Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
There are two views of “reality,” one is that reality is only what we perceive it to be, the other is that reality is that which exists quite apart from our apprehension, which only at best approximates it. Western science is based on the 2nd viewpoint. Religion is based on the first view.
There are two views of “reality,” one is that reality is only what we perceive it to be, the other is that reality is that which exists quite apart from our apprehension, which only at best approximates it. Western science is based on the 2nd viewpoint. Religion is based on the first view.
Perhaps you need to clarify. I don’t see religion as being reality as we perceive it. We can’t perceive heaven and hell or god.
There are two views of “reality,” one is that reality is only what we perceive it to be, the other is that reality is that which exists quite apart from our apprehension, which only at best approximates it. Western science is based on the 2nd viewpoint. Religion is based on the first view.
Perhaps you need to clarify. I don’t see religion as being reality as we perceive it. We can’t perceive heaven and hell or god.
Religion’s only operational existence is people’s claim for same. Remove people, and religion vanishes. Remove people, and my car rusts but does not vanish. Should’ve not said “western science,” but just “science.” Do not agree, people do “perceive” in that’s that their reported claims, that heaven, hell, god, etc. have an existence. That’s a function of the first view of reality.
Reality is just whatever actually, objectively exists. Religion claims God actually, objectively exists. There are lots of things that exist that we can’t prove or empirically observe. I think.
Reality is just whatever actually, objectively exists. Religion claims God actually, objectively exists. There are lots of things that exist that we can’t prove or empirically observe. I think.
No sir, it is not “religion” that makes that claim, it is people, some people. It is the consequences, in human social application, that operationalizes those claims, and therein lies the objections. “Allah” or “God,” whatever is asserted, and then follows host of demands that other people comply with whatever the claimant expresses.
We make or adopt an assumption that what we perceive (sensation plus experience) is “in fact” what we call “reality.” You assert that you’ve had a revelation, some revealed sense of reality not apprehended by all others nor publically verifiable by common shared sensations, that “god” exists. That makes it an instance of the first definition, that what you perceive is reality.
I suppose that I’m a “consequentialist,” in that I validate the reality of a claim in terms of the consequences of that claim on my life. If someone says “Allah says” and then proceeds to try and kill me, I tend to object and not agree. You claim that your assertion of a god is valid, as it has been made apparent to you through some personal experience the object of which, “God,” is not subject to public verification. That’t not a problem for me, unless and until the consequences of your claim as a person results in your seeking by that revelation to impose on me constraints not otherwise imposed by an apprehension of reality with which I agree. Does that make any sense to you?
This OP is not intended as just another theist/atheist thread, though that may occur. It is intended as an opening to discuss what is “real,” as opposed to not real, and the basis for that distinction.
Reality is just whatever actually, objectively exists. Religion claims God actually, objectively exists. There are lots of things that exist that we can’t prove or empirically observe. I think.
I agree about “objectively”. Even some things we cannot actually see, such as black holes or gravity, subatomic particles are objectively real. We know these exist because there is empirical evidence that can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively and verified and we can make predictions based on our knowledge of these things. I do not think that supernatural gods fit into this category because they are unquantifiable and unverifiable and so to me they are not objectively real. Other things such as emotions and mathematics are also real because of their demonstrable connection with matter or quantity. Again, I can’t see how gods could be said to be real in any sense. Nothing supernatural has ever been shown to be real and there’s never been a skerrick of evidence to support any of it. Gravity, love, dog biscuits, movies, cabbages…all objectively real. Gods, ghosts, spirits and demons… all a lot of nonsense.
Emotions are an emergent property of complex clumps of living matter; of organisms with brains. So are beliefs. However, while supernatural beliefs may be real beliefs they are not connected with anything objectively real. Supernatural beings, gods or ‘eternal’ souls are not objectively real. They just form endless self-referential loops in the minds of the religious. That is the only reality they have.
There are two views of “reality,” one is that reality is only what we perceive it to be, the other is that reality is that which exists quite apart from our apprehension, which only at best approximates it. Western science is based on the 2nd viewpoint. Religion is based on the first view.
This gets to the crux of religious belief, I think. If you can successfully deny this distinction (i.e. if your worldview actually, epistemically, falls under #1 while you believe it to fall under #2) you’re practicing religious faith. This may be the best definition of faith I’ve heard to date ... gotta give that one some consideration.
In any case Religion (reified) would disagree with that model. Religion would “claim” to be a #2 worldview, and that’s very much key to the nature of Religion. I think you’re on to something here.
What elements of reality are humans able to define without doubts or qualms?
We define our words in an enormous mix of ways, but how many of our definitions would hold up to scientific scrutiny?
I see noun application (descriptions and definitions of things) as not fitting, in the strictest sense of the word, while certain kinds of verbs/actions/movements can potentially be said to be reality-based in a way that stands up to science-style scrutiny. It’s fine to say that a particle is real, but keep in mind that the particle-physicist community every so often changes in its opinions about the nature of particles and sub-particles. Sure, they’re real, but what if we don’t yet have any clue what a particle is? Maybe we can only say that certain movements and actions are all that can be described without doubts, qualms or qualifiers.
Taking the above into account, I can describe change/movement/action with an implied or actual qualifying verb. For instance, Assuming X, Y acts in way Z. (My apologies to Burt for writing a screwy equation. I’ve never taken a math class beyond 9th-grade algebra and didn’t even master that.)
I found Sam Harris’ recent interview interesting. Here’s an excerpt as it relates to this discussion:
But there is something even more profound about the nature of “scientific truth” that has arisen in physics, which I don’t think is generally appreciated. It is the simple fact that we realize that none of our theories are “true” in the sense that they adequately describe nature on all scales. All of our physical theories, as we now understand them, have limited domains of validity, which we can actually quantify in an accurate way. Even Quantum Electrodynamics, . . . .
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Krauss’ answers to Sam’s questions. No reason at all to believe in gods. What we have to do “is be brave enough to keep trying to understand [the universe] better, and [whether we like what we find or not] to acccept the reality that nature imposes upon us”. I just can’t wait to get this book! Thank you for alerting me to it, NV.
Campbell’s Soup, the doctrines of instrumentalism, positivism, and the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, all contradict your dopey dictum and prove you a prize parsnip, an ignoramus, a lunkhead of the first water.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 06 January 2012 08:04 AM
And a big raspberry to you, too, shithead!
He’s just a troll, stick him on ignore and let him play with himself.
Yes, a big intellectual imposter who wouldn’t know an unorthodox alternative to QED if it stood up in his Campbell’s soup and smacked him in the fucking face.
How many times has he been sent to Coventry on this and other forums? I doubt the shit-for-brains even questions himself about that. If one were a believer in supernatural nonsense it would be easy to suspect he’s a reincarnation of Bozo. BTW, I wonder if he’s out of hospital (or jail) yet. We should send Mr JayD shit-for-brains to visit him. In fact (now this would be fun) put him and Mario in a cab and send them out to visit Bozo. Imagine!
As a psychologist, Dennis, don’t you think there would be enough data from such an encounter for a whole conference?
So nobody has a response to my substantive point, which is that instrumentalism, positivism, and the orthodox interpretation to QM, all disprove the attempted aphorism of Campbell’s Chicken Soup.
RSS Feed
