Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Fëanor]

Are you implying that governments are about bringing happiness to people? If yes, I reiterate: it is an ideological fantasy to believe this task will ever be accomplished.

The alternative to what? I don't quite understand you. Mixing politics with religion is not going to clarify your position.

Then again mixing religion and politics is nothing new, eh? 

[Florestan]

Well, Feanor could be proposing good for people, whether or not it makes them happy. He may wish to push them to happiness with an iron fist 

I am very interested in Feanor's definition of what constitutes "the greatest good for the greatest number".

[Catison]

If "metaphysical ideas" exist, the universe contains them ipso facto.

I would be interested in a materialist proof of this idea.  How exactly do you show, through scientific methods, that anything has meaning?

I should be more clear.  When I say the universe, I mean the strictly material universe.  You proposed the universe itself is the prime mover, and by this, I assume you meant the universe as it is detectable by scientific means.  Unless you are arguing that true metaphysical ideas are somehow permeating through all of the universe, undetectable by scientific instruments, but yet somehow informing us about reality?  If so, then that is dangerously close to the Christian perspective  .

[Elgarian]

When I say the universe, I mean the strictly material universe.

I think that statement poses problems. I don't know what 'the strictly material universe' means, unless it means something like 'that part of the universe which is accessible to scientific observation and analysis'.

I'm guessing that what Feanor means is that the 'metaphysical ideas' are ours, and we are part of the universe - so in that sense the universe contains them. Whitehead (stop yawning at the back, please) says something that might be helpful:

"Nature is ... a totality including individual experiences, so that we must reject the distinction between nature as it really is and experiences of it which are purely psychological. Our experiences of the apparent world are nature itself."

He's talking more generally, about 'experiences' rather than 'ideas'; but still, one might might follow the same kind of line and conclude that our metaphysical ideas are the universe thinking about itself. It sounds rather exciting, put like that.

[Fëanor]

...

I'm guessing that what Feanor means is that the 'metaphysical ideas' are ours, and we are part of the universe - so in that sense the universe contains them.
...

Yes, of course.  To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe.

Where else would these ideas exist?  In the parallel, 'spiritual' universe?  I don't believe in this dualism.  I haven't studied the issue in depth, but I suspect the dualist notion is relative modern and a reaction to the increasingly obvious non-immanence of God in the actual world for which the advance of science and naturalistic explanations explain ever more.

[Catison]

I think that statement poses problems. I don't know what 'the strictly material universe' means, unless it means something like 'that part of the universe which is accessible to scientific observation and analysis'.

Yes, that is what I am getting at.

I'm guessing that what Feanor means is that the 'metaphysical ideas' are ours, and we are part of the universe - so in that sense the universe contains them. Whitehead (stop yawning at the back, please) says something that might be helpful:

"Nature is ... a totality including individual experiences, so that we must reject the distinction between nature as it really is and experiences of it which are purely psychological. Our experiences of the apparent world are nature itself."

He's talking more generally, about 'experiences' rather than 'ideas'; but still, one might might follow the same kind of line and conclude that our metaphysical ideas are the universe thinking about itself. It sounds rather exciting, put like that.

Yes, rather Kantian.  That doesn't really solve the problem, though.  It just tries to provide a scientific justification for relativism.  Which as we have talked about before, doesn't really prove anything.  Once we have made metaphysical ideas of "right" and "wrong" merely whatever a particular person's psychological experience happen to be, "right" and "wrong" lose all meaning.  Why would I have to care about anyone else's personal experiences but my own?

[Catison]

Yes, of course.  To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe.

How do you know this?  Is there some sort of experiment you can do that detects the metaphysical ideas in the neurons??

Where else would these ideas exist?  In the parallel, 'spiritual' universe?

Good question.  The short answer is "yes", although it should not be mistaken as somehow separate from our own universe.

I don't believe in this dualism.

Of course, one of the interesting things about this dualism is that it doesn't need you to believe in it in order for it to be true.

I haven't studied the issue in depth, but I suspect the dualist notion is relative modern and a reaction to the increasingly obvious non-immanence of God in the actual world for which the advance of science and naturalistic explanations explain ever more.

