|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Jan 14, 2010 3:58:53 GMT
So I tried my best to read up on Syntheism. It seems steeped in the claim of the semantical ambiguity of the question which (a)theism tries to answer. However, while I claim to be an atheist (which, as has been countless times pointed out, merely describes what I do not believe) I actually hold a stance of theological noncognitivism. This, in a nutshell, is the claim that the question is meaningless due to the lack of cognitive significance in religious language. It is a very similar reaction, but comes to an entirely different conclusion. Syntheism seems to claim that since it is ambiguous it is meaningful in its shades, while a theological noncognitivist claims that since considering the myriad meanings results in so many contradictions, the question is not meaningful phrased so.
The next obvious step is to clarify. This is where syntheism and theological noncognitivism diverge. Syntheists clarify and find the so-called 'middle ground'. I find that even upon clarification, no real clarification is made. Consider the following list of words which are devoid of real, cognitively significant, meaning:
God
Spirituality
Soul
Mind
Eternity
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Ubiquity
Infinity
Afterlife
Heaven
Hell
Miracle
Can you describe an entity which one may call God without using any of those words? Can you describe a religion which does not depend heavily on any of those words?
I appreciate defenses of Syntheism as well as criticisms of Noncongitivism. Also, isn't there a "word meanings" thread going on? I'd like Theological Noncognitivism to be added, it's a very interesting spin on the question, I think.
|
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Jan 14, 2010 16:32:11 GMT
So I tried my best to read up on Syntheism. No doubt short reading! I have found only one article on it on the net. And also questions theists try to answer. I have to disagree that religious language/concepts lack cognitive meaning. It is simply that the meanings are imprecise and ambiguous. But this is somewhat true of all language/concepts. I guess I am not seeing how inherent contradiction necessarily negates meaning. Sure...  How about certain forms of Buddhism or Taoism? |
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Jan 14, 2010 19:17:47 GMT
Buddhism and Taoism, superficially, are more philosophy than spirituality. However, once you get into the real heavy teachings, they delve into the areas of linguistic meaninglessness as well. Here are some more words that have no real meaning:
Good
Evil
Karma
As for Buddhism and Taoism, Buddhism is a much broader category of philosophies, so here's a small clip from the wikipedia article on Taoism:
Not only have I found one word that was on my original list and one word that was not, the three explanations given by the teacher of the religion were all phrases which, in that context, were rendered meaningless. Sure, "balanced" and "ordered" have cognitive significance, but how can you fathom balance and order in the universe? What religion thrives on is using the connotations of words and applying them to others, a sort of glory by association. It results in feel-good, poetic language, but doesn't actually say anything. As such, I will use the following example to help drive my point home:
"Does ambiguity fly happily through the atmosphere?" is what I see when I see the question "is there a God?" It has so many internal cognitive contradictions that it renders it meaningless. Sure, you can attempt to clarify (what does "ambiguity" actually mean in this context, et cetera), but unless you can come up with a concrete meaning, it is impossible to evaluate the validity of the statement. And what happens if, when attempting to clarify, nothing sensical arises? If the only things that could possibly be substituted for the word "God" are equally meaningless, then no ground can be made. So I reject the statement altogether, but in a negative way that most easily translates to a no, hence my outwardly atheist sentiment.
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 15, 2010 12:11:25 GMT
Kyrisch,
I am not sure what defines a syntheist, but so far, I am considering myself one, and associating myself with Naz. Perhaps for wrong reasons, but that is to be seen.
In what I have read of your (kyrisch's) thinking you bring up "circular argument" and "tautalogy" and "contradiction" and "ambiguity" a lot. You seem to like to point out the negative, as if there is no basis one can in truth, grasp a hold of. While this is certainly a take-able stand, I think it is one the syntheist would accept, only as a portion of truth.
Cause along with the fact that there are faults in any explanation of reality, and our perception of it, comes the fact that there is still a reality for us to explain and percieve.
