The Enlightenment - roll it back or forward?

[jediuser598]

Seems hubris to believe that we're in touch with the all powerful ruler of the universe and that he takes an interest in our daily lives. Not only an interest, but a close interest. He's supposed to be our best friend, our father. The universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet, the ruler of all of that is our father? We are his children?

But it seems our body needs spiritualism as much as it needs people. We suck at being lonely, we're social creatures, perhaps we're spiritual creatures as well. (or rather creatures that tend to want to believe in spirituality) otherwise we're miserable.

There's this feeling that the universe is not enough, because in that universe without spirituality, well we're not all that special. We're just grains of sand on a near infinite beach. Is there not a need within the human mind to feel special? Or is it just the western mind?

Or is it that we need to at least feel part of something that is larger than ourselves, but also that we agree with and we're part of that force that is making the world a better place. All of those things you listed "Greed, Lust, Selfishness, Materialism, Egotism" are all individual. If we were instead to put that on a national scale, like this: "Acquisition of things money for my country, [don't know about lust on a national scale], do what is best for my country, acquisition of things formy country, my country wins accolades" then suddenly those are good things, even if they're at the expense of other countries. Then suddenly we have all that we need to be happy.

You know, perhaps if we killed off these ethical philosophers they'd stop making us feel bad about national pride/prosperity, our problems would be solved.

And a universe reduced to rational materialism is most certainly an abstract and empty place to live.

But what if it's true?

Should I throw away truth because it doesn't make me happy?

[Speaker to Animals]

Seems hubris to believe that we're in touch with the all powerful ruler of the universe and that he takes an interest in our daily lives. Not only an interest, but a close interest. He's supposed to be our best friend, our father. The universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet, the ruler of all of that is our father? We are his children?

But it seems our body needs spiritualism as much as it needs people. We suck at being lonely, we're social creatures, perhaps we're spiritual creatures as well. (or rather creatures that tend to want to believe in spirituality) otherwise we're miserable.

There's this feeling that the universe is not enough, because in that universe without spirituality, well we're not all that special. We're just grains of sand on a near infinite beach. Is there not a need within the human mind to feel special? Or is it just the western mind?

Or is it that we need to at least feel part of something that is larger than ourselves, but also that we agree with and we're part of that force that is making the world a better place. All of those things you listed "Greed, Lust, Selfishness, Materialism, Egotism" are all individual. If we were instead to put that on a national scale, like this: "Acquisition of things money for my country, [don't know about lust on a national scale], do what is best for my country, acquisition of things formy country, my country wins accolades" then suddenly those are good things, even if they're at the expense of other countries. Then suddenly we have all that we need to be happy.

You know, perhaps if we killed off these ethical philosophers they'd stop making us feel bad about national pride/prosperity, our problems would be solved.

And a universe reduced to rational materialism is most certainly an abstract and empty place to live.

But what if it's true?

Should I throw away truth because it doesn't make me happy?

If materialism is true, then you have no basis to even speak of truth. It undermines the very basis from which you can trust your own intellect. You can only speak of what seems to work in a measurable way. Truth is unattainable and ultimately something you can never be confident you know.

[jediuser598]

And a universe reduced to rational materialism is most certainly an abstract and empty place to live.

But what if it's true?

Should I throw away truth because it doesn't make me happy?

If materialism is true, then you have no basis to even speak of truth. It undermines the very basis from which you can trust your own intellect.

How so?

I can argue for objective truth. There are things that are objectively true, even things I can get at from my subjective position.

[Speaker to Animals]

But what if it's true?

Should I throw away truth because it doesn't make me happy?

If materialism is true, then you have no basis to even speak of truth. It undermines the very basis from which you can trust your own intellect.

How so?

I can argue for objective truth. There are things that are objectively true, even things I can get at from my subjective position.

You'd have no basis to argue that you could necessarily know the truth about anything. You are a product of evolution. Its only imperative is survival and reproduction. If you believing in a fiction increases your odds of survival and your chances at reproduction, then you are not going to to believe in the truth.

The only avenue you'd have to argue that you could necessarily grasp the truth is if you attempt to posit the premise that knowing the truth necessarily increases your fitness in an evolutionary sense. But I would counter that you have no evidence at all to support that and, in fact, you already partly affirmed it when you claimed there has to be some vestigial reason for faith.

