The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The gleeful nihilists > Comments

The gleeful nihilists : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 15/6/2016

It is notable that natural science could not and did not arise from pantheistic cultures.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All
Interesting and thoughtful article, or it would be if it just didn't rely almost exclusively on legend and fable merely manifesting as scholarly tomes.

And as such is chock full of known unknowns, unknown knowns; few if any known knowns and unknowable postulations presented as if they were factual?

And I don't intend to allow myself to be the subject of some inquisition for having stated a position, which will stand or fall on its own merit, without debate or defence, take it or leave it.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 15 June 2016 9:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

Indee, an interesting article. Nevertheless:

There is no rational argument for a given set of (e.g. Christian) religious beliefs (or other world view presuppositions, e.g. atheist or materialist) that would be convincing for everybody.

What makes people opt for Christianity is FAITH, which is more than just religious beliefs understood as world view presuppositions, as I tried to explain in a short article http://www.gvirsik.de/Faith%20versus%20belief.pdf intended for publication on this onlineopinion (but rejected by Graham as inappropriate). Here I used the term fiducia, used e.g. by John Hick, to describe that extra that complements a set of beliefs into a full-grown faith. I think also conversely, it is fiducia that is lacking in people who say they lack (or openly reject) religious beliefs since without fiducia these are barely comprehensible.

So one should not say people who put their “total trust in reason” (because, usually not by their fault, they lack a sense of fiducia or lost it) necessarily end up in nihilism: they create their privatised fiducia. The same as one should not say those who believe in a religious set of world view presuppositions (in a way appropriate to their overall education and culture) are superstitious just because those who lack a sense of fiducia cannot understand the believer!s reasons for accepting that given set of beliefs.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 10:13:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We may think we have free will, hope, dreams, obsessions but it is only the flux of neural impulses, a billion synapses flickering away in our brain."

Ah, dualists!

The only way that we can conclude that if what 'I' do is down to my synapses, then 'I' don't have free will, is a hidden assumption: that my 'I' is not these flickering synapses. But this is exactly what you are trying to demonstrate, that there is more than the material. And so we see here that this is merely question-begging.

My self, my 'I', *is* these flickering synapses. Yes, I am made of matter; yes, what I *do* arises out of what is *am*. But what I am is human, and human is a fine thing to be. The accusation of nihilism is simply more question-begging.
Posted by PaulMurrayCbr, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 12:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More proof that Sells has not the slightest felt-comprehension as to what he he is talking about. And completely one-dimensional too.
These references address the issues that he refers to.
What we are as human beings in Truth & Reality
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm

Radical somatic ontology
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/touch.htm

Archaic old time religion and scientism
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism

Essays on the doubt-mind that informs/patterns every minute fraction of modern "culture"
http://www.dabase.org/doubt.htm
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 5:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Read the Hebrew bible and you will find that the quest for land is a key aspect of the history of Israel."

What has this to do with religion?

The logic?
A. The nation of Israel is questing for land.
B. The nation of Israel has a religion.
Therefore,
C. Israel's religion is questing for land.
And even,
D. Christianity, a universal derivative of Israel's religion is also questing for land, thus materialistic.

"Read the New Testament and you will find that the body is central to its concerns."

And which religion does not require the body? Can you tell a religion which can be practised without a body?
"The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the Lord." [Psalms 115:17-18]

It is very important that the body is healthy, flexible and without pains, so it does not stand in the way, distracting the mind and obstructing religious practices - hence the Yoga Asanas (body postures) are included in Hinduism and considered a religious practice. Without a flexible body, even Muslims are unable to pray.

"In Christian theology the creator is separated from the creation."

Doesn't this render the creator limited? ... and us, orphans?

Even if contemporary Christian theologians are materialists, Jesus was not!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 10:29:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« There are two kinds of materialism, the methodological and the ontological. Methodological materialism is the rightful domain of the physical sciences … »

Perhaps - but it seems to me that there is no “ŕ priori” reason to limit scientific enquiry to the sole domain of “methodological materialism”.

The field of interest of “science” is more generally “reality” – irrespective of the form or nature of such “reality”, defined simply as “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it”.

Perhaps “scientific realism” may be a more appropriate term to describe scientific knowledge, i.e., “our best scientific theories give true or approximately true descriptions of observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent world, at a particular point of time”.
.

Also, I agree with George when he writes:

« What makes people opt for Christianity is FAITH, which is more than just religious beliefs understood as world view presuppositions … »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 16 June 2016 8:54:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy