Orn. why is "relative" bad? stemcell
On Nov 5, 7:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stem, you are asking the wrong person. I am quite ignorant when it > comes to this version of 'naturalism'. What I THOUGHT they were saying > is that they approach ‘reality’ in a relative way… recognizing that > they will never know everything. Also, many beliefs are things they > wish to either not address or reject out right. As a result, I find > they seem to bow to the ‘god’ of practical ego. While this area > certainly should not be ignored, for ‘them’, it appears to be a > centerpiece of their belief system. > So, the result is accepting those things necessary to deal with in > everyday life…and anything else can be reduced to being either > unacceptable or a non-issue. > > On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Orn. said >>>> Naturalism claims to be able to know everything that we > > NEED TO > > KNOW! > > The caps are mine. Again, rather than a pure search, it is yet > > another > > relativistic view and, in this case one that is bounded by the > > subjective notion of ‘need to know’, rather than anything objective. > > <<<< > > > Does the theory OF Natualism claim to "know" everything or are they > > making the claim that the things (most things) we thought were correct > > are found to be either impossible or improbable given our current > > scientific progress and knowledge? > > > stemcell > > > On Nov 4, 7:58 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one > > > now.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html > > > > Your directions were fine, I just had a brain fart! > > > > I took a lot of notes yet am not sure I wish to combine them now. > > > > In general, I see naturalism as a presented in this audio as > > > skepticism light. Yet, not the type of skepticism that over the > > > millennia has sought the transcendental. More the brand that rejects > > > any possibility of the divine. In fact, it appears to start out with > > > axioms that result in or even say that the transcendental is > > > impossible. > > > > A few quick observations gleaned from the audio: > > > 1. Naturalism sees science as being the scientific method and this is > > > enough. > > > I find this teleological proclamation to be just that, a conclusion > > > wrapped up in the assumption. > > > > 2. Naturalism claims to be able to know everything that we NEED TO > > > KNOW! > > > The caps are mine. Again, rather than a pure search, it is yet another > > > relativistic view and, in this case one that is bounded by the > > > subjective notion of ‘need to know’, rather than anything objective. > > > > 3. Naturalism wishes to tear down the wall between naturalism and > > > supernaturalism. > > > Well, this is the lip service given at least. In fact, their comment > > > about "the data decides for or against theories in the long run (a > > > progressive cumulation)" precisely denies their demand for experience > > > being included in the three ways of naturalism > > > experience > > > reason > > > science > > > > 4. Now this hodgepodge of a philosophy makes the bizarre statement > > > “Nature exists based on common sense.” This is fine, IF it is given as > > > an axiom to start out with. Otherwise, it again appears to be a bit of > > > a teleological notion. And, the waffling on who has the ‘burden of > > > proof’, naturalism or supernaturalism and the assumptions that > > > transcendentalism is ‘outmoded’, to me, is almost laughable. This is > > > followed by some sort of testing of ‘moral knowledge’. > > > > 5. Quote about naturalism from the mp3: “You can derive a PRACTICAL > > > KIND OF MORALITY from naturalism.” – The caps are mine again. While I > > > have nothing against a practical approach to being as such nor as an > > > aspect of that which is known, in no way is it the center piece for an > > > epistemology let alone an ontology. In this case, what appears to be a > > > pseudotheology results in “enough meaning” rather than no meaning! > > > Again, clearly a philosophy based on relativism. > > > > 6. Next is the assumption that there is no cosmic mother, father etc. > > > and to hold this bit of faith near and dear is a sign of self > > > responsibility. A true amalgamation of ethics, theology and > > > philosophy. > > > > Well, as you can see through my generally hyperbolic exuberance, I > > > have some rather strong thoughts about the topic. I’m sure that when/ > > > if I read the website provided I’ll have more to spew. > > > > So, again, I sense that one who follows naturalism, rather than > > > burning at the stake those with god beliefs as most atheists are want > > > to do, they would take them out behind the shed and shoot them…after a > > > short attempt at reeducation. > > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the thoughts (and the time you spent looking in to this) > > > > However, I wanted to get your thoughts on naturalism...as discussed in > > > > the podcast with John Shook. I am just getting in to the literature. > > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfind so when I > > > > heard of the podcast on Point of Inquiry my interest peaked. > > > > > I would like to address some points you made. > > > > > Orn. said >>> Oh, I have learned in > > > > different contexts how cruel it is to play with people who hold such > > > > beliefs, so I seldom engage in such activity. <<< > > > > > With this I totally agree. I tend to shy away from "taking away one's > > > > faith", which most believers "believe" a nontheist skeptic is out to > > > > do. To each thier own. I tend to think that methodological natualism > > > > is the best tool humans can use for an objective explaination of > > > > what's out there. The reason being...because it works. > > > > > On Nov 4, 6:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > stem, assuming that this is what you wanted me to listen to: > > > > > >http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html > > > > > > I listened to as much as I could and skipped to the end to see the > > > > > conclusion. > > > > > > Thoughts: I had forgotten how, in my youth, I was fascinated with Erik > > > > > Weisz. I now even remember studying most written about his attempts at > > > > > such communication, prior and after death. In a way, my current > > > > > skepticism is in part based on his work. Oh, I have learned in > > > > > different contexts how cruel it is to play with people who hold such > > > > > beliefs, so I seldom engage in such activity. > > > > > > Anyway, over the decades, not only have I reached the same conclusion > > > > > (no communication of this kind is possible between the dead and the > > > > > living) but I’ve added a strong intuition for the same result. > > > > > > All of this is the case even though almost ever culture has stories > > > > > and myths about this type of communication. > > > > > > I don’t know what else there is to discuss. > > > > > > On Nov 4, 12:56 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > IF you mean the mp3 from > > > > > > here:http://www.pointofinquiry.org/the_12th_annual_cfi_houdini_seance/ > > > > > > > I'll try to listen to it and respond. Overall, I consider the things > > > > > > implied by the article there to be based in superstition, a form of > > > > > > ignorance. > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 12:25 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > That link will take you to the Point of Inquiry pocast shows. > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > are episode titles there to choose from and the episode in > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > with Shook is 28th down from the podcast titled "The 12th annual > > > > > > > CFI > > > > > > > Houdini Seance". > > > > > > > > stemcell > > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2:17 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was listening to this podcast today and thought it would be a > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > topic to discuss. I would like to get personal thoughts on > > > > > > > > this from > > > > > > > > Orn. and Aaron. I hope this link goes through. Just FYI. More > > > > > > > > information on this can be found atwww.naturalism.org. > > > > > > > > >www.pointofinquiry.org/john_shook_naturalism_and_the_scientific_outlook/ > > > > > > > > > stemcell- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