The important point to me, and perhaps to Naz, and possibly to a syntheist, if my thinking myself as one helps define a syntheist, is that there is something called reality, that we are inaccurately describing, that we are in and of. This reality thing exists, with or without us, and with or without our inaccurate descriptions or perceptions of it.
The atheist rejects the descriptions of the theist, but does not reject the thing the theist is attempting to describe.
The theist rejects the negativity of the atheist, feeling that the atheist is rejecting the thing.
The syntheist (I would imagine) gives both sides the benefit of the doubt, and figures that objective reality, and God, are two ways to refer to the exact same thing.
Regards, TAR
|
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Jan 15, 2010 16:18:05 GMT
Kyrisch, I am not sure what defines a syntheist, but so far, I am considering myself one, and associating myself with Naz. Perhaps for wrong reasons, but that is to be seen. In what I have read of your (kyrisch's) thinking you bring up "circular argument" and "tautalogy" and "contradiction" and "ambiguity" a lot. You seem to like to point out the negative, as if there is no basis one can in truth, grasp a hold of. While this is certainly a take-able stand, I think it is one the syntheist would accept, only as a portion of truth. Cause along with the fact that there are faults in any explanation of reality, and our perception of it, comes the fact that there is still a reality for us to explain and percieve. The important point to me, and perhaps to Naz, and possibly to a syntheist, if my thinking myself as one helps define a syntheist, is that there is something called reality, that we are inaccurately describing, that we are in and of. This reality thing exists, with or without us, and with or without our inaccurate descriptions or perceptions of it. The atheist rejects the descriptions of the theist, but does not reject the thing the theist is attempting to describe. The theist rejects the negativity of the atheist, feeling that the atheist is rejecting the thing. The syntheist (I would imagine) gives both sides the benefit of the doubt, and figures that objective reality, and God, are two ways to refer to the exact same thing.Regards, TAR I definitely would agree with what I highlighted in blue. Syntheism as the name suggests attempts to find a synthesis between atheistic and theistic thought. Syntheists accept that there may be some truth in both positions. As for what I highlighted in maroon I would say maybe. Pantheism, which is what I think you are describing, might be one possible syntheist position but not necessarily the only one. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Jan 15, 2010 16:26:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Jan 16, 2010 2:31:00 GMT
In what I have read of your (kyrisch's) thinking you bring up "circular argument" and "tautalogy" and "contradiction" and "ambiguity" a lot. You seem to like to point out the negative, as if there is no basis one can in truth, grasp a hold of. While this is certainly a take-able stand, I think it is one the syntheist would accept, only as a portion of truth. Thank you for pointing that out. I think it says something more about the nature of a lot of the philosophical debates on this forum than it says about my train of thought. Intelligence can be roughly estimated by something that is really good at detecting and producing patterns in information. In this way, intelligence is really good at finding and lending meaning to things. However, our brains are overactive in this discourse of reason. We extrapolate meaning from things within which no meaning can objectively be found. And one of my primary approaches to thinking is to strip away all such bias, and focus on the actual message behind the words, symbols, and ciphers. This is the most effective way, I have found, to avoid fallacy and to speak clearly. It is the most efficient way to think, and it is why science always rigorously defines words so as to remove ambiguity. Philosophy tends to be a lot sloppier and as a result such circular reasoning, tautologies, contradictions, and ambiguities remain unchallenged. So forgive me if that seems to be my only recourse in debate. What I am not understanding is why you say these words have no meaning. I will agree the meaning may be imprecise and ambiguous but as I pointed out this is somewhat true of all terms. If I describe the color of an object as green that may be true and meaningful yet at the same time imprecise and ambiguous. One shade of green differs from another and sometimes a person will describe something green as blue. But green can be defined as a narrow interval of wavelengths of light and the ambiguity can be resolved. And it is precisely because they cannot be treated the way in which I just treated the word 'green' that they lack meaning. They merely have connotations associated with them, but no concrete definition. No. The only way the question can be explored is if an exact definition of the word "God" is given. If I asked you whether or not Jabberwocks exist, in order to know for sure, you would have to know exactly what I mean when I say that word. The example I gave was admittedly ridiculous. A closer comparison would be the above: Does the Jabberwock exist? It is unanswerable until I clarify what I mean exactly by that word, not just roughly. A rough definition would give an uncertain response, at the very best. My argument extends even further, however, because I maintain that no real clarification can be made to replace the word "God". In fact, I'm going to update the list of meaningless words and phrases, and I challenge you to give me a concrete definition for any one of them: god spirituality soul mind eternity omnipotence omniscience ubiquity infinity afterlife heaven hell miracle supernatural paranormal ghost spirit energy (non-science) indescribable flow of the universe force behind the natural order balanced and ordered (universe) good evil karma |
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 16, 2010 2:48:18 GMT
Naz,
Yeah, I wonder why atheists can use the term God, as if they know what they are referring to.
To coin Kyrisch's approach, its sort of circular logic. How can one say God does not exist? They would have to know the entity of which they speak, in which case it would have to be a knowable entity...or are we atheists, or syntheists or pantheists, or whatever I am, saying that we think the God that we think somebody else thinks exists, doesn't exist?
Which brings up an angle I was musing on in my pursuit of drawing parallels or analogies to what realists think and theists think. Again, under the hypothesis that the neurological pathways and structures of both animals (realists and theists) are more similar than dissimilar, and the same circuitry is being engaged, just in different manners in both cases. The angle has to do with "why do we think we are right, and the other is wrong, and how does the other being wrong make us feel more right." I have not gotten too far in the muse, and wouldn't mind assistance, but here is the layout.
In reading the Koran, I noticed that great effort is made on Mohammed's part, toward distinquishing between "believers" and "unbelievers". Believers being the "us" in this muse, and "unbelievers" being the "them". Believers listen to Mohammed's wisdom and unbelievers defy the truth. And of course if you disbelieve in Mohammed, the messenger's message, you are certainly in error and Allah will judge and punish you as he sees fit, which, and I can tell you will certainly be boiling water for eternity, as opposed to the milk and honey he will grant you if you DO believe in the truth.
Now how is this so completely different than the humanist point of view, where the right thing to do is to look out for each other and the planet, and if you don't you are an evil bastard?
Or the evolutionists who consider science a route to objective truth and think those that believe in scientifically impossible stuff, ignorant enemies of human progress?
There is a we and them thing going on in each case. The truth of ones own stand, amplified by the degrading of the stance of the unbeliever. Strength in numbers? Belonging to the pack? Recognizing kinship and protecting the pack against the other pack that would deminish your packs resources?
No doubt if we are wired for religion, we will excercise it in some fashion. Even those among us who figure we are above it.
After all, even the thread title has a vs. in it. A we against them. A contest for survival.
Interesting... to me anyway.
Hey, since I am running amuck, let me run a little further. John Lennon's song "Imagine" sets out a world with no religion, no possesions, a brotherhood of man..."Maybe some day you will join US, and the world will live as one."
Or perhaps "til all the world is for Allah".
Seems a strong analogy to me.
Regards, TAR
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 16, 2010 3:01:13 GMT
P.S. Every time I hear "imagine" lately I wonder what we would all do the next day, after sitting around naked in the fields holding each other's hands. Seems we would be hungry and cold, and wish somebody had brought their camper.
Edit:Wish to God, somebody had brought their camper.
|
|
|
|
Post by drpepper on Jan 17, 2010 15:21:14 GMT
Naz, No doubt if we are wired for religion, we will excercise it in some fashion. Even those among us who figure we are above it. TAR Like most mental modules some are "wired" harder than others. My "wiring" is such that I have a difficult time understanding those who are into religion to such a degree that they have a hissy fit when you disagree with their thinking. |
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 17, 2010 18:49:51 GMT
drpepper,
Well me too. But there is another aspect to it. One's own thinking, ones own allegiances to people, places, thoughts, beliefs, established morals and values, is in most cases considered the important, right, correct, true way to believe and be. For simplicity, I think of it as the pack. When some individual from another pack comes sniffing around, you launch a hissy fit to run him off.
