Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[Gingerbeardman]

I disagree with the top-down approach to meaning. I believe it arises locally and spreads outward.

Since there is a combinatorially exposive amount of information in the world to process, it is necessary to restrict the information that is dealt and break it down into managable chunks. This brute fact of our limitations as cognitive agents necessitates that we impose a hierarchy on the way we prioritise information. It's all fine and well to claim that meaning arises locally, but I don't see how that's supposed to overcome the technical difficulties of what it takes for finite beings to be able to act in the world.

The ultimate nature of reality or whatever process gave rise to reality is a moot contributor to our creative endeavour of weaving meaning. A seed growing into a tree doesn't need to understand nuclear fusion in order to thrive and be happy, and similarly we don't need to understand ultimate origins in order to thrive and be happy.

A society does need to exhort the standards it wishes to judge itself by. Indeed, the investigation into the nature of reality is itself an outgrowth of civilisations valuing the truth over deceit as a moral principle.

Meaning can be a local and collaborative construct, not something we attempt to derive from out there or in response to our guesses about what's out there.

Yes, there are many different standards, but you still have to make a choice. Again, if not reality, then what?

I'm not playing that game so having domains in which I admit perpetual ignorance is fine with me.

If you want civilisation to operate according to the standards of reason (i.e. that people should "know" what they are doing) then you are playing that game, and this particular remark has been uttered in bad faith.

Our descriptions are baby steps at understanding things around us. Will they ever be complete descriptions? I don't know. But like a child we wiggle our fingers and pay attention to what's happening around us, and our universe is what we're born into and a part of so...I'm more confident in our ability to make attempts at describing what's around us than whats beyond us.

But presumably you don't think "anything goes"...

 

[saor]

Since there is a combinatorially exposive amount of information in the world to process, it is necessary to restrict the information that is dealt and break it down into managable chunks.

Agreed. So let's remove the stuff beyond our reach that we can't say anything about and instead focus on what's right in front of us.

It's all fine and well to claim that meaning arises locally, but I don't see how that's supposed to overcome the technical difficulties of what it takes for finite beings to be able to act in the world.

I'm presumably acting right now with local information so I'm not really sure what to do with your philosophical proposition when the practical stuff already seems taken care of in the moment. Me and my dog and the ants over there are managing quite fine to build & explore and be kind with local materials.

If you want civilisation to operate according to the standards of reason (i.e. that people should "know" what they are doing) then you are playing that game, and this particular remark has been uttered in bad faith.

It would only be uttered in bad faith had I claimed the reach of our knowledge is infinite. I've already stated I believe no such thing; that it's constrained to our reality. Stop trying to speak in universals and broad strokes. If I say something about that which lies beyond our reality, that doesn't imply I mean the same thing about that which is within our reality. If I say I'm happy to claim ignorance about what lies beyond our reality, that doesn't mean I'm also advocating ignorance within our reality.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Agreed. So let's remove the stuff beyond our reach that we can't say anything about and instead focus on what's right in front of us.

That's essentially what the search for a first principle boils down to.

I'm presumably acting right now with local information so I'm not really sure what to do with your philosophical proposition when the practical stuff already seems taken care of in the moment. Me and my dog and the ants over there are managing quite fine to build & explore and be kind with local materials.

Yeah, they all have interpretive frameworks that they impose upon the world as part of the fact that they're conscious agents, meaning that they all have the top-down value hierarchy implicit within their structure that you disagree with.

It would only be uttered in bad faith had I claimed the reach of our knowledge is infinite. I've already stated I believe no such thing; that it's constrained to our reality. Stop trying to speak in universals and broad strokes.

You either want to have a metaphysical conversation or you don't. Make up your mind please.

If I say something about that which lies beyond our reality, that doesn't imply I mean the same thing about that which is within our reality. If I say I'm happy to claim ignorance about what lies beyond our reality, that doesn't mean I'm also advocating ignorance within our reality.

Well, frankly metaphysics is traditionally characterised as the study into ultimate reality. It's not clear how ultimate reality is beyond reality. I take it you are still advocating for a realism paradigm given the fact that you didn't stipulate an alternative standard by which to judge things?

 

[saor]

Well, frankly metaphysics is traditionally characterised as the study into ultimate reality. It's not clear how ultimate reality is beyond reality.

So let me ask you...

If quantum physics is a thing that evades our everyday intuitions and for which we've had to develop special tools & math to gingerly describe...how exactly is 'ultimate reality' being studied?

Does the metaphysician believe ultimate reality is more available to intuition and description than quantum theory? Do they believe knowledge of ultimate reality is arrived at by just thinking about it?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So let me ask you...

If quantum physics is a thing that evades our everyday intuitions and for which we've had to develop special tools & math to gingerly describe...how exactly is 'ultimate reality' being studied?

