How can people find atheism intellectually satisfying? [Spirituality & Religion]
Its a shallow 16 year old philosophy.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
[b]I´m not an atheist.[/b] My believe is based in faith and only.
To try to find intelectual reasons for it [b]is, rather, a poor conception of the intellectual, a poor conception of God, and probably both.[/b]
Not a point of view satisfying or even interesting for a three years kid.
[b]The pretension of a "scientific" and / or "logic" basis for faith is not even shallow, it´s empt[/b]y.
BTW, if you call "Logic" to else than Math symbolic logic, you are missing the very concept of it.
To try to find intelectual reasons for it [b]is, rather, a poor conception of the intellectual, a poor conception of God, and probably both.[/b]
Not a point of view satisfying or even interesting for a three years kid.
[b]The pretension of a "scientific" and / or "logic" basis for faith is not even shallow, it´s empt[/b]y.
BTW, if you call "Logic" to else than Math symbolic logic, you are missing the very concept of it.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Gouzi Kant´s pretended unkowability of "things in itselves", besides hostility to Science, is nothing but shallow speculative fiction.
He had, really, to SAY a lot. Words and no more.
But, for the sake of justice, the later neokantians resulted even more philosophically childish than he ever was.
Descartes was a good mathematician but a poor philosopher. Just a late Scholasticist, with a dissapointing dualism.
Even being a mathematician, his Meditations show a lack of understanding of the absence of ontological commitment of logic. Besides of being populated by logical hidden fallacies.
Whoever reverse, only in their minds, the "direction" of causality and place it in Plato-like a priori "qualities" ("Life", "Redness") will find hard to find ONE example in Nature for it.
For something deeper, begin with Francis Bacon.
Speculative dualism is Disney.
He had, really, to SAY a lot. Words and no more.
But, for the sake of justice, the later neokantians resulted even more philosophically childish than he ever was.
Descartes was a good mathematician but a poor philosopher. Just a late Scholasticist, with a dissapointing dualism.
Even being a mathematician, his Meditations show a lack of understanding of the absence of ontological commitment of logic. Besides of being populated by logical hidden fallacies.
Whoever reverse, only in their minds, the "direction" of causality and place it in Plato-like a priori "qualities" ("Life", "Redness") will find hard to find ONE example in Nature for it.
For something deeper, begin with Francis Bacon.
Speculative dualism is Disney.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
I don't think you can describe descartes as a poor philosopher. He changed the course of western philosophy. His philosophical theory may be commonly rejceted (whose theory isn't), but it really impacted later thinkers. For example, Jean Paul Sartre starts his theory from a Cartesian starting point.
As for Kant. I think his idea of the thing in itself is very comepelling. Unfortunately, i haven't studied his work via a phd in philosophy. I came across his ideas through Roger Scrutons treatment of Kant. I found it compelling.
Give it ago.
As for Kant. I think his idea of the thing in itself is very comepelling. Unfortunately, i haven't studied his work via a phd in philosophy. I came across his ideas through Roger Scrutons treatment of Kant. I found it compelling.
Give it ago.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Gouzi My friend,
I´ve teached Philosophy of Science.
I already knew Scrutons.
The original concept of "things in itselves" is not Kantian. But from Francis Bacon.
While Bacon thought it right, Kant only used it to say that is "unknowable". Cos he conceive the "itself" as an absolute, thus, unknowable. The old fallacy of attributing to something a quality that do not exist and then finding that as a failure of reality rather to a deceiving thinking.
About what "poor" means, I stand for meassuring it by the fit of a theory to the intrinsics of it´s object.
And not by it´s impact in culture.
Plato was a genius, but his "a priori" phantom entities as "causes" caused a long time harm to thought.
Aristotle was a genius. He was the first to intent to formalize Logic.
But his legacy in Scholastics and "rationalists" poisoned culture and were a strong obstacle to the born of Science.
The "continental" inheritors of Sartre forged one of the worst shallow worldviews, since the Greek Sophists, Postmodernism.
No more than babbling but a sophisticated one.
Sokal be praised.
Descartes? Read, please, Antonio Damasio.
I´ve teached Philosophy of Science.
I already knew Scrutons.
The original concept of "things in itselves" is not Kantian. But from Francis Bacon.
While Bacon thought it right, Kant only used it to say that is "unknowable". Cos he conceive the "itself" as an absolute, thus, unknowable. The old fallacy of attributing to something a quality that do not exist and then finding that as a failure of reality rather to a deceiving thinking.
About what "poor" means, I stand for meassuring it by the fit of a theory to the intrinsics of it´s object.
And not by it´s impact in culture.
Plato was a genius, but his "a priori" phantom entities as "causes" caused a long time harm to thought.
Aristotle was a genius. He was the first to intent to formalize Logic.
But his legacy in Scholastics and "rationalists" poisoned culture and were a strong obstacle to the born of Science.
The "continental" inheritors of Sartre forged one of the worst shallow worldviews, since the Greek Sophists, Postmodernism.
No more than babbling but a sophisticated one.
Sokal be praised.
Descartes? Read, please, Antonio Damasio.