PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

[atheist7agnostic]

CRITICAL THINKERS

Sunday 2nd June 2019 - 12.30pm to 2pm.

"Some Concepts of Progress."

Discussion leader: Graeme Lindenmayer.

AGNOSTICS GROUP

Sunday 2nd June 2019 - 2.30pm to 5pm.

"Christian Agnosticism: What is it?"

Discussion leader: Joe Sehee (Secular Spiritual Carer).

[Atheist Society]

Joe Sehee's alternative title for his Agnostics Group's topic is: "How my love for Jesus made me lose my religion."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/24522a52-c583-45d0-955c-38348965c0a5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Atheist Society]

Agnostics make a distinction between believing and knowing. Atheism and Theism are about believing. Agnosticism is about knowing.

A Christian Agnostic could be a person who 'believes' that God exists, but doesn't claim to 'know' it because, as yet, there is no acceptable scientific evidence to demonstrate that gods (or ghosts) exist.

An Atheist Agnostic could firmly 'believe' that gods (and the supernatural) do not exist. But doesn't claim to 'know' that they do not exist. (Because tomorrow there may be a new, and scientifically testable, discovery).  

[Atheist Society]

22 attended Joe Sehee's Agnostics Group talk and discussion. His major concern was why Secular Spiritual Carers had so much difficulty in being allowed by the religiously-biased authorities to attend to those patients in hospitals who listed themselves as 'No Religion'.  

On the Agnostics Group's 'Meetup' page Dave Clarke made the following comments:
"In today’s discussion someone bemoaned media bias. Yes. Journalism seems more like activism now than ever before. This written political newspaper bias has been around for along time. For instance, in my first trip back to the UK 30 years ago I remember visiting my aunt’s conservative-minded (pro Thatcher) family and being told, tongue in cheek, to leave my copy of the ‘Sun’ newspaper [which I was buying principally for its convenient non tabloid format, its racing form guides and its page 3 girls:)] at the door. These days one watches Fox News if one wants a pro conservative (including pro-church) viewpoint and any of a raft of ABC current affairs shows if one wants the opposite. Journalistic balance for any given broadcaster seems non-existent.
Also this afternoon someone expressed the view that the church had vastly more influence on government decision making than secular forces. I would draw that person’s attention to the recent gay marriage legislation, to the recent prosecution of Pell and to the manner in which the formal education system handles sexuality and gender. I’m not expressing any leaning here, by the way, in any direction but merely wish to challenge the notion put. I contend that in times gone past, when the church did have significant influence, none of the above would have obtained."  

[DonH]

There is no evidence for any gods, goddesses, or God.

Historically, these are all inventions of the human mind, possibly from fearful memory of the Old Man (or Woman) of the Tribe.

When the Old Man ex-pired (“breathed his last”) this was thought to be his spirit/soul leaving his body – and not merely the last exhaling of CO2.

Whence, “spiritualism” and thus Ancestor Worship – to appease his Spirit.

Materialism reduces the Spiritual to Refined Emotion.

The Universe displays evidence of “laws”, but these are Descriptive, not necessarily Prescriptive; although Vegans go against our Evolutionary Gut which “prescribes” us as Omnivorous, not Herbivorous.

Do the “laws” indicate a Law-Maker?  Maybe.  But likely to be a Bug-Eyed Monster, and not Anthropomorphic.

Purpose?  Only we Humans have conscious Purpose; the Universe does not.

Do we thus Control Our Destiny – or only imagine we do?

Perhaps we are merely one Species of Animal among others, and our too-large Brain merely expedites our Extinction.

Religion: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and now Science and its Method (as a Religion?).  Could do worse.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/CAGqKG5SR%2BMDjOQhAgK8ZiEyS5X2K_3WLwH05QpwSagXJZe%3DSQA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Mon, June 3, 2019 3:14 pm, DonH wrote:
> There is no evidence for any gods, goddesses, or God.

Unless you're a pantheist, in which case *everything* is evidence.

> Historically, these are all inventions of the human mind,

If they are inventions of the human mind and the human mind is generated
by material conditions then what does that suggest?