English is not made out of math, to the best of my knowledge. Can we actually talk about the world using words instead of numbers?

You see, the problem with words is that you kind of have to assume that they work as intended before you start using them, and any attempt to use words to investigate the world will therefore have this confirmation bias built into it. Notice how you're talking about reality as if you can actually talk about reality.

This assumption is kind of important when you stop to consider that civilisation basically boils down to a massive attemtpt to have everybody live according to the word. In this respect, the architecture of the word (i.e. grammar) will have an unavoidably profound effect on the way a civilisation expresses itself. In the case of Christianity, the myth has God speaking the world into creation with the word(logos), and Jesus conveniently happens to be the incarnation of this word that was used to speak creation into being, and every living person is an image bearer of the divine thus deserving of dignity no matter how low their station might be.

That creates a different kind of civilisation to a civilisation that holds words to be meaningless air vibrations, to be measured only in terms of their utility, and what's the big deal with expunging a couple of humans for the sake of the greater good because consciousness is only a damn epiphenomenon anyways.

Have you considered the price you have to pay for admitting that we all just make it up as we go along, each of us starting locally and reaching outward?

Does the metaphysician believe ultimate reality is more available to intuition and description than quantum theory?

That would depend on the metaphysician, I suppose.

Do they believe knowledge of ultimate reality is arrived at by just thinking about it?

Clasically speaking, yup. It gets a bit less clear after Kant and his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.

 

[saor]

I'm gonna lean into the extreme position a bit and be one of those people you said have no patience for metaphysics...

English is not made out of math, to the best of my knowledge. Can we actually talk about the world using words instead of numbers?

You see, the problem with words is that you kind of have to assume that they work as intended before you start using them, and any attempt to use words to investigate the world will therefore have this confirmation bias built into it. Notice how you're talking about reality as if you can actually talk about reality.

This is why the metaphysical approach seems stupid. We have a language / understanding progression that looks like this:

Point at tree | "Ugh"
Point at celestial object | "Sun"
Point at gravity | "e=^&_"
Point at particles | "K_#^_blah_blah_derpmath
Point at ...... | "more complex and novel derpdescriptions"
Point at ............ | "even more complex and even more novel derpdescriptions"
Point at ultimate reality | "Oh ok we can use English again."

You see how stupid that looks? Our descriptive tools develop and mature as the parts of reality we explore unfold before us and the world becomes more complex. I'll even avoid making statements about the value of language to adequately describe the world because the point I'm trying to make here isn't about language per se, but rather the inverted efficacy metaphysics seems to ascribe to language.

It's totally nonsensical how ultimate reality, which is so far beyond what's familiar to us, can magically be grokked using existing language & concepts when existing language and concepts are already proving inadequate to the task of describing what's around us. Unless there's a belief that language is sufficient to the task, but again - gravity and quantum uncertainty are already proving that belief to be false.

Metaphysics as an honest pursuit makes absolutely no sense if one is hoping to arrive at an understanding of ultimate reality 'just by thinking about it' using a language better suited to describing the proximity of scary objects. Hell, that language can't even convey the subjective experience of chocolate and yet it's supposedly sufficient to grok ultimate reality? Gtfo.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I'm gonna lean into the extreme position a bit and be one of those people you said have no patience for metaphysics...
This is why the metaphysical approach seems stupid. We have a language / understanding progression that looks like this:

Point at tree | "Ugh"
Point at celestial object | "Sun"
Point at gravity | "e=^&_"
Point at particles | "K_#^_blah_blah_derpmath
Point at ...... | "more complex and novel derpdescriptions"
Point at ............ | "even more complex and even more novel derpdescriptions"
Point at ultimate reality | "Oh ok we can use English again."

You see how stupid that looks? Our descriptive tools develop and mature as the parts of reality we explore unfold before us and the world becomes more complex. I'll even avoid making statements about the value of language to adequately describe the world because the point I'm trying to make here isn't about language per se, but rather the inverted efficacy metaphysics seems to ascribe to language.

It's totally nonsensical how ultimate reality, which is so far beyond what's familiar to us, can magically be grokked using existing language & concepts when existing language and concepts are already proving inadequate to the task of describing what's around us. Unless there's a belief that language is sufficient to the task, but again - gravity and quantum uncertainty are already proving that belief to be false.

Metaphysics as an honest pursuit makes absolutely no sense if one is hoping to arrive at an understanding of ultimate reality 'just by thinking about it' using a language better suited to describing the proximity of scary objects. Hell, that language can't even convey the subjective experience of chocolate and yet it's supposedly sufficient to grok ultimate reality? Gtfo.

If you want to abandon metaphysics, that's fine, but then you also have to abandon realism as a paradigm, because the one cannot be without the other, so I return to my question of what you plan to replace it with.

I agree with you that metaphysics as it was classically conceived of had a bit too much faith in itself, which is why I alluded to Kant's prolegomena as it effectively said the same thing. I don't treat metaphysics as the study of ultimate reality personally, rather I treat it as the study of the conditions of possibility of language itself.

And I've already stated that language is a condition of possibility of civilisation. So from my perspective, the atheist that wants to reject metaphysics as a valid domain of inquiry is effectively sawing off the branch they're sitting on, and when you ask them what they're going to replace it with, they just draw a blank. I know the current system has its faults, but to destroy it without a replacement waiting in the wings is madness.

 

[Ponderer]

I'm gonna lean into the extreme position a bit and be one of those people you said have no patience for metaphysics...
This is why the metaphysical approach seems stupid. We have a language / understanding progression that looks like this:

Point at tree | "Ugh"
Point at celestial object | "Sun"
Point at gravity | "e=^&_"
Point at particles | "K_#^_blah_blah_derpmath
Point at ...... | "more complex and novel derpdescriptions"
Point at ............ | "even more complex and even more novel derpdescriptions"
Point at ultimate reality | "Oh ok we can use English again."

You see how stupid that looks? Our descriptive tools develop and mature as the parts of reality we explore unfold before us and the world becomes more complex. I'll even avoid making statements about the value of language to adequately describe the world because the point I'm trying to make here isn't about language per se, but rather the inverted efficacy metaphysics seems to ascribe to language.

It's totally nonsensical how ultimate reality, which is so far beyond what's familiar to us, can magically be grokked using existing language & concepts when existing language and concepts are already proving inadequate to the task of describing what's around us. Unless there's a belief that language is sufficient to the task, but again - gravity and quantum uncertainty are already proving that belief to be false.

Metaphysics as an honest pursuit makes absolutely no sense if one is hoping to arrive at an understanding of ultimate reality 'just by thinking about it' using a language better suited to describing the proximity of scary objects. Hell, that language can't even convey the subjective experience of chocolate and yet it's supposedly sufficient to grok ultimate reality? Gtfo.

Language is a form of communication - its a medium that is used to convey meaning.
There is nothing more to language than that.

What is, is.
Whether or not you understand anything/nothing has nothing to do with what is.
Just because you don't fully/comprehensively/completely understand gravity does not mean that it (gravity) is not.
Gravity quite simply is.
What you think is has nothing to do with what is.

We try to make sense of things - we try to understand/grasp what is.
The reality be that we are only partially (minutely) able to understand/grasp/comprehend reality (what is).

 

[pinball wizard]

Language is a form of communication - its a medium that is used to convey meaning.
There is nothing more to language than that.

What is, is.
Whether or not you understand anything/nothing has nothing to do with what is.
Just because you don't fully/comprehensively/completely understand gravity does not mean that it (gravity) is not.
Gravity quite simply is.
What you think is has nothing to do with what is.

We try to make sense of things - we try to understand/grasp what is.
The reality be that we are only partially (minutely) able to understand/grasp/comprehend reality (what is).

I think Bill Clinton summed it up best when he said it depends on what your definition of is is.

 

[EADC]

I think Bill Clinton summed it up best when he said it depends on what your definition of is is.

Well ponderer has a unique way of using the definition of words.

 

[SaiyanZ]

This assumption is kind of important when you stop to consider that civilisation basically boils down to a massive attemtpt to have everybody live according to the word. In this respect, the architecture of the word (i.e. grammar) will have an unavoidably profound effect on the way a civilisation expresses itself. In the case of Christianity, the myth has God speaking the world into creation with the word(logos), and Jesus conveniently happens to be the incarnation of this word that was used to speak creation into being, and every living person is an image bearer of the divine thus deserving of dignity no matter how low their station might be.

That creates a different kind of civilisation to a civilisation that holds words to be meaningless air vibrations, to be measured only in terms of their utility, and what's the big deal with expunging a couple of humans for the sake of the greater good because consciousness is only a damn epiphenomenon anyways.

Exodus 21:20-21

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Seems you are mistaken about Christianity and morals. The Bible directly contradicts what you say.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Seems you are mistaken about Christianity and morals. The Bible directly contradicts what you say.

Well aren't you special. Just wondering, what about that part in the new testament where the Christian narrative claims that Jesus' death and rebirth serves as a sign of a new covenant that abrogates the old one as described in what is now known as the old testament?

 

[SaiyanZ]

Well aren't you special. Just wondering, what about that part in the new testament where the Christian narrative claims that Jesus' death and rebirth serves as a sign of a new covenant that abrogates the old one as described in what is now known as the old testament?

You seem like the expert. Maybe tell us why the Bible is wrong or whether owning a slave and beating them is morally fine. Or the reason why these lines in the Bible should be ignored and not the other magic stuff.

