Imposing their views

[jeremyp]

Roundly and comprehensively rebutted I'm afraid.

Just writing stuff down doesn't constitute an effective rebuttal. Your argument needs to be persuasive enough to persuade people the original assertion was wrong.

Whether I am trying to dodge the burden of proof is a separate matter.

A separate but equally well evidenced matter.

I've said no one has committed NPF including you, twice.

And you've also perpetrated the NPF and accused me of doing it.

So I already know the difference between evidence and final proof. The question rather is about what constitutes evidence.

No. The question is "how can you know if your ideas about the World are right without checking then against reality?" It was a couple of pages ago, but, if you follow this thread back, you'll see that it is the case. I asked it of Sriram and neither he, nor you have even tried to answer it.

[Sriram]

Speculating philosophically about an after life and a soul based on NDE's and introspection about the nature of consciousness, is not wrong. It does not go against any established scientific principle or theory. 

[jeremyp]

Speculating philosophically about an after life and a soul based on NDE's and introspection about the nature of consciousness, is not wrong. It does not go against any established scientific principle or theory.

But how can you know if these things exist bearing in mind that nobody who has verifiably died has reported back on their experience?

[Sriram]

We have discussed all this already. It is speculative no doubt.... but tries to explain death and our existence beyond mere material interpretations. Unless we have enough reason to believe that it cannot be so...it is fine to have philosophical ideas.

[jeremyp]

We have discussed all this already. It is speculative no doubt.... but tries to explain death and our existence beyond mere material interpretations. Unless we have enough reason to believe that it cannot be so...it is fine to have philosophical ideas.

Until we can find a way of testing who is right, talking about after death experiences is just verbal wankery. It doesn't lead anywhere and it doesn't tell us anything about the World.

[Nearly Sane]

We have discussed all this already. It is speculative no doubt.... but tries to explain death and our existence beyond mere material interpretations. Unless we have enough reason to believe that it cannot be so...it is fine to have philosophical ideas.

I think that the implication here that philosophical ideas are speculation and not material is wrong. Using the term 'mere materialism' is poisoning the well.

[Sriram]

As discussed earlier, philosophical ideas about reality based on real experiences, can counter the influence of scientism. 

[ProfessorDavey]

As discussed earlier, philosophical ideas about reality based on real experiences, can counter the influence of scientism.

But the problem is Sriram that people who have the same experience may interpret them completely differently and hang them on highly distinct philosophical ideas which will typically be based on the philosophical 'mood music' of their cultural and societal upbringing and environment.

So all we get is a mire of subjectivity with societal and cultural overlay. None of this takes us anywhere useful in terms of actually understanding of the world rather than investigation of societal norms which may, or may not, align with any actual objective reality.

We can, of course, learn from experiential evidence, but to do so requires robust scientific method that first unpicks reported experience that cuts through cultural mood music and overlays with sound objective science.

So on so-called near death experiences (they are nothing of the sort as plenty aren't associated with near death). Use your approach and they tell you about death, and they tell you that individuals are watching the journey to heaven, or other people that they are watching their reincarnation, or others still that they are just witnessing death. Now even though the experience may be both real and consistent, none of those 'philosophical ideas based on real experiences' have any evidence to support them.

Overlay solid science and we can understand the changes in physiology that are associated with these experiences, and demonstrate them to be causally associated with oxygen depletion. Further these experiences can readily be replicated in circumstances where there is temporary oxygen depletion but have nothing to do with death. It may, of course, be that this type of oxygen depletion occurs near to death and probably both in people who actually die and those who recover. But the phenomenon isn't necessarily associated with death and has a physiological, not a philosophical explanation.

[Free Willy]

But the problem is Sriram that people who have the same experience may interpret them completely differently and hang them on highly distinct philosophical ideas which will typically be based on the philosophical 'mood music' of their cultural and societal upbringing and environment.

I think you are right to suggest this is true for all philosophical positions. However there are philosophies that transcend culture and societal upbringing. I think your model is one of an elite of opinion formers and a mass of followers.
Religion of course generates it’s own culture, society, and philosophy and also transcends others
Philosophy is another.

So all we get is a mire of subjectivity with societal and cultural overlay. None of this takes us anywhere useful in terms of actually understanding of the world rather than investigation of societal norms which may, or may not, align with any actual objective reality.

We can, of course, learn from experiential evidence, but to do so requires robust scientific method that first unpicks reported experience that cuts through cultural mood music and overlays with sound objective science.

Science does not do the supernatural and yet here you are doing the supernatural with science and not just the supernatural but sociology and cultural studies as well. And that I move is Scientism to a T.

To be fair Sriram is doing a bit of the reverse. But science has views on what death is and religion has views on how God deals with it

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are right to suggest this is true for all philosophical positions.

Glad you agree.

