The Argument From Reason...

[seer]

I suspect [i.e. I think] that there is a deep rooted need to believe in something among some people because the opposite [a cold indifferent universe and non existence] terrifies them. That is hardly a new phenomenon.

We are all individuals HA, I was converted at 37 years old, 30 years ago - and fear of death played no part in that conversion.

Precisely.

Yet that again is a belief and one that has antecedents that pre-date Christianity.

What the heck does that have to do with what I said?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ok, so now you are reading my mind? Really HA, do you like it when people do that to you?

No I am not reading your mind I am premising my remarks on the sort of threads you start.

I suspect [i.e. I think] that there is a deep rooted need to believe in something among some people because the opposite [a cold indifferent universe and non existence] terrifies them. That is hardly a new phenomenon.

that And BTW I never had a fear of death when I was an agnostic, what was there to fear? You are dead - you don't know or feel anything.

Precisely.

The Christian idea of a final judgement has caused me more angst than the fear of death ever did in my unbelieving years.

Yet that again is a belief and one that has antecedents that pre-date Christianity.

[seer]

I disagree. I think this is all about reassurance concerning the underlying fear of non-existence [death] and the comforts gained by believing in a supreme creator being that is in control and will take care of the individual.

It appears to have strong father-figure issues.

Ok, so now you are reading my mind? Really HA, do you like it when people do that to you? And BTW I never had a fear of death when I was an agnostic, what was there to fear? You are dead - you don't know or feel anything. The Christian idea of a final judgement has caused me more angst than the fear of death ever did in my unbelieving years. So spare us your pseudo psychology...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is not about personal assurance, it is about a grounding for our rational abilities - a grounding that I don't believe naturalism can offer.

I disagree. I think this is all about reassurance concerning the underlying fear of non-existence [death] and the comforts gained by believing in a supreme creator being that is in control and will take care of the individual.

It appears to have strong father-figure issues.

[seer]

I suppose the former is simpler [and more reassuring] to believe than the latter. A cold indifferent universe and our being here the result of pure random chance via evolution is less comforting.

It is not about personal assurance, it is about a grounding for our rational abilities - a grounding that I don't believe naturalism can offer.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This is the bottom line, a rational Creator offers a firm foundation and source for human reasoning. On the other hand the atheist would have to assume that a thousand, or a million, happy little accidents just happened to cobble together the rational human mind.

I suppose the former is simpler [and more reassuring] to believe than the latter. A cold indifferent universe and our being here the result of pure random chance via evolution is less comforting.

[seer]

No. Your “morning cup of tea” is true for you, no doubt. But it can only be accepted at face value by others unless it is substantiated by evidence.

That is just stupid Tass, it is not only true for me it is a fact, a historical fact if you will. And having the ability to prove it to anyone else is immaterial to the truth of the matter. Many of our encounters in life can not be 'substantiated by evidence' but that does not make then less real or true.

[Machinist]

I don't think anyone claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just that it has a tendency to produce animals with senses and reasoning that are somewhat reliable, because that is advantageous to survival. Clearly, the physicalist processes don't need to care about anything to accomplish this. It just happens.-Stoic

Yes I understand that it's not the claim being made. It was just a thought, an epiphany that I had, that irrational forces are ultimately responsible for minds with the capacity for imagination and enlightenment and to dream beyond the stars. It puts things a little more into context for me that's all.


The less connected something is to our struggle for survival and reproduction, the less likely we are to be able to determine the truth about it.

Solving riddles and paradoxes are not survival skills that's for sure.


That may be why there is so much disagreement about philosophical questions where the answer doesn't have any real effect on our everyday lives.

I can't imagine a world where they could be. Where philosophical truths are plain to see.

[Tassman]

Oh good, so my morning cup of tea yesterday was a truism. And whether one can objectively verify it or not makes no difference to the truth of the matter.

No. Your “morning cup of tea” is true for you, no doubt. But it can only be accepted at face value by others unless it is substantiated by evidence.

Can you objectively verify that any of the above objections are actually the case?

The “above objections” are not claimed to be “actually the case” - merely hypothetical possibilities that can be raised due to the lack of evidence supporting your claim.

[Stoic]

Naturalism claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just sharing a thought I had this morning. Why would the physicalist processes of this natural world care about Ideals?

I don't think anyone claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just that it has a tendency to produce animals with senses and reasoning that are somewhat reliable, because that is advantageous to survival. Clearly, the physicalist processes don't need to care about anything to accomplish this. It just happens.

What is Ultimately True should not matter in the genetic struggle for survival and reproduction.

You do have a good point there. The less connected something is to our struggle for survival and reproduction, the less likely we are to be able to determine the truth about it. That may be why there is so much disagreement about philosophical questions where the answer doesn't have any real effect on our everyday lives.

[seer]

Nobody is saying that - something may well be “true”, but unless it is objectively verifiable it cannot be shown to be true; it can only be accepted at face value and could well be wrong.

Oh good, so my morning cup of tea yesterday was a truism. And whether one can objectively verify it or not makes no difference to the truth of the matter.

Without supporting evidence to the contrary, your claim could be based upon a faulty memory, or you could be dementing, certifiably insane or simply lying.

Can you objectively verify that any of the above objections are actually the case?

[Machinist]

Nobody is saying that - something may well be “true"

dat what he be sayin

[Tassman]

Good, when I said there were other ways to discover truth besides the scientific method, you balked. So now you agree...

No, we don’t agree. The difference between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ truth is that the former is supported by substantive evidence and the latter isn’t.

Please tell me how my having morning tea is less of a fact or less true than anything discovered by science?

Without supporting evidence to the contrary, your claim could be based upon a faulty memory, or you could be dementing, certifiably insane or simply lying.

Who says something has to be 'objectively verifiable' to be true?

Nobody is saying that - something may well be “true”, but unless it is objectively verifiable it cannot be shown to be true; it can only be accepted at face value and could well be wrong.

[Machinist]

Exactly...

It's something you've already said numerous times. I woke up this morning with a fresh angle on it though. I can see why natural selection might aim for truth as far as identifying plants and animals and such...but aspiration for a greater understanding of philosophical truths? What would the point be? I see what you're saying now that it produced something diametrically opposed to it's nature.

[seer]

Naturalism claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just sharing a thought I had this morning. Why would the physicalist processes of this natural world care about Ideals? What is Ultimately True should not matter in the genetic struggle for survival and reproduction.

Exactly...