--
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
Mngmnt) (Chifley)
mobile: 0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
For liberty and commonwealth http://isocracy.org

[DonH]

We Mad Apes invent gods (in our own image), or define them to suit our
purposes.
Oxen don't have gods (we assume) as they go only by current empirical
evidence.
Theism, Deism, Pantheism, etc, then Atheism (back to oxism).
Only a Maddie invents a mental concept and then is Agnostic or Atheistic
about it.
See G.E.Moore on Common Sense.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:52 AM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/d698b2492eb155cce69afd94d4a4255d.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Thu, June 13, 2019 5:40 pm, DonH wrote:
> We Mad Apes invent gods (in our own image), or define them to suit our
> purposes. Oxen don't have gods (we assume) as they go only by current
> empirical evidence.

Ah, so it must be the more evolved human mind that has discovered
something greater that our limited senses, which the poor ox with its
ox-brain cannot even speculate on.

Do continue, you're making a great argument in favour of the theism here.

[DonH]

We Humans consider our "more evolved" mind to be our greatest asset.
I dispute that. We are possibly an over-specialised species, and hence at
risk of quick extinction.
Biological Evolution is not teleological, and any species alive today (incl.
cancer cell and tapeworm) is a "success".
True, we Apes have used our brain to get thus far, but now our dominance
looks ominous.
The Human Plague (9 billion) swarms over the Planet, and colonising Mars
won't help much.
Most folk are born into Religion, where Error is preserved intact by
Indoctrination and Blasphemy laws.
Hence, "God" is "obvious" to the Faithful - only the Child in "The Emperor's
New Clothes" (and heretical Unitarians) escape.
If you have a god, trot him/her/it out.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:49 AM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/ed3d6ec954bb7eac4c8bccad298c1f08.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Fri, June 14, 2019 3:53 am, DonH wrote:
> We Humans consider our "more evolved" mind to be our greatest asset.
> I dispute that. We are possibly an over-specialised species, and hence at
> risk of quick extinction.

Over-specialised? Like the crossbill finch with its beak that's only
designed to eat pinecones? Perhaps like the cassowary plum, which can
*only* propagate when eaten by the cassowary.

We're the least specialised and most adaptable species on the planet.

> If you have a god, trot him/her/it out.

As mentioned for a pantheist, the evidence is literally everywhere. You're
still thinking in the terms of the own upbringing where God is a
supernatural person.

It's curious that people who argue that others are so constrained by their
socialisation are also affected by it, but don't seem to realise it.

[DonH]

As a Prophet of Doom, I predict that Homo Sapiens will be Decimated by 2050
AD, and Extinct by 2099.
This has nothing to do with a Second Coming, but is purely Secular.
Of course, like my PoD predecessors, I am likely to be proved wrong,
especially by naming dates.
However, even the Pope warns of Climate Change - though not the Population
Problem.
Are we "the least specialised and most adaptable species on the planet"?
True - up to a point. But Anti-Vaxxes and Vegans are regressive, and
dangerous; let alone the Religious throw-backs.
Then there is Whole Word vs Phonics.
And even without these Educational Misfits, we all tend to resort to Blows
when Argument fails us.
The Id wins - as in movie "Forbidden Planet". (USA is determined on war
with Iran?)
Should John Setka resign for voicing an Unpopular Viewpoint (See the
Sorority unite!).
And did Bob Hawke advance the Labor Cause? And will ALP soon become an
Alternative Liberal Party?
As for "God", a Definition might help. I assume none of us believe in the
Greek/Roman Pantheon - are not even Agnostic?
God is conspicuous by his absence - except as a Mental Fiction.
Pantheism? Next step is Atheism.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 11:16 AM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/0648f0b12e05421ea2d274790b94a4ce.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Atheist Society]

Hi Don,

You demanded: 

If you have a god, trot him/her/it out. 

 

Here is my answer to your demand:

Although I am an Atheist, I nevertheless have dozens of ‘gods’: Truth, Justice, Freedom, Love, Humanity, Nature, etc. 

Each of my ‘gods’ has one or more ‘religions’. For example, my ‘god’ Truth has science and philosophy as its ‘religions’. 

The inverted commas indicate that I am using these words in a non-theistic and naturalistic (non-supernaturalist) sense.

Regards,

David

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/5D58CBCEB2434AA9A114325A8DCABA1E%40xc7985HP.

[DonH]

David,

It is the Atheist part of your response that I am interested in.  I’ll leave the others ‘gods’ to you.

I assume your Atheism is a counter to Theism.

We Apes had Polytheism, Monotheism, then Deism, Pantheism, and Atheism.

This is a progressive dilution of godliness until it disappears.  (Your ‘gods’ are more Ideals than Images.)

In Ancient Times, we Apes invented Spirits (Spirituality is the Phlogiston Theory of Religion).

The Expiring of a Dying Human Ape was seen as its ‘spirit’ leaving the body – not last exhaling of CO2.

Most of our Religious muddled thinking hark from this.  Spiritus Sanctus, anyone?

Don H.

 

From: Atheist Society

Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 7:10 PM

To: The Philosophy Forum

email to mailto:the-philosophy-forum%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/0648f0b12e05421ea2d274790b94a4ce.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:the-philosophy-forum%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/5D58CBCEB2434AA9A114325A8DCABA1E%40xc7985HP.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/CAGqKG5T1nvCE33i%2B%3DPE6eacWrwKjpNrskCzOF6Di3JajeWjMtg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Atheist Society]

Hi Don,

There are various explanatory models within which the terms gods, spirituality and religion are defined. (Despite the adamant insistence of that unholy alliance, the dogmatic Atheists with the conservative Christians, that such terms can only refer to supernatural entities).

Here is one of my viewpoints:

Naturalistic Religion

In the following explanatory model I have labelled the higher aspects of human nature themselves as the 'gods'. In this model the 'gods' do not need to be symbolized in the form of metaphorical personifications. Nor do they have supernatural powers. They are natural. They are simply there.

Let me explain how I define a 'god' within this model. For example, how can a value be a 'god'? How can such an abstract entity be a 'god'?

My answer: A value is a ‘god’ when you place the value above and beyond yourself. It is "out there". You give it allegiance. You serve it. You are subservient to it. It is your lord and master. You are its slave. If necessary, you are prepared to die for it. You will even kill for it.

In return it gives you meaning and purpose. It gives you something with which to identify. It takes you "out of yourself", "beyond yourself", to a "greater purpose". And, in this naturalistic non-supernaturalist sense, it is your ‘god’.

(I like this particular explanatory model. It allows me to say such things as: "You are in the grip of the ‘gods’. They've got you in their grasp. You've got 'gods', whether you like it or not". And this applies to non-believers in the supernatural just as much as it does to believers.) 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/62C21BC0C8814AE1B27F20A688FBA058%40xc7985HP.

[DonH]

David,

A Dictionary gives the definition of words, but not arbitrarily or dogmatically.  It purports to give current common usage.

As words drop out of use they are dropped by the dictionary; likewise, new words enter.

Your usage may be valid on this basis, but I doubt if most folk think of such when ‘god’ is used.

Incidentally, “Spiritus Sanctus” has a male Latin ending; it is not “-a” or “-um”.

“All A is B” in traditional logic.  The copula/verb is important, existentially.

“Socrates is a man...”  Sorry, was.

Do God, gods, goddesses, exist?  That is the question.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/CAGqKG5RNDLstGXadpj3zoZgnYdMHZHKiXRA3NGb6nutXwGktHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Sun, June 16, 2019 5:46 am, DonH wrote:
> It is the Atheist part of your response that I am interested in. I’ll
> leave the others ‘gods’ to you. I assume your Atheism is a counter to
> Theism.
> We Apes had Polytheism, Monotheism, then Deism, Pantheism, and Atheism.

If atheism is a counter to theism then it cannot be a progression from any
form of theism. It remains the same whether it is criticising animism,
polytheism, monotheism, or deism.

(Atheism and pantheism are just as secular as each other. It's primarily
an experiential difference, which some people don't have, and others do)

> As a Prophet of Doom, I predict that Homo Sapiens will be Decimated by
> 2050
> AD, and Extinct by 2099.

I didn't realise you planned to be around for so long :)

> Are we "the least specialised and most adaptable species on the planet"?
> True - up to a point. But Anti-Vaxxes and Vegans are regressive, and
> dangerous;

In what possible way are vegans "regressive", let alone "dangerous"?

> God is conspicuous by his absence - except as a Mental Fiction.

Again, only if you are looking for a person.

> Pantheism? Next step is Atheism.

You perhaps should avail yourself of an education on the subject.

