Sqeers,

Since you are probably the only philosopher among us here, I take your words as a compliment. And an invitation:

I tried to express my ideas about physical reality in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464, where I quoted Hawkins-Mlodinow:

“our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. … These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own.”

I am struggling my way through Scientific Representations by Bas C. van Fraassen (Clarendon Press, 2008), the founder of constructive empiricism, who I suspect expresses the same view in a philosphically more rigorous form. It is not an easy reading.

As you might know, I see also the numinous/spirtiual (“supernatural”) dimension of reality (as opposed to its physical, that Hawkins-Mlodinow and van Fraassen refer to) as being approachable by humans only through models/representations based on narrative mythologies, sacred texts of this or that religion (with various degrees of historicity), or systematic theology in the widest meaning of the word.

If there is no model/representation-independent test of the physical dimension of reality, the less is there a “model”-independent test of its spiritual dimension.

As to “a well-constructed model creating a (physical) reality of its own”, the corresponding analogue would be that a religion - e.g. Christianity - with its own concepts and doctrines associated with them, also creates a spiritual reality of its own.

The difference is, of course, that one can try to adequately describe what is a ”well-constructed” model or scientific theory (this is what philosophy of science is all about), the question of which religions is “well-constructed” cannot be decided by the tools available to philosophy of religion.

[Only personal faith can decide, but here philosophy must follow Wittgenstein’s advice “whereof one (phliosophy) cannot speak, thereof one (phliosophy) must be silent.”]

IN THE BEGINNING INFINITE POTENTIAL
BEGAT limited reality..LIMITED REALITY WAS BEGETTING THAT WITHIN ITS OWN LIMITATIONS..as that limited visitation.. WAS THE EXTENT..OF HIS VISUALIZATION..then he died..AND YET THE THOUGHT DIED..NOT WITH HIM

ANYHOW..geOrge QUOTE..<<.. Dawkins' book is after all..*aimed at them*..>>

in their Limited possability

<<>.this does not represent a problem.
<<>>On a different level, the NewScientist ended its recent series of ten articles entitled "What is Reality?" rather inconclusively:

"Do we make reality, or does it make us?>>

in the beginning reality was made for us
at the end..we made our oWN REALITY..

IN THe 1 st..BEGINNING..god made for 6 day
these 6 days belong to god[he alone would recognise theM AS 'DAYS']
as god dont measure by mere days..but life teachings..oR LIFE LESSONS

IN THE BEGINNING..GOD showed us
now its up TO US TO SHOW WE ARE WORTHY
before ANY MORE IS GIVEN..GOD WOULD BE Pleased..IF WE DO IT BETTER
but then again he is just as happy..IF WE COULD GIVE It HALF AS GOOD AS fog-dog/god..HAs a given,..to us..did you leave it better than yoU FOUND IT

HAVE YOU RETOLD..IT..or put it MORE CLEAR..THAT IT WAS GIFTED to you
DO YOU SEEK TO DO IT BETTER..OR EVEN HALF AS GOOD..OR EVEN JUST try to do..all the choices lie within you.

till the day your dead..then
..your dead..[so yourt told]..yet yoU KNOW YOUR NOT
but they are deaf..to any of your other converse..get that into your HEAD.

dead means dead..if thats what you were told IS TRUE
TILL THAt day..you say..but im only energy/changing state/MEETING its karmic fate.

IM Dead..inside..sounds strange..to ONE WHO KNOWS HE ONLY LIVES FROM THE INSIDE...OUT..BY THYNE IN-SISTENCE..I HAVE MINE EXISTENCE..Exi-stance..[yet there is resistance][DEPENDING ON THE Teachings that modify..HIM OF OMNIPRESENT persistence..WHO INSISTS HE EXISTS]

dont bury the living loving god..but by SURE PROOF

FORGET REPROOF..GOD IS Common as muck..sustaining
even the least..to live out tHEIR FULL WAGE..IN PERPETual karmic luck.

George,

Gone are the days I think when anyone can claim to be a philosopher in any comprehensive sense, the field being broadly first divisible into analytic and continental and then disintegrating into myriad fragments. I'm little versed in analytic philosophy and possess only a few fragments of the other. Though to the extent I'm interested in German Romanticism I can claim to some sense of the field before it disintegrated.
It seems to me the Romantics were onto something arguing reason could attain some incisive appreciation of phenomena. Without going into it, we arguably can model reality fairly shrewdly if we're devoted to the task and rigorously filter out distortions. I have little doubt Hegel managed this, and even the materialist Marx, though what I mean is that their dialectical method was successful in conceptualising a model of reality that was at least an approach to truth. Their respective conceptions were no doubt wide of the mark but far better than guesswork and to some extent empirically verifiable. If this is so then it suggests the human mind is a priori capable of transcending its limitations and conditioning and negotiating relativism. I have my doubts we will ever solve the universe's riddles purely via empirical method--indeed empiricism per se doesn't exist, it requires an agile consciousness to extrapolate empirical data.
I think philosophy can and should continue to approach these conundrums, but open-mindedly; it's only in recent times that a line's been drawn between religion and philosophy and each should be more indulgent of the other--since neither can claim a monopoly on "truth".
I'm personally much more preoccupied with this world (whatever its basis in transhuman reality), whose ills are empirically verifiable--though all to easy too relativise in favour of present comforts or even the next world.
I'm satisfied that my cosmic curiosity shall never be appeased, and so amounts to little more than idle speculation, though I do have empirical evidence for adopting my agnostic stance; for not being satisfied, in fact being downright sceptical about reductionism.

