Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[PureX]

The underlying nature of reality is different for different people then?

We don't know the underlying nature of reality. We only know reality by our experience of it. And we're all experiencing it in very limited and different ways. So we're all developing our own ideas about the underlying nature of reality.

Folks keep harping about who's idea of the underlying nature of reality is right, and that only one idea can be right. But it's a moot point, really, because we don't know, and we can't know who's right even if only one idea can be right (which is not certain). We just don't have the information, or the intellectual capacity to make that determination at this time (and maybe never will). All we're ever going to know of reality is our own experience of it, and the conceptions of it that we develop as a result.

This is why art, philosophy, and religion matter so much. And why science isn't going to resolve the dilemma of our limited human condition.

 

[gcthomas]

You didn't answer the question - do you believe that the underlying nature of reality is different for different people?

 

[bybee]

You didn't answer the question - do you believe that the underlying nature of reality is different for different people?

Yes.

 

[bybee]

That is perception, not reality, which is the light is radiation that triggers the retinas, or not, but nonetheless does actually reach the blind person's useless eye. Unless you are suggesting that for a blind person light does not actually exist?

If I cannot see the light it does not exist for me. That does not mean that light ceases to exist.

 

[PureX]

You didn't answer the question - do you believe that the underlying nature of reality is different for different people?

I did answer, and the answer is that I don't know. What I 'believe' about it is not based on what I know, but on what works best for me. I may believe different things at different times for different reasons, because I have no sure knowledge to preclude me from doing that.

I am a relativist, taoist, theist, agnostic Christian.

 

[gcthomas]

I did answer, and the answer is that I don't know. What I 'believe' about it is not based on what I know, but on what works best for me. I may believe different things at different times for different reasons, because I have no sure knowledge to preclude me from doing that.

I am a relativist, taoist, theist, agnostic Christian.

Since experiments carried out by different people in different locations tend to get the same result, the evidence is that there is a consistent underpinning to the operation of nature. Technology designed on this assumption works reliably. There had been no repeatable and reliable observation to give even a hint that it is not true, so it is a near universal assumption that people who operate in the world make.

Physics is the study of this underpinning.

If the underpinning includes an origin, then it is physics that will be the method that will uncover it. The variability of personal experience is the weakness of art in determining anything in general, and in philosophy in determining anything useful in this area of learning.

 

[Hedshaker]

I said the material/matter, for the Hawkingites who suppose matter continually implodes and explodes, to say nothing of dark matter that physicists theorize disappears and reappears. With a suposistion that what created the material and is beyond it and immeasurable by anything in it and thus supernatural. The natural meaning material.

Here's something I keep hearing about that I never get a satisfactory explanation for. Maybe you can help? What do you actually mean when you use the term "create-created-creation"? Its a broad brush isn't it?

eg, I produce ambient electronic music so you could say I create the tunes. But to do so I use instruments, synthesizers, samples, a little skill perhaps along with modern production techniques, all of which is possible because of a well established music theory, and of course, for the most part, powered by electricity. The whole thing probably started with someone beating a log with a couple of sticks thousands of years ago and evolved from there.

But when theists talk about creation they don't mean anything like that, do they? For them it seems to mean: there was nothing, then a creator performed, and then, supernaturally there was something that didn't exist before.

Now, I know you guys don't like this being called "magic" but for the life of me I cannot see any alternative description. So there appears to be no difference between a supernatural event and magic. A miracle is also magic. God creating a universe from nothing = magic. A fully grown human being from dust of the ground = magic. I could go on but you get the point?

Is that right? If not then what?

 

[PureX]

Since experiments carried out by different people in different locations tend to get the same result, the evidence is that there is a consistent underpinning to the operation of nature. Technology designed on this assumption works reliably. There had been no repeatable and reliable observation to give even a hint that it is not true, so it is a near universal assumption that people who operate in the world make.

Where does "nature" begin and end? How does it's parameters relate to "existence"? If we can conceive of the term 'nature', doesn't that imply that the conceptual realm extends beyond the natural realm in some way?

Physics is the study of this underpinning.

Yes, I know. But there seems to be quite a bit more to existence than just the physical realm. And if the conceptual realm transcends it in depth, scope, and import, as it apparently does, then what do the limits of physics really tell us about anything but the limits of physics?

Why does your question matter?

If the underpinning includes an origin, then it is physics that will be the method that will uncover it.