Yes, this is the faith statement of the materialist.

[karlhenning]

But Karl, are we not told: 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'? Or did I mishear that one?

Not meant to be taken literally; obviously it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products . . . .

[Fëanor]

How do you know this?  Is there some sort of experiment you can do that detects the metaphysical ideas in the neurons??

Good question.  The short answer is "yes", although it should not be mistaken as somehow separate from our own universe.

Of course, one of the interesting things about this dualism is that it doesn't need you to believe in it in order for it to be true.

Yes, this is the faith statement of the materialist.

Two words: 'Occam's Razor'.  It is simply unnecessary to hypothesize a parallel, 'spiritual' universe.  A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable problem or issue.

That is, the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe.  I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.

[Dr. Dread]

POW!!

[Catison]

Two words: 'Occam's Razor'.  It is simply unnecessary to hypothesize a parallel, 'spiritual' universe.  A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable problem or issue.

That is, the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe.  I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.

Um, you really haven't understood anything I've been writing, have you?  It is entirely necessary to hypothesize some sort of metaphysical statement, or do you somehow think you don't have to?  Do you think science can prove that it has some connection to reality within its own methods?

Do you think I am not aware of Occam's Razor?  You should be aware that this is a metaphysical concept, by the way.  There is no way to prove that the most simple explanations are always closer to the truth.  You are being sloppy.  You want to deny all metaphysical concepts exist, except when it suits you.

I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest.  First of all, you're wrong.  Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so.  Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why".  This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have.  And I am still unsure what that argument might be.

[karlhenning]

Um, you really haven't understood anything I've been writing, have you?  It is entirely necessary to hypothesize some sort of metaphysical statement, or do you somehow think you don't have to?  Do you think science can prove that it has some connection to reality within its own methods?

Do you think I am not aware of Occam's Razor?  You should be aware that this is a metaphysical concept, by the way.  There is no way to prove that the most simple explanations are always closer to the truth.  You are being sloppy.  You want to deny all metaphysical concepts exist, except when it suits you.

I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest.  First of all, you're wrong.  Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so.  Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why".  This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have.  And I am still unsure what that argument might be.

Well refuted, sir.

[Dr. Dread]

These arguments get old. The Christians back each other up regardless and so do the other folks.

[Fëanor]

...

I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest.  First of all, you're wrong.  Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so.  Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why".  This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have.  And I am still unsure what that argument might be.

Fine: I'll concede that many scientists and rational thinkers believe in God.  What I'm not about to concede is these people are "completely rational", rather they have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.

So let's consider theology a rational disipline, (for the sake of argument).  Rational certainly, but based on, and constrained by, premises that are not.

[DavidRoss]

Yes, of course.  To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe.

A serious category error, here, and an extraordinary statement of belief expressed as if a statement of fact.  You're obviously clever, and interested in the sort of issues discussed on this thread.  Have you ever considered the possible value of inquiring into such matters with no agenda other than the pursuit of "truth" (whatever that might be!)?

[karlhenning]

These arguments get old. The Christians back each other up regardless and so do the other folks.

I agree that such discussions tend to chase their own tail.  Your second remark is a serious error.

Well, it's an error.  You and I know better than to take it too seriously.

[Dr. Dread]

I agree that such discussions tend to chase their own tail.  Your second remark is a serious error.

Well, it's an error.  You and I know better than to take it too seriously.

I'm ashamed I even posted in here. 

[karlhenning]

I'm ashamed I even posted in here. 

Oh, you live for shame; you're not fooling anyone! 

[Fëanor]

I'm ashamed I even posted in here. 

Good man!  Like me, you live for abuse. 

[Cato]

A: "Where did the Universe come from?"

B: "A vacuum fluctuation following the probabilistic laws of quantum tunneling allowed the Universe to exist after the tunneling with a finite size which decayed asymmetrically causing an inflationary phase."

A: "Where did all that come from?"

B: "Vilenkin shows that it came ex nihilo, as I just said, by a random, uncaused vacuum fluctuation."

Occam (overhearing): "Easier: it came from God, and by the way, Mister B, you could use a shave!"   0:)