However there are philosophies that transcend culture and societal upbringing.

And there was me thinking we were getting somewhere, but here comes the special pleading.

Religion of course generates it’s own culture, society, and philosophy and also transcends others.

Well I never - special pleading for religion. But religion is a clear byproduct of culture and society and, of course, also influences the developments within that culture and society. So culture/society and religion are inherently linked and religion most certainly does not transcend culture/society as you can have culture/society without religion, but you cannot have religion without culture/society.
 

Philosophy is another.

Oh the full reverse ferret now.

So you accept that philosophies clearly are culturally/societally derived ... except for the ones that aren't ... which includes, err, philosophies.

You really do seem terribly confused Vlad.

[Gordon]

I think you are right to suggest this is true for all philosophical positions. However there are philosophies that transcend culture and societal upbringing. I think your model is one of an elite of opinion formers and a mass of followers.
Religion of course generates it’s own culture, society, and philosophy and also transcends others
Philosophy is another.

Science does not do the supernatural and yet here you are doing the supernatural with science and not just the supernatural but sociology and cultural studies as well. And that I move is Scientism to a T.

To be fair Sriram is doing a bit of the reverse. But science has views on what death is and religion has views on how God deals with it

No wonder you get confused about fallacies, Vlad: you're so embroiled in them yourself.

Even a cursory glance at your latest contribution some reveals some special pleading, an implied argument from authority, some begging the question along with, of course, one of your army of straw men.

[Free Willy]

Glad you agree.
And there was me thinking we were getting somewhere, but here comes the special pleading.
Well I never - special pleading for religion. But religion is a clear byproduct of culture and society and, of course, also influences the developments within that culture and society. So culture/society and religion are inherently linked and religion most certainly does not transcend culture/society as you can have culture/society without religion, but you cannot have religion without culture/society.
 Oh the full reverse ferret now.

So you accept that philosophies are clearly are culturally/societally derived ... except for the ones that aren't ... which includes, err, philosophy.

You really do seem terribly confused Vlad.

No special pleading here because I say that philosophies can transcend society and culture. But of course Religion can transcend philosophy too. That is part of the reason I class secular humanism as religion.

You of course put great store in culture and society, greater in affective power than philosophy or religion. Paradoxically you have been influenced by the low premium our society puts on philosophy. I on the other hand discovered philosophy through religion and am quite happy talking about it and for. my philosophy to be identified. Something most atheists on this forum are shit scared off.

My religion frees me to explore philosophy. Just because you are mired in your culture don’t tar others with the Same brush. Thanks.

[Free Willy]

No wonder you get confused about fallacies, Vlad: you're so embroiled in them yourself.

Even a cursory glance at your latest contribution some reveals some special pleading, an implied argument from authority, some begging the question along with, of course, one of your army of straw men.

But as per usual you seem to have difficulty finding where these have occurred.

[Gordon]

But as per usual you seem to have difficulty finding where these have occurred.

Nope - they are blindingly obvious: try looking!

[Nearly Sane]

No special pleading here because I say that philosophies can transcend society and culture. But of course Religion can transcend philosophy too. That is part of the reason I class secular humanism as religion.

You of course put great store in culture and society, greater in affective power than philosophy or religion. Paradoxically you have been influenced by the low premium our society puts on philosophy. I on the other hand discovered philosophy through religion and am quite happy talking about it and for. my philosophy to be identified. Something most atheists on this forum are shit scared off.

My religion frees me to explore philosophy. Just because you are mired in your culture don’t tar others with the Same brush. Thanks.

What does 'religion can transcend philosophy' mean?

[ProfessorDavey]

But of course Religion can transcend philosophy too.

Changing the goalposts - my point (and your point previously) was that religion transcends culture and society.

Given that religion is "usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Then it seems hard to argue that religion can somehow exist outside of, or beyond, the very system within which, by definition, it exists.

Point being you can have culture/society without religion, you cannot have religion without culture/society. Religion is dependent on culture/society, not the other way around. Culture/society, by contrast, is not dependent on religion, even if in many cases culture/society work hand in hand together and are co-dependent.

[ProfessorDavey]

What does 'religion can transcend philosophy' mean?

I think there are elements within religion that are non-philosophical, e.g certain practices, behaviours, sacred buildings etc. While these may be developed in homage to the central philosophical belief, they aren't really the philosophy itself. But I don't think that really transcends, in the manner of extending beyond. At most it adds to, in the manner that a statue to Kant, adds to Kantian philosophy but doesn't transcend his philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is part of the reason I class secular humanism as religions.

See my definition of religion earlier.

In what way does secular humanism relate "humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements". I don't think humanism relates to supernatural, transcendental or spiritual elements at all, hence I cannot see how it is a religion. It may represent a philosophy applied in practice, but that makes it no more a religion than economic or political philosophies applied in practice. So do you think socialism is a religion, or neo-monetarism Vlad?

