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.
Nothing, I guess. Not totally, TTS considers himself to be enlightened. There must be a hierarchy, because I consider myself to be enlightened too. Do you?
No, I don’t consider any person especially “enlightened,” whatever that means. You’ve shown me nothing to make me want to put you in a category above the rest of us schmucks. You’ve got a lot of pride like BM - he’s absolutely sure God exists and you are absolutely sure he doesn’t. You don’t know any more than BM does, don’t fool yourself.
Nothing, I guess. Not totally, TTS considers himself to be enlightened. There must be a hierarchy, because I consider myself to be enlightened too. Do you?
No, I don’t consider any person especially “enlightened,” whatever that means. You’ve shown me nothing to make me want to put you in a category above the rest of us schmucks. You’ve got a lot of pride like BM - he’s absolutely sure God exists and you are absolutely sure he doesn’t. You don’t know any more than BM does, don’t fool yourself.
To the contrare, mon Bruce, it’s of a much wider scope than that. Somebody’s gotta know the difference ... or we’re fucked! I’m not proud in the least, I am truly humble, and ashamed. The speck of meaning I’ve managed to carve out in my life experience is nothing in the big scheme of things, in little things for that matter. But I can tell you this, I don’t give a shit about God, whether the good or the bad, the result is what I notice. This is not just about whether God exists. If you don’t know that, I guess I, also, have given you too much credit for striving for a rational framework your reputation has garnered. Perhaps I took too much for granted.
Schmuck? Yeah, I’m a schmuck, you’re a schmuck, everybody’s a schmuck. That was the last thing Jesus said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Schmuck? Yeah, I’m a schmuck, you’re a schmuck, everybody’s a schmuck. That was the last thing Jesus said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Yes, I consider myself to be somewhat enlightened. Not highly and formerly educated but enlightened.
Enlightenment is recognizing subjective bias and understanding and accepting parsimony as the avenue to the most probable answer.
Anyone can make their own definition of enlightenment and fit it. That, in and of itself, is subjective bias.
Yup. Bias is a slickery thing to deal with. Sometimes we don’t even recognize it in ourselves, let alone others. Sometimes, even when we do recognize it in ourselves, it is too much a part of our cognitive set to easily be discarded.
One danger the fellow in the op faces is that he may be blind to his own self-serving bias because he ‘knows’ that he’s too smart to be swayed by bias. (Knowing being a descriptor of opinion in this case.) I’m not accusing him of this, just suggesting it as a risk to his position.
Schmuck? Yeah, I’m a schmuck, you’re a schmuck, everybody’s a schmuck. That was the last thing Jesus said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Well, at least we agree on something.
Just the schmuck part, I don’t think we agree on interpretation. Actually, Christ’s last words on the cross were: “Man, what a fucked-up way to spend Easter.” But he said it under his breath, that’s why it’s not in scripture.
I agree that enlightenment is not a precise word, but I sure as hell know what it’s not, ergo, “Somebody’s gotta know the difference.”
The Age of Enlightenment
To understand the natural world and humankind’s place in it solely on the basis of reason and without turning to religious belief was the goal of the wide-ranging intellectual movement called the Enlightenment. The movement claimed the allegiance of a majority of thinkers during the 17th and 18th centuries, a period that Thomas Paine called the Age of Reason. At its heart it became a conflict between religion and the inquiring mind that wanted to know and understand through reason based on evidence and proof.
Science could prove God’s existence if there was evidence for God’s existence. But there is none, and that is why Science cannot prove it.
The same reason Science cannot disprove it. It cannot disprove a negative, or something that offers no evidence of being real.
All god concepts are incoherent and adolescent. How is any god defined, described? Only through incredulity do gods exist. Absence of evidence, and fill in the blanks. That is anecdotal not evidential.
Science could prove God’s existence if there was evidence for God’s existence. But there is none, and that is why Science cannot prove it.
The same reason Science cannot disprove it. It cannot disprove a negative, or something that offers no evidence of being real.
All god concepts are incoherent and adolescent. How is any god defined, described? Only through incredulity do gods exist. Absence of evidence, and fill in the blanks. That is anecdotal not evidential.
To paraphrase a line from Zen literature: “Budda is a temporary name for that which cannot be seen when you look; cannot be heard when you listen, and cannot be explained when you speak.”
Is this related to the illustration of an eyeball trying to see itself, or the Zen image of a mosquito trying to bite an iron ball? That is, the universe trying to explain itself with conclusions like, “A non-material eternal power made me - a power called God, or Nawatzacotl depending on where you’re from. Or the universe, manifesting itself as conscious inquiry decides, “Nothing made me. I just am!”
RSS Feed
