Imposing their views

[jeremyp]

Argument from a particular definition. I think that is essentially circular and certainly fallacious.

Nope.

Can you answer the question I posed? How can you tell if your ideas are right without comparing them to reality?

[Udayana]

Does that make it a religion? I've never been to one, so I don't know what it involves.

I do think the gap between "ethical philosophy" and religion is somewhat blurred, but, to me, humanism does seem to have some of the trappings of religion.

We've had aspects of religion since we first started communicating, can't see that it is possible or necessary to throw them out just because we have better philosophical models to work with.
   

[Udayana]

Nope.

Can you answer the question I posed? How can you tell if your ideas are right without comparing them to reality?

How can you compare against "reality" when your understanding of it depends on assuming your ideas are right?

[ProfessorDavey]

But if there is a community of people who believe that humanism is the one and only correct way to think and live and they also believe in imposing their way of thinking on others....then it becomes a religion.

Really?

There are plenty of people who think that capitalism is the correct way, or socialism, and want a society that imposes that approach on others. Does that make capitalism and socialism religions? I don't think so.

For something to be a religion, in my opinion there needs to be either a deity (in most cases) or at least some spiritual element. Further there needs to be ritual practice with some devotional element. If those things don't exist then it isn't a religion, even if people believe very strongly that their view is the correct one.

[jeremyp]

How can you compare against "reality" when your understanding of it depends on assuming your ideas are right?

I don't assume my ideas are right. They fall into three categories:

1. Wrong

2. In accordance with observed reality

3. Untested

There's no assuming involved at all, other than that there is an observable reality, but if you don't all that one, all meaningful discussion is at an end.

[Sriram]

Really?

There are plenty of people who think that capitalism is the correct way, or socialism, and want a society that imposes that approach on others. Does that make capitalism and socialism religions? I don't think so.

For something to be a religion, in my opinion there needs to be either a deity (in most cases) or at least some spiritual element. Further there needs to be ritual practice with some devotional element. If those things don't exist then it isn't a religion, even if people believe very strongly that their view is the correct one.

One of the definitions of religion is....'Something of overwhelming importance to a person'.

[Enki]

People who believe that the methods of science are the only way to understand reality..

I would suggest that there is a subtle difference between understanding and explaining reality.

Understanding is often linked to but not limited by the explanation of something, relating, for instance, to such things as emotional and experiental responses and of interpreting and attaching significance to ideas, events, information etc. Also it does not necessarily follow that an understanding of something means that it is necessarily correct. For instance, it might be quite possible to understand the view that there is some sort of afterlife whilst still holding the view that this is highly unlikely. Hence, understanding, and especially understanding such a vast subject as reality, for me, becomes basically a subjective experience.

Explanation, on the other hand, demands checks and balances to enable it to be the best possible explanation, and, for it to have substance, this should be, as far as possible, least coloured by the proponent's subjective views. Science method, as regards reality, scores heavily, as there seems to be no comparable current discipline which seeks to produce information in as objective a way as possible. However, Sriram is talking about the dogmatic scientism supporter here, (one who believes that only science can deliver the goods), which is an absolute position from which one cannot deviate. Hence it becomes self limiting. This, I suggest, is a position that most scientists would not take.

If, on the other hand, one starts to ry to explain reality in non physical terms, then one cannot use scientific method easily unless one is applying science to the workings of the mind. Hence, in this area, any findings remain squarely in the realm of the subjective and any 'understanding' that has been gathered would be at the mercy of subjective interpretation and biases. This is, of course, not to say that any understanding is wrong per se, only that there is, currently, no means of establishing how correct such understandings are.

[Free Willy]

Nope.

Can you answer the question I posed? How can you tell if your ideas are right without comparing them to reality?

It depends on what the idea and what domain covers it. If it can be covered empirically then I use methodological empiricism. If it's a moral question then science is no help whatsoever.