[jediuser598]

If materialism is true, then you have no basis to even speak of truth. It undermines the very basis from which you can trust your own intellect.

How so?

I can argue for objective truth. There are things that are objectively true, even things I can get at from my subjective position.

You'd have no basis to argue that you could necessarily know the truth about anything. You are a product of evolution. It's only imperative is survival and reproduction. If you believing in a fiction increases your odds of survival and your chances at reproduction, then you are not going to to believe in the truth.

Survival and Reproduction and a belief in truth aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can believe in something that is true, but that thing can also increase my chance of reproduction.

I don't see how one must believe in falsehoods in order to mate, or how it is more beneficial to believe in falsehoods in order to mate, or how it is necessary to believe in falsehoods in order to survive. Sure, in some cases that may be true, but there are certainly cases in which that is not true.

But there are things I can assert the truth of.

Change exists. <----Is that not true?

or

A=A <-----is this not true as well?

[Speaker to Animals]

From a materialist perspective, you really have to grapple with the phenomenon of religion. There does not exist any apparent means for you to dismiss it in that paradigm as anything but an evolutionary adaptation. Something we evolved to do because it confers some benefit to our survival.

I see atheists arguing something along those lines all the time. But if you really think about it, to believe that means you have to question your ability to know the truth about anything at all.

Think about it. Say materialism is actually the truth. Humans evolved to believe religions for some social and adaptive benefit even though the subject of those religions is false. By acknowledging that you also acknowledge that evolution is perfectly willing to inhibit your ability to perceive or know the truth if doing so increases your chances at reproduction.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Religion serves the purpose of social stability - enforced social norms, and structure. A magical all-seeing penalty enforcer was a valuable thing before States became powerful enough to take over that role.

[Speaker to Animals]

How so?

I can argue for objective truth. There are things that are objectively true, even things I can get at from my subjective position.

You'd have no basis to argue that you could necessarily know the truth about anything. You are a product of evolution. It's only imperative is survival and reproduction. If you believing in a fiction increases your odds of survival and your chances at reproduction, then you are not going to to believe in the truth.

Survival and Reproduction and a belief in truth aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can believe in something that is true, but that thing can also increase my chance of reproduction.

I don't see how one must believe in falsehoods in order to mate, or how it is more beneficial to believe in falsehoods in order to mate, or how it is necessary to believe in falsehoods in order to survive. Sure, in some cases that may be true, but there are certainly cases in which that is not true.

But there are things I can assert the truth of.

Change exists. <----Is that not true?

or

A=A <-----is this not true as well?

1. Change exists..

Does it? If I also accept the notion that past and future exist, that we only perceive time as passing and the universe is just a timeline in a multiverse, then change certainly does not exist. It's just an illusion based on the way I perceive time to be passing. This is the conflict between Parminedes and Heraclitus. It's one of the biggest debates in philosophy and science to this very day.

2. A=A..

A series of symbols. You apply meaning to those symbols. To say a sequence of symbols is "true" makes little sense. What you intend here is that whatever is meant by that expression must be true. But is it? What does A stand for? How do you know it doesn't mutate? Light is a photon and a wave. Is a wave equal to a photon? Not really.

[Speaker to Animals]

Religion serves the purpose of social stability - enforced social norms, and structure. A magical all-seeing penalty enforcer was a valuable thing before States became powerful enough to take over that role.

Flounder in to make my point. Thanks dude.

If you believe this, then you cannot then argue you have some inherent capacity to discern truth from nontruth. You do and believe what is most likely to increase your chances at reproduction.

[jediuser598]

From a materialist perspective, you really have to grapple with the phenomenon of religion. There does not exist any apparent means for you to dismiss it in that paradigm as anything but an evolutionary adaptation. Something we evolved to do because it confers some benefit to our survival.

I see atheists arguing something along those lines all the time. But if you really think about it, to believe that means you have to question your ability to know the truth about anything at all.

Think about it. Say materialism is actually the truth. Humans evolved to believe religions for some social and adaptive benefit even though the subject of those religions is false. By acknowledging that you also acknowledge that evolution is perfectly willing to inhibit your ability to perceive or know the truth if doing so increases your chances at reproduction.

Absolutely, but I can also assert that there are objective truths even if I acknowledge your point.