I say that evolution somehow needed my intervention? I am way past the naïve time when I thought the world could be changed to our whim. I am quite comfortable to observe the past and present, perhaps to get a glimpse of the future.
As you were naive to believe that the world is easily changed, you are now naive to believe that you can avoid affecting the world. Objective observation isn't possible. You will affect the world by your existance, whatever you would want.
And I wasn't saying that it's your intention to physically change the world into your liking, but to present a conclusion what would happen, if your ideas did become dominating.
Speaking of benefit, did you forget what I pointed out some post ago? It entirely depends on what kind of society you want.
No. Some societies are more stable, more capable of functioning in reality. A society based on false beliefs collapses as soon as the inconsistency between the belief and reality becomes widely known.
Whenever Plato’s Republic is a failure or not depends entirely of what you expect a success to be.
State, not Republic. Plato was one of the greatest opponents of republic, in his time. And his model is dysfunctional. He tried it in practice twice and both times it utterly failed. The idea simply fails to function in reality because it begins from false premises and sets impossible demands for the people in it.
I never said that a broken mind was something unbeneficial (towards what?). I think you are seeing this out of context.
"Broken" generally means bad. If it isn't a bad thing, then why are you speaking against it? You are starting to talk against yourself, as the debate progresses.
And those people, do you really think it’s their doubt that gave them strength? Doubt is very likely their source of creativity (how would you solve problems that you are not aware of?) but that’s something entirely different from conviction.
If they didn't have doubt, they wouldn't had conviction to learn or find something. Thus, it's not untrue to say that their doubt was their strength.
You seem to like to misinterpret my points; nowhere did I say that faith brought prosperity. I don’t know really how to interpret the last part. If you believe that the sole reason behind the state that the Middle East is is because of its fundamentalism, then I urge you to reconsider.
If you don't think that faith brings prosperity, then why are you defending it, in the first place? Your reasoning becomes harder and harder to understand.
And the religous fundamentalism plays an important part in the situation of the Middle-East. It prevents the area's leaders from thinking clearly, urges violence against people with different beliefs and effectively stands in the way of numerous advances in their society. For example, they lose a huge amount of intellectual resources by keeping women as second-class citizens.
This is enough for now. I'll get to your second post later.