In saying science describes all of reality you are merely saying that only things that are empirically measurable are real. And that statement itself is based on a circular argument and cannot be established empirically. That is the objection I have. The only reality empirical things have is empirical reality. Omitting this qualification is in my view an error

[Steve H]

It depends on what the idea and what domain covers it. If it can be covered empirically then I use methodological empiricism. If it's a moral question then science is no help whatsoever.

In saying science describes all of reality you are merely saying that only things that are empirically measurable are real. And that statement itself is based on a circular argument and cannot be established empirically. That is the objection I have. The only reality empirical things have is empirical reality. Omitting this qualification is in my view an error

Pompous waffle. You really should give up the amateur philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

One of the definitions of religion is....'Something of overwhelming importance to a person'.

Source please.

Perhaps this exists as a definition of religion when used in a colloquial manner e.g. "football is a religion to him". But that is a colloquialism - football isn't actually a religion. There are other similar colloquialisms - e.g. describing someone particularly good at something as a god "Harry Kane is a god", or describing a sext of particular significance as a bible "Joe Bloggs wrote the bible on shoe repair".

In none of these cases are the terms religion, god or bible being used in their normal, not colloquial definition.

By your claimed definition pretty well everything would be a religion, from family, to marathon running, to knitting, to pets etc - that is clearly non-sense.

[jeremyp]

It depends on what the idea and what domain covers it.

The domain is reality.

If it's a moral question then science is no help whatsoever.

Is it not? Surely knowing how the World is should inform your moral choices. Science can't tell us if abortion is morally acceptable but it can tell us things like when neural activity commences in the foetus, when it can feel pain and it can make predictions about the likely outcomes of various abnormalities in a pregnancy. So it can inform your decision as to whether abortion is morally acceptable, and if so, in what circumstances.

you are merely saying that only things that are empirically measurable are real.

No I'm not. I'm saying that, if we have no way of verifying our ideas against reality, there is no way to tell if they are correct. If there is no test to verify the existence of God, we can't know if the answer to the question "is there a god" is yes or no. 

[Udayana]

I don't assume my ideas are right. They fall into three categories:

1. Wrong

2. In accordance with observed reality

3. Untested

There's no assuming involved at all, other than that there is an observable reality, but if you don't all that one, all meaningful discussion is at an end.

I'd go with:

There are (inter-subjective) observations
We have ideas (ie. create models). We match them to observations as best we can for usefulness.

Reality remains unknown, undefined, mythical .. just as with trying to define soul or spirit ...

The only certainty is that some doubt will remain.

[jeremyp]

I'd go with:

There are (inter-subjective) observations
We have ideas (ie. create models). We match them to observations as best we can for usefulness.

Reality remains unknown, undefined, mythical .. just as with trying to define soul or spirit ...

The only certainty is that some doubt will remain.

Nah. Either you accept that there is an observable reality or we might as well forget about all discussions of anything.

[Sriram]

https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human-consciousness-creating-reality/

*************

The paper’s authors include Robert Lanza, a stem cell and regenerative medicine expert, famous for the theory of biocentrism, which argues that consciousness is the driving force for the existence of the universe. He believes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that’s separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.

“The observer is the first cause, the vital force that collapses not only the present, but the cascade of spatiotemporal events we call the past. Stephen Hawking was right when he said: ‘The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.'”

************

[Free Willy]

Pompous waffle. You really should give up the amateur philosophy.

If it pisses you off.......it's worth it.

[Udayana]

https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human-consciousness-creating-reality/

*************

The paper’s authors include Robert Lanza, a stem cell and regenerative medicine expert, famous for the theory of biocentrism, which argues that consciousness is the driving force for the existence of the universe. He believes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that’s separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.

“The observer is the first cause, the vital force that collapses not only the present, but the cascade of spatiotemporal events we call the past. Stephen Hawking was right when he said: ‘The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.'”

