Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Care to tell us what Plato's teaching on women was?

Mike

Well at least he believed that men and women were equal and that both were equally rational.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

1. How are you going to estimate 'closeness to the truth'?

What puzzles me is why Aquinas has such a huge reputation... Before he begins to philosophize he already knows the truth: it's in the Catholic faith. If he comes across arguments that seem rational for some parts of the faith, then he will gladly take it. But if he doesn't he will simply invent other arguments or fall back on revelation.

Do you see ?

The best philosophers of either Greece or modern times would not do that... They are not going to find arguments for a conclusion given in advance.

In that sense is what I meant by 'coming closer to the truth'

2. I'd say you're in danger of compounding a category error with a chronological one. It's as impossible to compare the thinking prowess of Plato, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein as it is to decide whether Newton or Einstein was the greater scientist, or indeed, whether apples are better fruits than bananas.

But even the man you often cite, Alfred Whitehead, said that... "all of philosophy is simply a footnote to Plato".. or something to that effect.

I think the depth and breadth of Plato surpasses Aquinas.

[Fëanor]

Yes of course they are. But could I just make it clear that that is completely different from the point I was making in the second part of my post? I was saying that even we scientists generally live our lives in non-scientific ways. We make our 'life' decisions about friendship, love, and so on intuitively - we don't make those decisions based on the results of scientific enquiry. We scientists trust our friends and our families and our lovers not because we have scientific evidence that suggests they're trustworthy, but because we rely on our intuition coupled with our general experience of life, and of these people. That's no different, in essence, to the way in which people come to adopt what we might loosely called a 'religious' attitude to life. If it feels intuitively right, then that tends to be the way people go.

So this curious dualism emerges from the evangelical scientific atheist, in which the question of religious faith must be singled out for scientific enquiry (and inevitably dismissed, and the category error issues ignored), on the one hand; while on the other, the rest of our intuitively-held beliefs - the ones we use daily in our lives - are acceptable without being subject to scientific testing. So it's OK to fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act without recourse to scientific rigour (of course it is - try to imagine the impossibility of living a life in which all decisions are subject to scientific testing!). And yet, to pray in faith is an activity to be challenged and confronted by a lack of scientific evidence. That looks suspicious, to me. I don't want to pray, myself - but even so, this has me looking over my shoulder for the Thought Police.

It's one thing to act on instinct, without scientific rigor, even without concious reasoning, when we "fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act" (-- although you might grant we'd often be better off if we did).  These are tangible things so to speak.  But I'm not at sure it's the same thing at all to justify to a principle, an abstract concept, without rigor or reasoning.  This is what religionists ask us to do with respect to some supernatural being (or beings depending on the religion).

Perhaps some day scientists will demonstrate that religous sensibility is an instinct bestowed, (by evolution of course), on some substantial portion of the human population.  Perhaps they will even identify a "religion gene".  Well maybe I'm a lessor human being on account of it, but I'm missing that gene.

Incidentally and for whatever it's worth, scientific findings didn't much to do with my own rejection of religion.  Once you accept that, say, the thunder storm has natural causes, then God as an explanation for things quickly becomes redundant.  And certainly God doesn't prevent bad things from happening to good people, so what damned use is He anyway?  This line of think requires a certain rationality, an certain dispassion, but it's not science.

Personal aside:  I had a fairly religious upbringing; mother at least was and is a strong believer.  When I was a young age my mother admitted that Santa Claus didn't really exist, though, of course she insisted God did.  I thought to myself at age about five, "Hummm ...".

[Catison]

It's one thing to act on instinct, without scientific rigor, even without concious reasoning, when we "fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act" (-- although you might grant we'd often be better off if we did).  These are tangible things so to speak.  But I'm not at sure it's the same thing at all to justify to a principle, an abstract concept, without rigor or reasoning.  This is what religionists ask us to do with respect to some supernatural being (or beings depending on the religion).

I would also say that instinct doesn't justify religion itself, but it does poke holes into the idea that we can somehow, through progress, live completely rationally.

Perhaps some day scientists will demonstrate that religous sensibility is an instinct bestowed, (by evolution of course), on some substantial portion of the human population.  Perhaps they will even identify a "religion gene".  Well maybe I'm a lessor human being on account of it, but I'm missing that gene.

Or, it could be that being religious is just as rational as any other particular philosophy and you have made the choice to reject religion, which, of course, is yours to freely make.   

Incidentally and for whatever it's worth, scientific findings didn't much to do with my own rejection of religion.  Once you accept that, say, the thunder storm has natural causes, then God as an explanation for things quickly becomes redundant.  And certainly God doesn't prevent bad things from happening to good people, so what damned use is He anyway?  This line of think requires a certain rationality, an certain dispassion, but it's not science.

This is called "God of the gaps" and the "Argument from evil".  Both are poor philosophy, in my opinion.  St. Thomas Aquinas, as I mentioned earlier, cited them as the only two counterarguments against the existence of God in his Summa around the year 1250.  The point being these arguments were well known, even then, and even to Thomas, who wasn't too shabby intellectually.  So what is the use of God?  At the very least, He is the first, efficient cause of the universe and He is the source of objective truth.  Namely, we cannot talk about a beginning without talking about God and we cannot talk about right or wrong without talking about God.  Further, God allows evil to exist because he has given us free will.  The choice to live a good life is only meaningful if the choice to reject such a life exists, and as humans we often do, but that doesn't mean He is the source of this evil.

Personal aside:  I had a fairly religious upbringing; mother at least was and is a strong believer.  When I was a young age my mother admitted that Santa Claus didn't really exist, though, of course she insisted God did.  I thought to myself at age about five, "Hummm ...".

There is nothing more natural.  I remember doing the same and you would be hard pressed to find any religious person who hadn't struggled at some point.  There is an immature belief in God which is a lot like belief in Santa Claus, but there is also a developed belief, and the latter is more virtuous.  The hard part is that moving into a mature belief, it often involves complete rejection.  Luckily, it is always possible to come back to God at any time.

[Florestan]

Elgarian, my hat off to you! Your patient and sensible refutation of Eric's untenable position is remarkable!

The valuable insights of Mike, Patrick and Brett are greatly appreciated at this end as well.

[Elgarian]

What puzzles me is why Aquinas has such a huge reputation... Before he begins to philosophize he already knows the truth: it's in the Catholic faith. If he comes across arguments that seem rational for some parts of the faith, then he will gladly take it. But if he doesn't he will simply invent other arguments or fall back on revelation.

I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Thomism, but I think it might be fruitful to observe that what you consider to be the fakery of his apparently self-contained philosophical model is not so very different in principle from my argument about the fakery of the self-contained scientific model. While (if you are right) the Thomist logical system is rigged so that God will inevitably be found, the scientific model is rigged so that God will inevitably be excluded. We human beings are very adept at arguing our way to the outcome we want, and calling it 'true'.

I've given my view on your proposed Plato v Aquinas contest already, and can't think of anything else to say about it.

[Elgarian]

It's one thing to act on instinct, without scientific rigor, even without concious reasoning, when we "fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act"

'Instinct' isn't the word I used. I spoke of 'intuition' which is a very different thing, and it's very important to recognise the difference. An act based on instinct would be one where, for example, we raise an arm automatically to ward off a blow. But intuition is a method of acquiring knowledge by just 'seeing' a solution to a problem without the use of reasoned argument. When you substitute the word 'instinct' into what I said, you change my meaning completely.

But I'm not at sure it's the same thing at all to justify to a principle, an abstract concept, without rigor or reasoning.  This is what religionists ask us to do with respect to some supernatural being (or beings depending on the religion).

I'm not justifying the use of intuition in making decisions. I'm observing only that we do make intuitive decisions, all the time, every day of our waking lives. It's how human beings live. Yet the only one of them which is challenged by the scientific evangelical atheist is the one that relates to religious belief. The trustworthiness of my friends is no more provable than the existence of God, yet I don't recall Richard Dawkins advising us to stop trusting our friends without evidence based on proper scientific enquiry. I'm satisfied that the 'science displaces religion' arguments are philosophically unsound as I've explained in previous posts in this thread; but that selectivity makes me suspicious of the underlying motivation too.