Hopefully you can enlighten us as to your conclusions in time.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote :

… “ these (the concept of a creator, supreme being, God, devil, angels, daemons, saints and cohorts) necessarily remain an outside chance for me … how am I to rule anything out? I thank God (metaphorically speaking) for the great mystery that remains at the centre of life for me”.

I shared that point of view for most of my life (except that I never “thanked God”, not having decided if there was one or not), until I retired and had both the time and peace of mind in order to be able to get to the bottom of the question.

I undertook what should probably best be described as an anthropological study of the philosophical, social and cultural aspects of religious faith. I needed to know how and why the God concept originated and developed. It was pretty much a full-time occupation for me, working late into the night, for about 18 months.

Having traced the genealogy of the concept from start to finish, the whole thing became crystal clear. I finally succeeded in attaining the enlightenment I had been seeking all my life. It was quite an exhilarating experience. I felt I had made an important discovery. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, It was man who conceived of God and not the other way round.

It also became crystal clear that there was a constant and overwhelming need for a God. No quantity of horrors committed in his name could possibly shake the faith of those who place their hope and trust in him for whatever reason. For many, the need for a buoy to stay afloat is probably a powerful incentive.

I thoroughly recommend that you undertake such an enterprise. As Horace recommended: « dimidium facti qui coepit habet: sapere aude, incipe » (He who has begun is half done: dare to know, dare to begin !) and your friend, Kant, to add: « Dare to use your own understanding ! is thus the motto of the Enlightenment ("man's release from his self-incurred tutelage") »

.

Squeers,

Thanks for the historical perspective. One can do mathematics without knowing much about how its concepts have evolved. That is not true about philosophy, some understanding of its history is essential for the understanding of concepts that contemporary philosophy wants to deal with. Therefore in my article I did not dismiss Hawking-Mlodinow’s “Philosophy is dead” as a nonsense (although it undoubtedly is) but approved of the context, namely that “philosophy … has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics”.

I agree that the dialectical method is an important “prism” through which to see reality. Reality that you (and Hegel etc) see as encompassing not only the physical but also the mental (studied by social sciences and humanities) worlds of Roger Penrose. For instance, there is no question that the concept (or concepts) of God involve the mental (individual as well as collective) world; the metaphysical bone of contention is whether it corresponds to something beyond the mental as well as the physical.

So thanks for reminding me of that. I seem to be too much restricted to considering only reality that can (or cannot) be investigated by natural sciences, ignoring the “mental”, i.e. human component.

I think there is a difference between classical empiricism and van Fraassen’s critical empiricism. Fraaseen is well versed in the epistomological enigmas of quantum physics, including the mathematics needed, which, of course, could not be true about John Locke’s philosophy of science. Therefore I don’t think Locke would have approved of Hawking-Mlodinow’s “there is no model-independent test of reality … (because) a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own.” Bas C. van Fraassen might.

I agree that what you are preoccupied with - applied philosophy - is more important then pure philosophy (metaphysics). The same is true in mathematics. Nevertheless, have there not been pure mathematicians speculating about “WHAT IF there is such an (imaginary) number whose square is -1” we would not have this computer and internet to communicate through.

BANJOVIE/QUOTE..<<..Without the slightest shadow of a doubt,..It was man who conceived of God..and not the other way round.>>

you made..a simple error..of perception
IT TOOK MAN..TO PERCEIVE THE CONCIEVER..PERCEIVIN HIM.

ONCE MAN Realized..that/it..he wASNT himself..DOING anything specifically..TO SUSTAIN THE REALITY ALL AROUND HIM

ITS Became bleeding obvious..THAT EVEN BLIND FREDDY COULD SEE
THAT..which..HE..tHERETO-FOre..only PERCEIVED..via others belief..then conceived the concept,..OF AN UNSEEN..CAUSE..of causes..GREATER THAN HIMSELF.

looked/upon..lightening/thunder..sun and RAIN..AS THINGS BEYOND HIS DOING..BEGAN STUDYING IT..AND THAT GREW INTO SCIENCE/THAT NOW SEEMS TO THINK IT CAN EXCLUDE HIM..FROM EVERYTHING..DESPITE/USING [abusing]..the same pEER-BASED..no go area/BIAS

I KNOW/BAH BLAH BLAH..

<<..It also became crystal clear..>>TO BANJO..as he examined oithers records of their PERCEPTIONS..LOL..IN BOOKS..[THE living good/GOD..IS NOT IN ANY BOOK/..HE DONT WRITE BOOKS..NOR CAN HE..*be found in dead words/picture/scroll nor TABLET.

the living good..CAN ONLY BE FOUND*..IN THE LIVING..ENERGIES..SUCH AS LIFE LIGHT INNER-MIND/LOGIC..[MIND-SIGHT]..LOVE..art/grace/mercy..service/peace..etc

god..of the living..NOT THE DEAD..god is life..not death/good..not bad
[EVEN A BEAST..IN A STABLE..knows its master/by hiS MASTERS QUALITIES

<<..that there was a constant..and overwhelming need>>
In the writings..written..of their experiences..<<..for a God.>>

SO far we could agree..to simply disagree
but you had to GO..that one step further

JUDGED..THUS may be judged
by the SAME..MIS-MEASURE..OF MISS-PRESUMPTION

<<..No quantity of horrors..committed..in his name could possibly shake the faith..of those..

banjehova quote continues..

[maybe]