[Nearly Sane]

I think there are elements within religion that are non-philosophical, e.g certain practices, behaviours, sacred buildings etc. While these may be developed in homage to the central philosophical belief, they aren't really the philosophy itself. But I don't think that really transcends, in the manner of extending beyond. At most it adds to, in the manner that a statue to Kant, adds to Kantian philosophy but doesn't transcend his philosophy.

Oddly enough, having someone who does not state that 'religion can transcend philosophy' saying it can't is not helping with explaining what someone who says 'religion can transcend philosophy' means.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oddly enough, having someone who does not state that 'religion can transcend philosophy' saying it can't is not helping with explaining what someone who says 'religion can teanscend philosophy' means.

True - but my point was that there are elements of religion that are adjuncts to the underlying philosophy.

Actually Vlad is changing the goal posts from:

Religion can transcend culture/society to

Religion can transcend philosophy

He is, of course, unable to make any cogent argument for either claim.

[Sriram]

But the problem is Sriram that people who have the same experience may interpret them completely differently and hang them on highly distinct philosophical ideas which will typically be based on the philosophical 'mood music' of their cultural and societal upbringing and environment.

So all we get is a mire of subjectivity with societal and cultural overlay. None of this takes us anywhere useful in terms of actually understanding of the world rather than investigation of societal norms which may, or may not, align with any actual objective reality.

We can, of course, learn from experiential evidence, but to do so requires robust scientific method that first unpicks reported experience that cuts through cultural mood music and overlays with sound objective science.

So on so-called near death experiences (they are nothing of the sort as plenty aren't associated with near death). Use your approach and they tell you about death, and they tell you that individuals are watching the journey to heaven, or other people that they are watching their reincarnation, or others still that they are just witnessing death. Now even though the experience may be both real and consistent, none of those 'philosophical ideas based on real experiences' have any evidence to support them.

Overlay solid science and we can understand the changes in physiology that are associated with these experiences, and demonstrate them to be causally associated with oxygen depletion. Further these experiences can readily be replicated in circumstances where there is temporary oxygen depletion but have nothing to do with death. It may, of course, be that this type of oxygen depletion occurs near to death and probably both in people who actually die and those who recover. But the phenomenon isn't necessarily associated with death and has a physiological, not a philosophical explanation.

Religions are culture based and could be very different community to community. Philosophy is not so. It is about knowledge and wisdom and is generally uniform. ....though there could be various models of reality.

Philosophy is not different from science in that respect.....except that it does not restrict itself to measurable phenomena.  Science in  fact is a subset of philosophy.

Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Paradoxically you have been influenced by the low premium our society puts on philosophy.

Have I, and does it. On the former, more later, on the latter I actually think that society puts great store on philosophy, it is just rarely seen in a kind of sterile academic "I'm a secular humanist", "I'm a utilitarian consequentialist" manner. I think that societies run on philosophies that are embedded in our values and culture - some are, of course directly or indirectly based on religious philosophies, others aren't. And when we see culture wars and debates as to how our society should be what are these other than battles of philosophies.

I on the other hand discovered philosophy through religion and am quite happy talking about it and for. my philosophy to be identified. Something most atheists on this forum are shit scared off.

And there was me thinking that my desire to become more acquainted in a range of philosophical approaches, and in particular ethical philosophies stems from the point at which I came to recognise that I was atheist. While I was more 'nominal christian' as per my upbringing I had no interest as it was something 'other' rather than something that defined me.

And in the past 33 years, since I came to recognise that I was atheist my philosophical outlook and ethical positions aren't just something private but something that I have brought into my professional world, hence my longstanding involvement in ethics committees and the teaching of medical ethics.

My religion frees me to explore philosophy. Just because you are mired in your culture don’t tar others with the Same brush. Thanks.

I would say (and can demonstrate with examples) that my atheism not just clearly freed me, but also inspired me to explore philosophy. And to go further by putting this into practice in my day to day professional work.

[Nearly Sane]

Religions are culture based and could be very different community to community. Philosophy is not so. It is about knowledge and wisdom and is generally uniform. ....though there could be various models of reality.

Philosophy is not different from science in that respect.....except that it does not restrict itself to measurable phenomena.  Science in  fact is a subset of philosophy.

Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations.

'Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations'

I know all the words in that sentence but it makes no sense to me. What, just for starters, are you trying to say when using the words 'theoretical essence' there?

[Enki]

Philosophy is the theoretical essence of spirituality, mysticism and techniques such as Yoga and meditations.

Far too limiting, and so very vague. All this statement seems to do is betray your own cultural leanings.

[Sriram]

I was referring to spiritual philosophy (metaphysics) such as in Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, Kabbala, Sufism etc.