[Elgarian]

Your patient and sensible refutation of Eric's untenable position is remarkable!

Thank you for the compliment, though I don't think I was doing anything so grand as refuting his position, as such, was I? (I'm not entirely sure what his position is.) I was just trying to disentangle the problems as best I could.

[DavidRoss]

There is an immature belief in God which is a lot like belief in Santa Claus, but there is also a developed belief, and the latter is more virtuous.  The hard part is that moving into a mature belief, it often involves complete rejection.  Luckily, it is always possible to come back to God at any time.

Succinct and pertinent--thank you.  Over the years in which I've tried to help most of these characters (one here is new) recognize the flaws in their reasoning and the irrational faith underlying their assumptions--despite which they cling to more stubbornly than Obama's small-town voters cling to their guns and religion!  --it's been apparent that all of them are wedded to a fundamental category mistake, imagining that their rejection of a primary-school Santa Claus conception of God entails rejection of God (and "proves" that God does not exist! ).  Suggestions that rather than demolishing kindergarten straw-Gods, their time might be better spent seeking a more mature conception of God, have not been heeded.  They insist on using a hammer (and a rather small hammer at that) to broil a pork chop.  Sigh.

'Instinct' isn't the word I used. I spoke of 'intuition' which is a very different thing, and it's very important to recognise the difference. An act based on instinct would be one where, for example, we raise an arm automatically to ward off a blow. But intuition is a method of acquiring knowledge by just 'seeing' a solution to a problem without the use of reasoned argument. When you substitute the word 'instinct' into what I said, you change my meaning completely.

I'm not justifying the use of intuition in making decisions. I'm observing only that we do make intuitive decisions, all the time, every day of our waking lives. It's how human beings live.

Yes, though I suppose that most of us make most of our decisions neither rationally nor intuitively, but emotionally, with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made.

The notion of intuition is intrinsically interesting.  Many confuse it with instinct, as you have noted.  Many others regard it as quasi-mystical, perhaps a form of extra-sensory perception.  But to me the notion of a direct "knowing"--and the observable instances of it in everyday life--suggest nothing more mystical than "background" information processing yielding sudden conscious awareness of a result.  Women are generally regarded as more intuitive than men, which is perfectly consistent with the larger corpus callosum of the female brain and their greater "associative" processing power.

Some people discount intuition, perhaps usually men whose brain structures severely restrict their capacity for associative thought--yet even they rely on it in matters very familiar to them.  Expert systems may functionally mimic some of the background processing involved in intuitive "reasoning."  Yet without a seat of consciousness, a "knower" capable of recognizing the significance of the data and results--and capable of making the intuitive, associate leap necessary to recognize the essential similarity between canteloupes and carapaces--knowledge is not possible, intuitive or otherwise.

Of course, without an open mind--and recognition of the limits of one's own understanding--learning is not possible and knowledge therefore unattainable.

[Florestan]

I'm not entirely sure what his position is.

Why, obviously:

1. Monotheism is bad
2. Aquinas is a one -way ticket to the madhouse
3. Plato is an apostle of democracy and gender equality.

or at least that's what can be infered from his posts. 

[Fëanor]

...  

This is called "God of the gaps" and the "Argument from evil".  Both are poor philosophy, in my opinion.  St. Thomas Aquinas, as I mentioned earlier, cited them as the only two counterarguments against the existence of God in his Summa around the year 1250.  The point being these arguments were well known, even then, and even to Thomas, who wasn't too shabby intellectually.  So what is the use of God?  At the very least, He is the first, efficient cause of the universe and He is the source of objective truth.  Namely, we cannot talk about a beginning without talking about God and we cannot talk about right or wrong without talking about God.  Further, God allows evil to exist because he has given us free will.  The choice to live a good life is only meaningful if the choice to reject such a life exists, and as humans we often do, but that doesn't mean He is the source of this evil.

