“Orn. why is "relative" bad?” – Stem Stem, relative is not bad nor is absolute. Blue is not bad nor is red. The sun is not bad nor is the moon. Theism nor atheism is bad. They just are.
So, in context, I’ll guess what you are asking. Correct me if I’m off the mark, OK? “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.” – orn I only copy my entire post to assure my qualifiers are remembered. My GUESS is that the author’s ontology is approached using an epistemology that only recognizes what is known through the senses and then only in a conventional (within the common memes of a given society) way. Anything known through one’s senses will always be relative/subjective. What I see as blue may not be your blue. What I imagine when you say table most assuredly won’t match your ‘table’. The same would be the case for ‘christian’, theist, atheist, beauty, the moon, friend, house, hot, cold etc. Said in a slightly different way, my experiences have been different from yours and everyone else’s. So, any interpretation at all, any concepts, synthesis etc. of what I see and/or think will be unique to me, thus subjective and relative to my experiences and previous thoughts. In my previous post I had pointed out that they appear to reject even exploring areas that are not seen as something they “NEED TO KNOW”. Now, what exactly does one need to know? I would guess that we could agree upon some things but most likely there is absolutely no universal agreement upon what this means. So, it’s meaning resides within the subjective thinking and experiences of the author. What you may have picked up on in my post was the suggestion that by limiting one’s ontology to such areas and ignoring and/or rejecting others, one clearly can not be seen as being a true explorer, philosopher. So, in this sense I do have a critique of their rather limited and subjective point of view. It’s not ‘wrong’, just limited. As you know from some of my earlier posts, I address both the relative and the absolute. On Nov 6, 12:09 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.orgisanewfindso 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