You're getting bizarrely abstract, here. What are these "underpinnings of physics"? Aren't they just the source and limitations of energy? And as yet, we have no idea what the origin of those are. Yet the fact that we can ask the question at all implies that there is a realm of existence that transcends and expands beyond the physical: the conceptual realm. So if we are going to contemplate the origin of existence, we're going to also have to include the origin of transcendency, not just of the physics, itself.

So the mystery increases.

The variability of personal experience is the weakness of art in determining anything in general, and in philosophy in determining anything useful in this area of learning.

Or perhaps this need for consistency is the fundamental weakness of logic and reason (based on fear for survival), that art transcends through intuition, spontaneity, and faith. Perhaps the individual experience can go where the general consensus can't.

 

[gcthomas]

Or perhaps this need for consistency is the fundamental weakness of logic and reason (based on fear for survival), that art transcends through intuition, spontaneity, and faith. Perhaps the individual experience can go where the general consensus can't.

Without consistency you have learned nothing other than the capricious nature of your imagination.

 

[alwight]

"Testable and demonstrable" … meaning that "it works" for you in your experience of living in the physical world.

Right?

"Testable and demonstrable" should mean that we can't reasonably discount or eschew it despite our own preferences and bias and nor should other people.

But we don't all have the same experience of living in the physical world. And we don't all perceive 'the world' in terms of physics, alone. So that 'what works' for some of us in relation to our experience of world does not work for others of us.

Which is exactly why we should typically only rely on the testable and demonstrable.
The scientific method exists because individuals alone will tend to let their own confirmation bias distort things and need to be kept honest.

For some people, their concept of the 'the world' is far more metaphysical than other people's concepts of 'the world'. So that when they determine what's 'working' for them and what isn't, their criteria is far more meta-physical, than physical.

If there is no testable and demonstrable effect to be seen then it will simply remain metaphysical, is that really good enough?

This, I think, is really why some people are atheists, and some people are theists, and each to varying degrees of certainty and intensity.

Empirical reality can be tested and focus belief, while strangely enough religions are also an empirical reality and can likewise focus or channel belief, but they can't be put to the test or demonstrated.

 

[PureX]

Without consistency you have learned nothing other than the capricious nature of your imagination.

Man, that bias is tenacious!

Don't you think knowing what doesn't work is as important as knowing what does?

"Consistency" is itself an illusion born in the imagination. There are no two objects, conditions, or outcomes that are the same. It's not possible. Everything is different from everything else, and is always changing in any case. If we see some "consistency" in this, it's just because we have elected to ignore all the ways in which the consistency is inconsistent.

And the criteria for our ignoring the inconsistency is, as always, that it 'works' for us. NOT that we discovered some immutable truth. So that all we ever come to "know" is what has worked for us in the past. And from that we surmise that it may work for us again in the future.

Establishing probable outcomes based on limited goals doesn't really pass muster as "knowing the truth of" anything.

 

[gcthomas]

Man, that bias is tenacious!

Don't you think knowing what doesn't work is as important as knowing what does?

"Consistency" is itself an illusion born in the imagination. There are no two objects, conditions, or outcomes that are the same. It's not possible. Everything is different from everything else, and is always changing in any case. If we see some "consistency" in this, it's just because we have elected to ignore all the ways in which the consistency is inconsistent.

And the criteria for our ignoring the inconsistency is, as always, that it 'works' for us. NOT that we discovered some immutable truth. So that all we ever come to "know" is what has worked for us in the past. And from that we surmise that it may work for us again in the future.

Establishing probable outcomes based on limited goals doesn't really pass muster as "knowing the truth of" anything.

Wow, you must go through life forever surprised and confused.

I feel sorry for you that you can't ever appreciate the beauty and coherence of the reality that has been uncovered so far. If you made the effort to actually understand quantum physics or the basics of cosmology and nucleosynthesis, then you would find something so fantastic and wonderful you might be distracted from the self-deceptions that our minds continually spring on us. It is really amazing that our primative ape brains can contemplate all this, but the power of the scientific method would make the basis of some great art.

But you seem to have decided the the sciences are not worth the effort. Well, that is your loss.

 

[PureX]

"Testable and demonstrable" should mean that we can't reasonably discount or eschew it despite our own preferences and bias and nor should other people.

In an imaginary ideal universe that may be true. But in ours, it's not really possible. Our bias is built into our hypothesis, our tests, and our interpretation of the results. Like it or not.