...

The whole notion of a "prime mover" or "intelligent designer" as necessary starting point has been refuted.  Dawkins and other have done this again and again.  And, for what it's worth, it was obvious to me decades before I read Dawkins.  The key points boil down to simple, reductive logic:  if the universe required an intelligent designer, where did the intellgent designer come from?  It doesn't help to say the the intelligent design has always existed; if the designer has always existed then why not the laws & substance of the universe?

The freedom of people to choose "right" or "wrong" is not in question.  And there is no necessity that this freedom was confered by a supernatural being.  By the way my definition of right vs. wrong is utilitarian -- what is conducive of the greatest good for the greatest number;  it categorically does not derive from devine ordinance.

[Elgarian]

I suppose that most of us make most of our decisions neither rationally nor intuitively, but emotionally, with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made.

It's not easy to know which is which, don't you think? We're very good at fooling ourselves (and sometimes, others) about precisely what is driving us - and the recognition of your last point there ("with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made") can be the most elusive of all. What we might call 'the Dawkins position', for example, is a classic example of it, with a flurry of apparent rationalism providing a smokescreen for the essentially emotional core.

The role that intuition plays in science is interesting. One of the classic examples is Millikan's discovery of the electron. His notebooks make it pretty clear that his intuition was the primary driving force behind his experiments - even to the point of him finding reasons for excluding results that didn't fit the hypothesis. Don't get me wrong - Millikan was a fine scientist; but even the best scientists don't always behave as rationally as we might suppose.

[Florestan]

even the best scientists don't behave as rationally as we might suppose.

A thing of which many people should be reminded more often.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

I'm not entirely sure what his position is.

Here is my position in a nutshell:

1.  I was born into a Catholic family but I now understand that Christianity is simply a big myth. I am now a rationalist.

Of course Jesus said beautiful things such as: "Unless your mind becomes like the mind of a child you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven"  and  "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth". We also have the wonderful parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son and the instruction that when we pray and do good works that they shoud be done in secret.

But he also said that if a man looks lustfully at a woman that he has already committed adultery in his heart.

I cannot accept that. Life is difficult enough as it is and now we have to abstain from what is potentially (at times) the greatest physical pleasure known to us ?  To condemn a man so severely for merely having lascivious thoughts is  inhuman.

2.  I find the teleological arguments for a supernatural being very convincing.

3.  I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

4.  I believe that philosophy and living in accordance with  natural law  is the best way.

[Brian]

3.  I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

Zoinks!

Also, O Pelleastrated one, if I may suggest it, as a fellow person who is not a particular fan of Jesus, that is one of the silliest reasons not to be a fan of Jesus that I can recall. I would cite, for example, his preaching about Hell before getting to his rather wise counsel not to go gawking at chicks all over the place.   

[Fëanor]

Zoinks!

Also, O Pelleastrated one, if I may suggest it, as a fellow person who is not a particular fan of Jesus, that is one of the silliest reasons not to be a fan of Jesus that I can recall. I would cite, for example, his preaching about Hell before getting to his rather wise counsel not to go gawking at chicks all over the place.   

Speaking of being a fan of Jesus, I'm a fan myself -- relatively speaking.  Certainly the version of God purveyed in the Gospels is a lot more appealing than the jealous, vindictive, genocidal God of the Old Testiment.

[Florestan]

I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

Frankly, Eric, maturity is not something you are entitled to pontificate about.

[karlhenning]

Andrei beat me to that thrice-apt observation.

[PSmith08]

But he also said that if a man looks lustfully at a woman that he has already committed adultery in his heart.

I cannot accept that. Life is difficult enough as it is and now we have to abstain from what is potentially (at times) the greatest physical pleasure known to us ?  To condemn a man so severely for merely having lascivious thoughts is  inhuman.

Of all the positions of Christ and New Testament, this is the one to which you take exception? Eh. Sounds about right.

Also, the principle of self-denial tends to be big in Christianity. Many religions, as a matter of fact, have similar ideas.

[karlhenning]

(* sniff, sniff *)