************

The paper referred to be the linked article doesn't seem to make any of the claims listed. Can't see how you can get from the paper to the views pushed in the article.
 

[Free Willy]

The domain is reality.


Is it not? Surely knowing how the World is should inform your moral choices. Science can't tell us if abortion is morally acceptable but it can tell us things like when neural activity commences in the foetus, when it can feel pain and it can make predictions about the likely outcomes of various abnormalities in a pregnancy. So it can inform your decision as to whether abortion is morally acceptable, and if so, in what circumstances.
No I'm not. I'm saying that, if we have no way of verifying our ideas against reality, there is no way to tell if they are correct. If there is no test to verify the existence of God, we can't know if the answer to the question "is there a god" is yesBecause it is the only thing that can be observed empirically or no.

You are still trapped in a circular argument.
For reality read existence. So what exists, that which can be observed empirically because that is all that is real. Why is it real?  You see, circular argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are still trapped in a circular argument.
For reality read existence. So what exists, that which can be observed empirically because that is all that is real. Why is it real?  You see, circular argument.

Definition of existence - "the fact or state of living or having objective reality."
Definition of reality - "the state or quality of having existence or substance."

What is your point Vlad? If you want to argue that things exist outside of reality or that reality involves things that don't exist then you need to change the definitions of existence and reality. Moreover if you want to make such claims - that things exist outside of reality, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such things.

[Free Willy]

Definition of existence - "the fact or state of living or having objective reality."
Definition of reality - "the state or quality of having existence or substance."

What is your point Vlad? If you want to argue that things exist outside of reality or that reality involves things that don't exist then you need to change the definitions of existence and reality. Moreover if you want to make such claims - that things exist outside of reality, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such things.

The point is
The point is the decision to define realty has been taken by people who believe in that definition of reality without demonstrating it using their belief.
That reality is the physical alone is not borne out by physical evidence.

If you say it is the most widely accepted definition of reality then that becomes argumentum ad populum.

Shouldn't you be with your students?

[Gordon]

The point is
The point is the decision to define realty has been taken by people who believe in that definition of reality without demonstrating it using their belief.
That reality is the physical alone is not borne out by physical evidence.

If you say it is the most widely accepted definition of reality then that becomes argumentum ad populum.

Shouldn't you be with your students?

Give it a rest Vlad.

This is just you trying to accuse others of philosophical materialism yet again and nobody here subscribes to that view because, as has been explained to you many times previously, there may be unknown unknowns.

[jeremyp]

You are still trapped in a circular argument.

No I am not.

For reality read existence. So what exists, that which can be observed empirically because that is all that is real. Why is it real?  You see, circular argument.

But that is a straw man.

My claim is that we can't know about anything we can't observe. I do not assert that, if it can't be observed, it doesn't exist.

[Free Willy]

Give it a rest Vlad.

This is just you trying to accuse others of philosophical materialism yet again and nobody here subscribes to that view because, as has been explained to you many times previously, there may be unknown unknowns.

If he had just meant to defend reality as the objectively real then there was no need for him to butt in because a) He had no evidence that I disagreed with that and b)He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real.

His interjection we must conclude is due to his materialism and or scientism and or empiricism

[jeremyp]

If he had just meant to defend reality as the objectively real then there was no need for him to butt in

Actually, you butted in on a reply I made to Sriram.

because a) He had no evidence that I disagreed with that

I was responding first to a claim that Sritam made and then to your comments. If you didn't disagree with me, why did you butt in?

His interjection we must conclude is due to his materialism and or scientism and or empiricism

Your interjection we must conclude was due your ignorance and pseudo intellectualism.

[Gordon]

He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real.

Sounds like the NPF has sneaked up on you when you weren't looking.

[Free Willy]

Sounds like the NPF has sneaked up on you when you weren't looking.

No, the NPF is you cannot prove something so it must be true. I'm not saying that.

What do you think the qualification is for being objectively real?
NHMB.