[DonH]

The "jealous god" of Monotheism set about abolishing all Polytheism.
Hinduism survives.
The Enlightenment and advent of Science impacted on Theism, diluting it to
Deism.
Pantheism is next step. Nature as God? But Nature is impersonal, and
indifferent to Living Species.
Thus, Atheism. All our Anthropomorphic deities are Historic, so no point
being Agnostic about them.
However, Nature has "laws", so there might be a Lawmaker lurking behind
phenomena.
We can be Agnostic about such possible Bug-eyed Monster.
As Evolution consists mostly of Eat-or-Be-Eaten, does this God have a
sadistic streak?
(Cuddly T-Rex for Kids is a bit of a stretch.)
Vegans? Be kind to Cows by abolishing Domestication means turning them out
in the Wild?
As Rate of Species' Extinction is now 1,000 times normal, Cows would soon be
gone.
The Methane farting of Cows would be replaced by that from veganic humans.
(At 85 yrs of age, I won't be around much longer.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 10:35 PM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/6e459cfb5ba1935d3b174b6df1f52f97.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Mon, June 17, 2019 5:29 am, DonH wrote:
> The "jealous god" of Monotheism set about abolishing all Polytheism.
> Hinduism survives.

It's never to late to learn. Hinduism is not polytheistic.

I used to think it was, at least some twenty years ago, until it was
explained to me in glorious detail under several glasses of Arak in Bali
(the proper stuff, not the methanol-infused nonsense that has resulted in
recent deaths). Afterwards I did a bit of deeper study of my own and
discovered my prior conceptions of Hinduism was quite incorrect.

Hinduism has many "aspects" of a single Godhead (Brahman). It is not
polytheistic in the sense that we understand the term of separate Gods
being entirely distinct persons as they come from the same universal
source. It *is* polytheistic in the sense that it has many *persons*. So
both and neither. But that's what you get when trying to impose a
structure on different cultures when the tools aren't adequate.

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

There are even atheist aspects of Hinduism, in the Nasadiya Sukta
(Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda.

"Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe."

This has lead some Hindu philosophers to describe Brahman as both
everything and nothing, simultaneously.

The Charvaka school of Hinduism uses empirical evidence, inferential
logic, rejects reincarnation, religious rites, and the supernatural. Under
what polytheistic category do you care to shove that into?

> Pantheism is next step. Nature as God? But Nature is impersonal, and
> indifferent to Living Species. Thus, Atheism.

Your conclusion does not logically follow from your antecedent. Pantheism
accepts that Nature is impersonal, so not "but" required.

You need to get out of your head that that the divine requires a person.
Don't worry, I had to as well; both of us had schoolboy teachings that God
is Daddy in the Sky. Such socialisation is hard to shake, but harder if we
don't recognise that it *is* socialisation.

Pantheism is about experiencing nature as being divine. Either you have
that experience that reality is an immanent and divine, or you don't. If
you don't, too bad.

"Nicht wie die Welt ist, ist das Mystische, sondern dass sie ist"
(Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

> Vegans? Be kind to Cows by abolishing Domestication means turning them
> out in the Wild?

Yes, and how is that "regressive", let alone "dangerous"?

[DonH]

Hinduism is polytheistic according to E.Royston Pike's "Encyclopaedia of
Religion", and that's good enough for me.
It is also imbued with "spirits/spirituality" which causes so much mental
delusion among us Apes.
On the other hand, Cows are Sacred, hence no problem of their survival.
Pigs, chooks, sheep, goats, etc?
[Incidentally, see attached news item.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 9:40 PM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/3be7451a6049d6223f4017a1a8e9d6a3.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Tue, June 18, 2019 6:38 am, DonH wrote:
> Hinduism is polytheistic according to E.Royston Pike's "Encyclopaedia of
> Religion", and that's good enough for me.

It wasn't even a scholarly text when it was first published; and that was
in 1951.

Why would someone continue to refer to a text that is incorrect?

Surely changing one's mind on account of receiving more accurate
information isn't too hard?

[DonH]

Well, my Concise Oxford Dictionary says: "Hinduism: Polytheistic religion of
the Hindus".
My Edition is 1964, so it could be out-of-date.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 8:37 AM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/d8e499409ddb203f7481f2629105e817.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Tue, June 18, 2019 4:38 pm, DonH wrote:
> Well, my Concise Oxford Dictionary says: "Hinduism: Polytheistic religion
> of the Hindus". My Edition is 1964, so it could be out-of-date.

Well, so does the 2019 edition. But others are a little more nuanced.

"the complex of beliefs, values, and customs comprising the dominant
religion of India, characterized by the worship of many gods, including
Brahma as supreme being, a caste system, belief in reincarnation, etc"
Collins Unabridged, 2012

"A religious, philosophical, and cultural tradition that developed in
India with the composition of the Vedas, characterized by belief in a
supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing
theories are aspects of one eternal truth, by the desire for liberation
from earthly evils, and by belief in reincarnation."
American Heritage Dictionary, 2016

"the common religion of India, based upon the religion of the original
Aryan settlers as expounded and evolved in the Vedas, Upanishads,
Bhagavad-Gita, etc."
Websters, 2005

But of course you know as well as anyone that dictionary definitions can
be very ambiguous and equally often technically incorrect.

Surely if you want to find out whether Hinduism is monotheistic,
polytheistic, or something else, you would... you know, ask a Hindu?

Compared to a quasi-scholastic authority, surely empirical reality is a
better source?

And maybe get a second opinion? Or a third?

And if each tell you something different?

Well, that ought to tell you something about Hinduism as well.

(Best description I have heard: Hinduism is "multi-level polymorphic
monotheistic")

[DonH]

"Important polytheistic religions practiced today include Chinese
traditional religion, Hinduism, Japanese Shinto, Santeria, and various
neopagan faiths."
Thus says Wikipedia, under "Polytheism".
Roman Catholicism might claim to be monotheistic, but the Godhead, Saints,
and Mary the Mother, can be seen as polytheistic.
The main point is: all these alleged Beings are all Mental Fantasies, having
no provable empirical existence. The Ravings of a Mad Ape. You may Pray to
them, but the Causal Universe grinds on, regardless. Forgiveness of Sins?
Too late! The Deed is Done.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:55 PM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/41718208c562d79dc26de3f87fddd9a9.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Thu, June 20, 2019 6:29 am, DonH wrote:
> "Important polytheistic religions practiced today include Chinese
> traditional religion, Hinduism, Japanese Shinto, Santeria, and various
> neopagan faiths." Thus says Wikipedia, under "Polytheism".

Again, an appeal to authority. Treating Wikipedia like a Bible? That's
pretty ironic isn't it?

In any case, read further down on the very article that you're referencing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Hinduism

> The main point is: all
> these alleged Beings are all Mental Fantasies, having no provable
> empirical existence.

But the universe does have an empirical existence. But where does that
empircism come from?

Who do we count among the great British Empiricists, from which so much
empirical philosophy derives; George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne., John
Locke who moved from Calvinism to Socinianism to Arianism, and David Hume
who, at best, was a weak Deist.

Curiously, Berkeley's religious and empirical views are the closest to
being coherent with each other.

[DonH]

If we have a word, such as "polytheism", we need to appeal to some authority
or other - to get a definition.
As for personal experience, I used to pray, but no one answered; ergo, I was
wasting my time.
Some worthy Christians beam with goodwill, having an inner glow, attributed
to the Holy Spirit.
Such emotional warmth is useful, even if deluded; or, unprovable to others.
Our knowledge of the external world comes, empirically, as with Other
Species, from our Five (or more) Senses.
God is yet to present himself to Mankind; but the Second coming is imminent,
according to some Believers.
This assumes a First Coming, and that Mary wasn't carrying on with the
milkman.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 3:00 PM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/599f0089f91b59dc4c43aae516a4b825.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Thu, June 20, 2019 6:31 pm, DonH wrote:
> If we have a word, such as "polytheism", we need to appeal to some
> authority or other - to get a definition.

There are many authorities. Some are better than others.

As an ardent empiricist, I suggest you should ask a few Hindus whether
their religion is polytheistic.

But be prepared to change your mind if they tell you something that you
weren't expecting.

> As for personal experience, I
> used to pray, but no one answered; ergo, I was wasting my time.

Really? No-one answered? Not even yourself?

(Prayer is talking to oneself on matters of importance. Who did Socrates
prayer to, if not talking to his "inner daemon?", as he called it?)

> Our knowledge of the external world comes,
> empirically, as with Other Species, from our Five (or more) Senses.

Which obviously isn't true if you think about for more than a second.

The infrared and ultraviolet spectrum exist, although they are outside of
the visible spectrum.

I have knowledge that Moscow exists, although I received no direct
empirical evidence of it from my senses. There is second-order empirical
evidence, photos and so forth.

Apparently other people have empirical experiences of it, and they have
communicated that to me through shared symbolic values whose meaning is
certainly one of linguistic rationality rather that empirical objectivity.

There is also much of the universe which we accept as real without
empirical evidence. Most of the universe, from the very distant to the
very small, is something that we can only receive empirical evidence
through technological mediation, such as the telescope or microscope.

Then there is the subatomic particles, whose existence has *never* been
directly observed even with such tools. The electron we only know of its
effects.

And finally, where is our universe? Most of it is missing, and not subject
to the empiricism of our senses! Matter consists of 5% of the universe's
total energy. Neutrinos and photons contribute very close to 0%. That's
all you have at best.

Dark matter contributes 27%, dark energy contributes 68%. This is the
matter and energy of the universe that is beyond your senses and even our
tools. We don't know anything about them! But we know, through
gravitational effects, that they must exist, somehow.

By themselves, our senses are not a sound basis to make assumptions about
the universe.

[DonH]

Sorry, but our Five (or more) Senses are all that any of us Humans have by
which to gain knowledge.
If not, what are the Alternatives? Inner Spirituality? Dreams? Revelation,
Miracles, Transubstantiation?
And Direct sensory perception is the most reliable - the rest is either
Extension (telescope, microscope) or Hearsay.
If Prayer is a conduit to God and the Heavenly Hierarchy, then it should be
a two-way deal.
As for Polytheism, who cares? No deities exist, except in the mind, or as
graven images.
"Do not go by authority, as there are always contrary authorities to be
found." said Bertrand Russell (an authority, not to be ignored).
How do I know Moscow exists? At least I can visit there, if needs be.
How do we know Heaven exists? Die, and find out.
Is Eternal Life Insurance (ELI) valid, and worth a lifetime of
church/synagogue/mosque attendance?
But Self-Preservation is our strongest Instinct.
Reproduction comes Second, as the Church and child sex abuse proves. Better
to marry than burn.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 12:10 PM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/01e8c008ebaf6b66d5ebd19452969822.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Sat, June 22, 2019 5:59 am, DonH wrote:
> Sorry, but our Five (or more) Senses are all that any of us Humans have
> by which to gain knowledge. If not, what are the Alternatives? Inner
> Spirituality? Dreams? Revelation,
> Miracles, Transubstantiation?

Your apology is neither necessary, correct, or accepted.

I just gave you several examples of knowledge that is not acquired from
the sensory experience of a subject.

a) Experiences from others
b) Inference from other data
c) Shared symbolic values

It's not my fault that these are outside of the claims of your subjective
empiricism.

Further, we can step back a few hundred years in philosophy and raise the
objections of empiricism by Descartes.

Are your senses perfect, all the time?

Many people have experiences of pain in limbs that are not present after
amputation.

Others may hallucinate sounds and images that do not exist.

Where's your subjective empiricism now?

> And Direct sensory perception is the most reliable - the rest is either
> Extension (telescope, microscope) or Hearsay.

So do electrons exist or not?

What about dark matter?

> How do I know Moscow exists? At least I
> can visit there, if needs be. How do we know Heaven exists? Die, and find
> out.

You're as agnostic about the existence of Moscow as your are of heaven?

What a magnificent solipsism!

[DonH]

Yeah, we Mad Apes need a long process of Education until adulthood.
And most of that is instruction from teachers, whom we kids accept as
knowing what they are talking about.
Of course, mental cripples can result from Indoctrination, so that there is
a corner of one's mind where even we dare not go.
Thus, most are victims of Religious Dogma.
The advent of Anti-Vaxxs, Vegans, and Paleo-dieters, show how we Maddies
can veer off track.
Religion reached its peak with Polytheism. Then came Monotheism, and now
Atheism (mainly due to impact of Science).
The Reading Wars continue, with Whole Word fighting a rear-guard action
against a resurgent Phonics.
We Humans are part of the Primate group of Animals.
Gorillas, Chimpanzees, etc, we kindly dub as Anthropoid; which tends to
obscure our own Apishness.
I go by my own Empirical experiences - and have varying scepticism about the
rest.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:11 PM
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - JUNE 2nd 2019, 12.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/397bd031db6640961cad8894bd9d2653.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.