Reality… how real is it?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bro Dave
Sage
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Orlando FL

Reality… how real is it?

Post #1

Post by Bro Dave »

While this subject has been implicitly and explicitly debated ad nausium, may I have yet one more stab at it? #-o

We seem to accept that all our arguments end up in relativistic conclusions. We seem to approach reality for two directions; The Atheists from the material, and the Theists from the spiritual. “reality” is for each of us only definable by how we are “wired”, i.e. our thought processes, and by our experiences. So, lets examine each side, and where they are coming from.

Atheists feel smug. They are material/science based. Well, exactly what does that mean? Our current best understanding using String Theory and Quantum Mechanics, seems to bring reality down to energy, vibrating at high frequencies, and in certain patterns. We already have figured out that matter is 99%+ “empty space, and yet, the illusion of solid objects is seen as a reality. Is it? Or, is it just energy, wearing different disguises? And what about my favorite Atheists insistance that because auto replication and auto evolvement exist, there is no need to look further?

Theists feel smug. They have absolute answers, because their answers come,(in some cases) from direct spiritual interactions. And while this absolute proof goes “poof” when they try to offer it to anyone who has not shared such an experience, for them it is absolute. And so, Theists believe in an Absolute Source of energy, providing the drive mechanism for all that is, including a mechanism to produce an evolutionary process, which can be guided to acheive desired results.

(or, is it as the Buddhists say, an illusion? :confused2:)

The Atheists are left with energy, arranging itself in evolving patterns, and the Theists are left with a source of energy, with a plan to evolve that energy into certain patterns.

It just doesn’t seem like that wide of a gap!

Bro Dave
:-k

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #71

Post by QED »

harvey1 wrote:How does feeling produce more babies compared to those creatures that didn't have those feelings?
This has all gone a bit too far off-topic to be taken up here. I'm guessing that there's more to your question than there would superficially appear to be? If so it might warrant another topic, but I can't see it.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #72

Post by harvey1 »

Bernee51 wrote:That said...as a core belief Hinduism is atheistic in that Brahman is not 'god' in the generally accepted definition of a creator/maintainer. And as you are well aware there are many buddhists who regard themselves as not believeing in 'gods'
Bernee, these beliefs almost always either fall into a theistic or pantheistic view, and therefore they believe in a philosophical definition of God. That's not to say that pantheism should be confused for monotheism or polytheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no unity to the world beyond a trivial formal unity. I think you've seen me quote the relevant literature in the field enough times, right? In order for them to be atheistic, they would have to offer no significant metaphysical structure. That's not Hinduism or Buddhism.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #73

Post by harvey1 »

QED wrote:
harvey1 wrote:How does [this] feeling produce more babies compared to those creatures that didn't have those feelings?
This has all gone a bit too far off-topic to be taken up here. I'm guessing that there's more to your question than there would superficially appear to be? If so it might warrant another topic, but I can't see it.
Well, I'm just curious why you would think that natural selection would produce such a feeling since in all likelihood an animal is not going to be producing babies more successfully from that point forward after being severly injured like that.

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #74

Post by bernee51 »

harvey1 wrote: Atheism is the belief that there is no unity to the world beyond a trivial formal unity.
If you assume that 'god' is unity in the world them your view of atheism is supportable. That, however, is only one of many possible attributes of a deity. I maintain that, for me, atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)
harvey1 wrote:In order for them to be atheistic, they would have to offer no significant metaphysical structure.
Are you suggesting that an atheist worldview can have no metaphysical structure?
harvey1 wrote: That's not Hinduism or Buddhism.
Buddhism is derivative of Hinduism, Hinduism is derivative of Vedanta. The core of Vedanta is that Brahman has no attributes. Can a god have no attributes?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #75

Post by harvey1 »

bernee51 wrote:I maintain that, for me, atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)
I understand, but for me and the academic branch called philosophy this definition includes agnosticism and pantheism, and therefore is not atheism.
bernee51 wrote:Are you suggesting that an atheist worldview can have no metaphysical structure?
Atheism can't have more metaphysical structure than that of "formal unity" (e.g., the universe is the universe).
bernee51 wrote:Buddhism is derivative of Hinduism, Hinduism is derivative of Vedanta. The core of Vedanta is that Brahman has no attributes. Can a god have no attributes?
This is the divine simplicity or immutable interpretation of God. So, yes, many theists down through the ages have argued that God has no attributes.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #76

Post by QED »

harvey1 wrote:Well, I'm just curious why you would think that natural selection would produce such a feeling since in all likelihood an animal is not going to be producing babies more successfully from that point forward after being severly injured like that.
I don't see that at all. If there's a continuation of life, then there's a continuation of hope. We've mentioned a number of instinctive feelings such as parental love, general concern for children, pain, and calm in the face of emergencies. I can't think of any instinctive feelings that can't be explained by natural selection. But this is really another topic.