It's kind of like language: where the tools of expression end up dictating the ideas that are being expressed. The tale waging the dog.

Which is exactly why we should typically only rely on the testable and demonstrable.

Or, which is why we should not only rely on those, but should explore other means of expanding our experience and perception: like intuition, chance, or even deliberate perversion of the norm.

The scientific method exists because individuals alone will tend to let their own confirmation bias distort things and need to be kept honest.

Science is itself a kind of 'confirmation bias'. Biased in favor of material physics.

If there is no testable and demonstrable effect to be seen then it will simply remain metaphysical, is that really good enough?

"To be seen"? Human experience involves more than just seeing, don't you think? Just as existence involves more than just physical matter.

Empirical reality can be tested and focus belief, while strangely enough religions are also an empirical reality and can likewise focus or channel belief, but they can't be put to the test or demonstrated.

Empiricism is a bias in itself; like science. Which is why we need to use and respect all the tools at our disposal, not just empirical science.

 

[serpentdove]

"I wonder how many theists truly (absolutely?) believe in their particular god?"

If you really don't believe in God

then you are a fool. :dunce: I wouldn't call you a fool. God would (Ps 14:1).

"There is plenty room for doubt given that only one religious belief is true."

:juggle: This thread isn't about your doubt or grievance. This thread inquired about your hope.

 

[quip]

So what persuaded you that trancendance is a thing?

Px says that trancendance is a real physical thing - do you agree and what convinced you?

Buddhist philosophy. (Rhetorical: define "real physical thing")

Px has completely dismissed the primacy of the material, so I am sure he has good reasons, and it wasn't just a bias based on his world view. How about you? What idea or experience or evidence convinced you?

I can't speak for Px...though if all experiences of reality are manifested subjectively, what indeed is "reality". Indeed, can one even pose coherent questions regarding "underlying reality"? Does the question make any sense?
There exist a standard level of naïve realism materialists must blindly accept, though ultimately they have no grounds for doing such.

These are examples of the questions philosophers/artists concern themselves with...of which the lack of concrete answers vex/disconcern the materialist.

 

[gcthomas]

Science had developed to bypass much of the weakness of naïve realism, providing repeatability and reliability. Whatever it is that I can rely on even without personal experience I will tentatively call real in the expectation that science will move that understanding closer and closer to an ultimate reality if there is such a thing.

Since it will never be possible to definitively prove that solipsism is not the Truth, I will go with the scientific version of reality to avoid catastrophic indecision.

Even you, I suspect, act every day as if there was an external reality that you interact with, even if you reject such conclusions intellectually.

 

[quip]

Science had developed to bypass much of the weakness of naïve realism, providing repeatability and reliability. Whatever it is that I can rely on even without personal experience I will tentatively call real in the expectation that science will move that understanding closer and closer to an ultimate reality if there is such a thing.

Since it will never be possible to definitively prove that solipsism is not the Truth, I will go with the scientific version of reality to avoid catastrophic indecision.

Technically, I wasn't advocationg solipsism as that would mean that I (the self) only exist and you do not. Anyway, science bypasses nothing ..the same issues remain, science digs at the same dirt only much deeper. How does the scientist validate his/her findings...only to be forced to further validate those findings ...and so on ...ad infinitum? It's a philosophical take on the incompleteness theorem.

Even you, I suspect, act every day as if there was an external reality that you interact with, even if you reject such conclusions intellectually.

Of course, per my physical existence, I'm forced to. Our only choice in the matter is...to what degree do we cling to it!

To what degree are you attached to "reality"?

 

[gcthomas]

To what degree are you attached to "reality"?

In as far as it is useful. While I accept the possibility that there is no uniform underlying reality, the universe acts awfully like there is. Until that assumption starts to throw up problems such as unresolvable paradoxes then it is reasonable to provisionally believe there is a reality and act accordingly.

Nothing anyone had said has done anything more than describe a technical possibility. The reality model stands intact and remarkably successful in predicting what happens in any given circumstance.

 

[quip]

Nothing anyone had said has done anything more than describe a technical possibility. The reality model stands intact and remarkably successful in predicting what happens in any given circumstance.

Right.

The kids still need to be fed, the grass mowed....etc. I'm just offering up distinctions between the qualia of living a human existence over the mundane, rote examination of such.

 

[gcthomas]

Right.

The kids still need to be fed, the grass mowed....etc. I'm just offering up distinctions between the qualia of living a human existence over the mundane, rote examination of such.

:up: