philosophy of religion isn't possible

[henry quirk]

>You're very fortunate to find yourself among the elite, wise 1%. How nice for you.

It's not a blessing, it's a curse.

>The rest of us poor 99% of simpletons are probably not worth your time. Sorry we take up so much space.

You're probably not, but that way lies nihilism, and i graduated from that school long ago. Now i hope to be wrong.

No offense, but I see nuthin' from you that's startling or novel or particularly deep or insightful, nuthin' particularly elite about your thinkin' or presentation.

[Advocate]

>You're very fortunate to find yourself among the elite, wise 1%. How nice for you.

It's not a blessing, it's a curse.

>The rest of us poor 99% of simpletons are probably not worth your time. Sorry we take up so much space.

You're probably not, but that way lies nihilism, and i graduated from that school long ago. Now i hope to be wrong.

No offense, but I see nuthin' from you that's startling or novel or particularly deep or insightful, nuthin' particularly elite about your thinkin' or presentation.

Originality is an invalid criteria. There is no philosophical thought that hasn't been independently derived many times. Any thoughts about metaphysics are deep. My insight can be found at tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, and it is the framework of all other thought.

But the ideas stand on their own. My relationship to them is not meaningful here except in that i can explain them better than any other philosopher, and their relationship to each other in a rational and salient way that no famous philosopher at least has come close to (that's the insight part).

[Advocate]

>Define religion.

I haven't worked out a full one but it is at least dogma, ritual, faith (dogma basically being the particular story of faith), community... That might be an interesting conversation. The contention here is that the attribute of dogma (as a particular version of faith) is an existing component of all religions that have ever existed and therefore is an indelible component of what the word religion entails.

>The question: would you accept as evidence what I accept as evidence?

Here is a list of the kinds evidence i accept, in order of the justifiable certainty (epistemological warrant, etc.) they provide, drawn from the epistemology section of tiny.cc/TheWholeStory:

1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
2.5 direct communication, uncertain motive ("I saw a dragon." could be accurate intent + illusion/delusion or misleading intent)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

[henry quirk]

>You're very fortunate to find yourself among the elite, wise 1%. How nice for you.

It's not a blessing, it's a curse.

>The rest of us poor 99% of simpletons are probably not worth your time. Sorry we take up so much space.

You're probably not, but that way lies nihilism, and i graduated from that school long ago. Now i hope to be wrong.

No offense, but I see nuthin' from you that's startling or novel or particularly deep or insightful, nuthin' particularly elite about your thinkin' or presentation.

Originality is an invalid criteria. There is no philosophical thought that hasn't been independently derived many times. Any thoughts about metaphysics are deep. My insight can be found at tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, and it is the framework of all other thought.

But the ideas stand on their own. My relationship to them is not meaningful here except in that i can explain them better than any other philosopher, and their relationship to each other in a rational and salient way that no famous philosopher at least has come close to (that's the insight part).

You're a sly one, you are: now I'm gonna have to read your lil doc...mebbe later this afternoon.

[henry quirk]

>Define religion.

I haven't worked out a full one but it is at least dogma, ritual, faith (dogma basically being the particular story of faith), community... That might be an interesting conversation. The contention here is that the attribute of dogma (as a particular version of faith) is an existing component of all religions that have ever existed and therefore is an indelible component of what the word religion entails.

>The question: would you accept as evidence what I accept as evidence?

Here is a list of the kinds evidence i accept, in order of the justifiable certainty (epistemological warrant, etc.) they provide, drawn from the epistemology section of tiny.cc/TheWholeStory:

1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
2.5 direct communication, uncertain motive ("I saw a dragon." could be accurate intent + illusion/delusion or misleading intent)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

I guess I'll have to read your thing to make sense of your list (cuz *nuthin' in that list amounts what I'd call evidence for anything which means I'm misunderstandin' it).









*except for science which I broadly interpret as measuring what is and inferring what could be from what is, and, experience qua experience which I broadly interpret as measuring

[Immanuel Can]

i graduated from that school long ago.

You were a Nihilist once?

Not that. It is an essential step in any philosophical journey to find a way to deal with the literal meaninglessness of everything.

I wouldn't say we have any reason to think that. Why must people plunge into the pit of despair before becoming wise? Do we really have any reason to think that existence is absurd, or meaningless, or void?

We can imagine that if we want, but there's no necessity for other people to do so, surely.

TWS answers what meaning is and how to have it even though free will isn't free.. and so forth.

TWS? Meaning what?

You dont' believe free will isn't free. If you did believe that, you'd not be talking right now. What would be the point? You couldn't change anything.