 

[Ponderer]

I think Bill Clinton summed it up best when he said it depends on what your definition of is is.

Reality.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

You seem like the expert. Maybe tell us why the Bible is wrong or whether owning a slave and beating them is morally fine. Or the reason why these lines in the Bible should be ignored and not the other magic stuff.

Slavery, particularly the of the kind described in the classical world as opposed to the sort that developed after the enlightenment took hold in Europe, was debt servitude.

Given that there are people today who have loans that they cannot declare bankruptcy on, and nobody protests this as immoral, it would seem that slavery is indeed fine.

The problem you have here is that the standards by which you would judge Christianity actually come from Christianity. Most cultures think that it's perfectly acceptable for the strong to exploit the weak.

 

[saor]

the atheist that wants to reject metaphysics as a valid domain of inquiry is effectively sawing off the branch they're sitting on, and when you ask them what they're going to replace it with, they just draw a blank. I know the current system has its faults, but to destroy it without a replacement waiting in the wings is madness.

Then we're probably just gonna go in circles from here on out. If the atheist position is that metaphysics is nonsensical nonsense and you're requesting that the atheist replace nonsensical nonsense with something coherent - of course they're gonna draw a blank.

What practical aspect of life is thus affected by the rejection of metaphysics? Because we've just been through a few posts of me making a case for why metaphysics makes no sense, and yet here you are again suggesting that I replace something nonsensical with something sensical. I can't even begin to understand what you're asking in any real, practical sense that has meaning on the world and daily life. I too, am drawing a blank.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Slavery, particularly the of the kind described in the classical world as opposed to the sort that developed after the enlightenment took hold in Europe, was debt servitude.

Given that there are people today who have loans that they cannot declare bankruptcy on, and nobody protests this as immoral, it would seem that slavery is indeed fine.

The problem you have here is that the standards by which you would judge Christianity actually come from Christianity. Most cultures think that it's perfectly acceptable for the strong to exploit the weak.

I figured you''d go down the indentured servitude route. However, is it morally fine to own someone as property and beat them? If you disagree, then how can you get your morality from the Bible and religion?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Then we're probably just gonna go in circles from here on out. If the atheist position is that metaphysics is nonsensical nonsense and you're requesting that the atheist replace nonsensical nonsense with something coherent - of course they're gonna draw a blank.

If metaphysics is nonsensical nonsense, then there is no reason to think that language is real. If language isn't real, then civilisation isn't real either, which is to say that it's all a big fat lie, and indeed "reality" itself becomes a nonsense concept. So since attempting to organise our language according to reality is futile, you need to offer an alternative to the one that you've abandoned which currently serves as the foundation of civilisation as we know it, or you must discard civilisation itself.

What practical aspect of life is thus affected by the rejection of metaphysics?

The ability to engage in civilised behaviour in good faith.

Because we've just been through a few posts of me making a case for why metaphysics makes no sense, and yet here you are again suggesting that I replace something nonsensical with something sensical. I can't even begin to understand what you're asking in any real, practical sense that has meaning on the world and daily life. I too, am drawing a blank.

If metaphysics makes no sense, civilisation makes no sense. You're undermining the foundations of civilisation itself insofar as civilisation is the exercise of living according to the word(i.e. language).

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I figured you''d go down the indentured servitude route. However, is it morally fine to own someone as property and beat them?

Here's a youtube video by an actual pastor going into the Pauline doctrines with respect to slavery and the like.

If you disagree, then how can you get your morality from the Bible and religion?

Actually I am in the process of constructing my own morality. But at least I've got the stones to admit that this needs to be done.

 

[saor]

If you want to abandon metaphysics, that's fine, but then you also have to abandon realism as a paradigm

If metaphysics is nonsensical nonsense, then there is no reason to think that language is real.

If metaphysics makes no sense, civilisation makes no sense.

I can't keep hinging my argument against metaphysics on something else further down the line, else it's also gonna be an endless regression of arguments each dependent on some additional fact you assert the argument requires being tethered to. Nothing I say about language or civilisation is going to render my inverted nonsense argument against metaphysics moot.

Even if it's true that metaphysics and religious enquiry has laid the foundation for civilisation, the atheist still believes all that enquiry to be so much Santa Clause & fiction. There's no rule which stipulates that which is foundation needs to be true. In ancient times I might've held the belief that your pox arose from demonic possession and it's best to keep clear of you red ass for fear that your demon jumps down my throat. That belief, though false, still serves a useful purpose in putting some distance between myself and your itchy body. I have a false belief that serves beneficial utility.

But the atheist could still point at that belief as being false without rendering civilisation or language or truth or anything else about our world moot. Life is too complex and full of nuance for everything we care about to be so fragile & dependent on what has come before; the universe and our societies are too complex and adaptive to be like a helpless baby that goes out with the metaphysical bath water.