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #77

Post by bernee51 »

harvey1 wrote:
bernee51 wrote:Are you suggesting that an atheist worldview can have no metaphysical structure?
Atheism can't have more metaphysical structure than that of "formal unity" (e.g., the universe is the universe).
My understanding of metaphysics is that it "...{dictionary.com}examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

I would suggest that all sentient beings regardless of belief do at some time in their life have metaphysical views. It is these views that are translative...i.e. they bring some meaning and legitimacy in the face of the obvious impermanance we face. Remove metaphysics and we are nothing more than "...primates sniffing each other's butts."

I come from a first base of atheism (despite your chosen definitionof same). On to this I tack my own metaphysical outlook with regard to "...relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value" This gives some structure to my existence...metaphysical structure that goes beyond "formal unity". Now if you then believe that, based on the definition of atheism you choose to accept, I am not an atheist...so be it. I know that I do not only do I not believe in god(s), I also believe the very concept of god is a human construct developed and accepted for the reasons I have given.

Atheists can and do have metaphysical structure in their worldview that goes well beyond the narrow definition you purport.
harvey1 wrote:
bernee51 wrote:Buddhism is derivative of Hinduism, Hinduism is derivative of Vedanta. The core of Vedanta is that Brahman has no attributes. Can a god have no attributes?
This is the divine simplicity or immutable interpretation of God. So, yes, many theists down through the ages have argued that God has no attributes.
Sure and christian mystics across that ages (Eckhart, Theresa of Avila et al) have risked excommunication and death to follow a transformative path of their beliefs rather than merely paying abeyance to the translative. But this is not the god of christianity, or Islam or Judaism. It si definately not the god of most of the christians I have ever talked to. Is it you god? Does your pantheistic god with the Jesus tattoo on his bicep have attributes?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #78

Post by harvey1 »

bernee51 wrote:I know that I do not only do I not believe in god(s), I also believe the very concept of god is a human construct developed and accepted for the reasons I have given.
I can only base my view of a philosophy by first knowing how academia defines that label. If your belief is that there is more than formal unity to the world, then it's not at all relevant in terms of what personalities you either believe or do not believe in.
bernee51 wrote:Atheists can and do have metaphysical structure in their worldview that goes well beyond the narrow definition you purport.
I can't address what lay people call themselves. I only know what philosophers consider atheism to be.
bernee51 wrote:But this is not the god of christianity, or Islam or Judaism. It si definately not the god of most of the christians I have ever talked to. Is it you god? Does your pantheistic god with the Jesus tattoo on his bicep have attributes?
Let's suppose that I said that God has infinite attributes, then those infinite attributes form an infinite set. Now, that infinite set is just one non-differentiated set from the perspective of being outside of that set. All the infinite member attributes make up the One (i.e., the non-differentiated whole).

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #79

Post by bernee51 »

harvey1 wrote: I can only base my view of a philosophy by first knowing how academia defines that label.
Fortunately philosophy is not static - it is evolutionary. Could it be that you choose a particular academic view because it fits with you current beliefs?
harvey1 wrote: Let's suppose that I said that God has infinite attributes, then those infinite attributes form an infinite set. Now, that infinite set is just one non-differentiated set from the perspective of being outside of that set. All the infinite member attributes make up the One (i.e., the non-differentiated whole).
This to me seems to be saying that non-differetntiated infinite attributes is esentially the same as having no attributes. Can something with no attributes exist in reality?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #80

Post by harvey1 »

bernee51 wrote:Fortunately philosophy is not static - it is evolutionary. Could it be that you choose a particular academic view because it fits with you current beliefs?
I don't think that's the case because I've changed many of my views to accommodate philosophical jargon and even good philosophical arguments. Of course, I realize that this is hard for many here to believe that because it appears that this restricts atheism, but for those who go by the label of atheists because this is what they believe, I don't believe the philosophical definition is seen as a disadvantage to them. They are atheists because they really believe that one is epistemically justified in saying that God does not exist.
bernee51 wrote:This to me seems to be saying that non-differetntiated infinite attributes is esentially the same as having no attributes. Can something with no attributes exist in reality?
Well, I question the meaning of "in reality" since infinity brings a few notions which are not altogether intuitive. So, for example, the set of an infinite number of odd natural numbers is the same size as the set containing all natural numbers. Intuitively, that can strike us as very odd since it implies that an infinite number of even integers do not increase the size of a set. However, I think it is quite possible that God has an infinite number of "even" attributes, and an infinite number of "odd" attributes. If we don't include the "even" attributes in the total number of attributes, then the cardinality of God's attributes is still transfinite (i.e., the number of "odd" attributes have a transfinite cardinality without the "even" attributes). Or, vice versa, if we don't include the "odd" attributes in the total number of attributes, then the "odd" attributes alone possess a transfinite cardinality. If the lack of the "even" or "odd" attributes do not reduce the size of the attribute set, then clearly it is like God has no attributes whatsoever even though God has an infinite number of attributes! It is in this sense that I hold to a divine simplicity view of God. It might smack against our intuition, but I agree with Georg Cantor that the infinite has reality with regard to God's existence. Mathematically speaking, there's nothing amiss in this concept.

Post Reply