[Immanuel Can]

>Define religion.

I haven't worked out a full one...

Yep, I can see that.

And neither have the experts, I hate to tell you. There is no consensus on what "religion" even means, precisely. Debates continue over whether or not it entails a God or gods, whether or not it has to be premised on superstition or is built on evidence, whether it has to involve such things as prayers and rituals or community, or whether it can be entirely personal...and on many other such issues. There is no expert consensus. I once heard a very intelligent academic lecture on "Atheist orthodoxy" in the university; and I doubt you'd warm to that. But there it is: the definition is so elastic as hardly to be informative at all.

And the reason why is very simple. The concept "religion" is not really informative of what's going on. There are some core groups that seem happy to subscribe to it, such as perhaps Catholicism or Hinduism, though I'm sure there are exceptions. But a great many belief systems do not ever call themselves "religions." Some ideologies, like Humanism, Atheism, Communism, and certain elements of Christianity, refuse to group themselves that way at all, because they regard themselves as accounts of the truth, not some artificial construct or phony practice called "religion."

So you might be right that the study of "religion" is impossible, if you realize that the word "religion" is not a fixed thing. Then you're very right...studying it is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. It keeps sliding off the hook.

[Advocate]

>Define religion.

I haven't worked out a full one but it is at least dogma, ritual, faith (dogma basically being the particular story of faith), community... That might be an interesting conversation. The contention here is that the attribute of dogma (as a particular version of faith) is an existing component of all religions that have ever existed and therefore is an indelible component of what the word religion entails.

>The question: would you accept as evidence what I accept as evidence?

Here is a list of the kinds evidence i accept, in order of the justifiable certainty (epistemological warrant, etc.) they provide, drawn from the epistemology section of tiny.cc/TheWholeStory:

1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
2.5 direct communication, uncertain motive ("I saw a dragon." could be accurate intent + illusion/delusion or misleading intent)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

I guess I'll have to read your thing to make sense of your list (cuz nuthin' in that list amounts what I'd call evidence for anything which means I'm misunderstandin' it).

They're categories. If someone says to you they saw a dragon, the first problem, because all versions of anecdote fall below ground truth and ground truth is that there are no dragons, is to determine whether they're delusional, which determines whether their intent matters. If they believe they're telling the truth then you can assume the value of their information to be collaborative anecdote.

When it comes to the idea of god there are two ways to obtain actionable certainty (which is the point of knowledge). Above the line are contingent evidence. How well they replicate determines how well they can be relied upon. Collaborative anecdote is the best evidence i can find and i believe such people are delusional. When it comes to empirically verifiable kinds of evidence, my own experience or more certain varieties don't exist as far as i can tell, and above the line, logical necessity disproves god to many levels of certainty, but that's a different subject.

[henry quirk]

>Define religion.

I haven't worked out a full one but it is at least dogma, ritual, faith (dogma basically being the particular story of faith), community... That might be an interesting conversation. The contention here is that the attribute of dogma (as a particular version of faith) is an existing component of all religions that have ever existed and therefore is an indelible component of what the word religion entails.

>The question: would you accept as evidence what I accept as evidence?

Here is a list of the kinds evidence i accept, in order of the justifiable certainty (epistemological warrant, etc.) they provide, drawn from the epistemology section of tiny.cc/TheWholeStory:

1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
2.5 direct communication, uncertain motive ("I saw a dragon." could be accurate intent + illusion/delusion or misleading intent)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

I guess I'll have to read your thing to make sense of your list (cuz nuthin' in that list amounts what I'd call evidence for anything which means I'm misunderstandin' it).

They're categories. If someone says to you they saw a dragon, the first problem, because all versions of anecdote fall below ground truth and ground truth is that there are no dragons, is to determine whether they're delusional, which determines whether their intent matters. If they believe they're telling the truth then you can assume the value of their information to be collaborative anecdote.

When it comes to the idea of god there are two ways to obtain actionable certainty (which is the point of knowledge). Above the line are contingent evidence. How well they replicate determines how well they can be relied upon. Collaborative anecdote is the best evidence i can find and i believe such people are delusional. When it comes to empirically verifiable kinds of evidence, my own experience or more certain varieties don't exist as far as i can tell, and above the line, logical necessity disproves god to many levels of certainty, but that's a different subject.

Like I say: I'll read your thing and get back to you.

[Advocate]

>Why must people plunge into the pit of despair before becoming wise? Do we really have any reason to think that existence is absurd, or meaningless, or void?

You either have to plunge into the pit and crawl back out or find a way to avoid falling into the pit. Either way, the pit is an obstacle that must be overcome in any intellectual journey, long before becoming wise. Existence is meaningless by definition, but we exist on a different level. Life isn't meaningless. Meaning is desire, caring, salience. It exists in minds, not out in the universe.

>You dont' believe free will isn't free. If you did believe that, you'd not be talking right now. What would be the point? You couldn't change anything.

All experiences are real. All experiences are not OF something real. To be real means to be verifiable, replicable, otherwise it's indistinguishable from fiction. Free will as an experience is real. Free will as actual freedom is impossible. The entire record of knowledge is of finding greater and greater causal links, which is identical to less and less possibility of freedom. In fact the very act of measurement disproves any notion of freedom at that level. We find constraints in every way at every scale. No, we are not really free.

[Advocate]

>Like I say: I'll read your thing and get back to you.

It bears introduction. I started a whole other post specifically asking for help about how badly formatted it is atm. If you grok it, it will be simultaneously one of the best (intellectual) and worst (literary) experiences of your life.

[henry quirk]

>Like I say: I'll read your thing and get back to you.

It bears introduction. I started a whole other post specifically asking for help about how badly formatted it is atm. If you grok it, it will be simultaneously one of the best (intellectual) and worst (literary) experiences of your life.

Yeah, I'll read the other thread too.

[Immanuel Can]

>Why must people plunge into the pit of despair before becoming wise? Do we really have any reason to think that existence is absurd, or meaningless, or void?

You either have to plunge into the pit and crawl back out or find a way to avoid falling into the pit.

Nah. What if there is no pit? That is, apart from the one the human mind sometimes chooses to create for itself. What if life has meaning, but some people don't know what the meaning is, so they put themselves "in the pit"?

Existence is meaningless by definition...

Nah. There's no "definition" that forces life to be meaningless. That's arbitrary.

To be real means to be verifiable, replicable, otherwise it's indistinguishable from fiction.

Nah again. You can't "verify" or "replicate" your own mind. That doesn't even remotely suggest it's a fiction. In fact, you couldn't even say "It is a fiction" if you didn't use your mind to do it.

Free will as an experience is real. Free will as actual freedom is impossible.

More nah. You've just "moved the goalposts." To say "free will [only] as an experience is real," is only to say, "Free will is a delusion." To experience something that's not real is the very definition of "delusion," in fact.

But if actual freedom is impossible, again, you would not be arguing. For arguments cannot change minds that cannot be changed. So you must believe at least in the possibility of people deciding to believe new things, and doing so based on the kinds of reasons you are trying to supply...or you wouldn't argue at all.

[Advocate]

>Like I say: I'll read your thing and get back to you.

It bears introduction. I started a whole other post specifically asking for help about how badly formatted it is atm. If you grok it, it will be simultaneously one of the best (intellectual) and worst (literary) experiences of your life.

Yeah, I'll read the other thread too.

The other thread, don't bother. I can't get anyone to come to the point.

[Advocate]

>Nah again. You can't "verify" or "replicate" your own mind. That doesn't even remotely suggest it's a fiction. In fact, you couldn't even say "It is a fiction" if you didn't use your mind to do it.

You can verify your memory. If it has served you well in the past it's likely you can rely upon it again in similar circumstances. If you remember having an experience a second ago, there's no evidence in the universe that could counter that as a fact because only you can be the arbiter of Whether you have an experience. What the experience is of is a different question, that's why "experience of" is a low form of evidence but experience itself is the highest. If 100% of evidence supports something, any rational person believes it, no matter the overall strength of the evidence.

>More nah. You've just "moved the goalposts." To say "free will [only] as an experience is real," is only to say, "Free will is a delusion." To experience something that's not real is the very definition of "delusion," in fact.

Sure, we're all delusional when we experience free will. That's true.

But if actual freedom is impossible, again, you would not be arguing. For arguments cannot change minds that cannot be changed. So you must believe at least in the possibility of people deciding to believe new things, and doing so based on the kinds of reasons you are trying to supply...or you wouldn't argue at all.

The opposite of accepting free will as a pretty lie is nihilism. We don't have to believe it's "real" to act on it as if it's real, same as money or love. If it does the work we set it to, it's as real as necessary for that task. Verifying it in an empirical sense is a different question. A favourite color isn't a fact exactly but it does real work in the real world. On the "spiritual" side of things, win/win, self-fulfilling, and the like are possible in ways they are not in the material world. Freedom is possible as a relative concept empirically, that's about it, and even then it would be a measure of uncertainty, not reality.