Does that explain it? Or do you think there is an objectively true way to think, that trumps all packs?
Regards, TAR
|
|
|
|
Post by drpepper on Jan 18, 2010 16:37:50 GMT
drpepper, Well me too. But there is another aspect to it. One's own thinking, ones own allegiances to people, places, thoughts, beliefs, established morals and values, is in most cases considered the important, right, correct, true way to believe and be. For simplicity, I think of it as the pack. When some individual from another pack comes sniffing around, you launch a hissy fit to run him off. Does that explain it? Or do you think there is an objectively true way to think, that trumps all packs? Regards, TAR Minds and how they think varies from person to person. There seems to be a prewired module, however, that motivates or induces them to believe in gods and the supernatural. There are of course other modules that are involved in how they react to other people and situations. It is a complex situation. It is those on the fringe that it is hard to understand how they can be that far out. There are a couple or folks at CARM which I do not care to name but you know who they are. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Jan 18, 2010 23:23:04 GMT
drpepper, Well me too. But there is another aspect to it. One's own thinking, ones own allegiances to people, places, thoughts, beliefs, established morals and values, is in most cases considered the important, right, correct, true way to believe and be. For simplicity, I think of it as the pack. When some individual from another pack comes sniffing around, you launch a hissy fit to run him off. Does that explain it? Or do you think there is an objectively true way to think, that trumps all packs? Regards, TAR Minds and how they think varies from person to person. There seems to be a prewired module, however, that motivates or induces them to believe in gods and the supernatural. But there are theists who used to be atheists and atheists who used to be theists. If such a module exists it must be very flexible. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Jan 19, 2010 1:13:00 GMT
I would just like to point out that no one has addressed my challenge to provide a definition for any of the words on the list, and that I am sincerely invested, intellectually, in this debate and would appreciate feedback.
Thank you.
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 19, 2010 3:07:34 GMT
god spirituality soul mind eternity omnipotence omniscience ubiquity infinity afterlife heaven hell miracle supernatural paranormal ghost spirit energy (non-science) indescribable flow of the universe force behind the natural order balanced and ordered (universe) good evil karma God=Objective reality personified. Spirituality=Attention paid to the spirit behind the fact. Soul=The essence of an entity. In the case of a human, the impression that is left on reality, after he/she dies. Mind=The recognition of, and the manipulation of patterns. Eternity=No effect without a cause, and no end to the effects. Omnipotence=Power and control over all that is. Omniscience=Knowing all there is to know. Ubiquity=Being a component of every place. Infinity=No end. (As in the number of times I can use the expression "brain/heart/body combo") Afterlife=The state our consciousness will be in, after we die. Heaven=Nothing but pleasure. Hell=Nothing but pain. Miracle=Something good that happens with no way for it to happen. Supernatural=Something that exists that we know does not. Paranormal=Something that happens with no mechanism for it to happen. Ghost=The memory of a person so strong, as to appear real. Spirit=The essence of a thing. Energy (non-science)=The motive force behind a pattern. Indescribable=That which is beyond our capability to model. Flow of the universe=The moving and changing patterns evident for as far as we can see. Force behind the natural order=The organizing principle that makes a hurricane and a spiral galaxy look like the same pattern. Balanced and ordered (universe)=Every entity is made up of component entities, and every entity is a component of a larger entity, and most patterns repeat in a symetrical Mandebrot drawing way. Good=Those things that cause a pleasurable chemical reward in a human brain. Evil=Those things that extinquish the pleasuable chemical reward in a human brain. Karma=The amount of pleasurable chemical rewards you cause in the world, and the amount you extinquish. Regards, TAR |
|
