Intellectually Impoverished

Originally posted by LemonJello
Goo. I don't even know why I bothered.

Oh: so you do understand that deliberation is an act.

No, genius. I understand that it can be an act, but it is also my understanding that it is not (contrary to what you claimed) an act by its very nature. Geez, why is this so hard for you to understand? If I tell you that I am here taking an ac ...[text shortened]... we done discussing those ideas? If so, I'll take leave of this otherwise painful discussion.[/b]

No, genius.
No fair.
You’ve been talking to my mom, haven’t you?

I understand that it can be an act, but it is also my understanding that it is not (contrary to what you claimed) an act by its very nature.
[wait for it… ]

Geez, why is this so hard for you to understand?
Golly: because you make it incomprehensible, maybe?

If I tell you that I am here taking an act to be something an agent does intentionally; then you should really know better than to think that my holding that X is a verb also means that I think X-ing is inherently an act.
You can tell me all kinds of things, but that doesn’t make any one of them true. You later tried to inset intention as the trigger, but--- as I’ve pointed out repeatedly--- intention neither diminishes nor adds to the constitution of an act.

For instance, breathe is a verb. But it's certainly not the case that in every instance in which you breathe you intended to breathe.
I had to read it three times before I understood it, but I think I’m with you so far…
Here’s the point. Your original contention is that deliberative belief formation is not predominately an act. If you wanted to clean that up a bit by saying it is not a predominately intentional process (which you were forced to do), you could have left well enough alone. I would have still argued with you, for reasons previously iterated herein. However, this wasn’t enough for you to keep the argument thusly contained. You went on to assert (without substantiation or even so much as a shadow puppet) that people come to their beliefs without conscious determination; that people are “kind of” just sitting around thoughtlessly meandering and eventually stumbling upon their beliefs.

Seen spelled out like this, is it any wonder you would be challenged--- even by one as unevenly matched in intellect as me?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]No, genius.
No fair.
You’ve been talking to my mom, haven’t you?

I understand that it can be an act, but it is also my understanding that it is not (contrary to what you claimed) an act by its very nature.
[wait for it… ]

Geez, why is this so hard for you to understand?
Golly: because you make it incomprehensible, maybe? is it any wonder you would be challenged--- even by one as unevenly matched in intellect as me?[/b]

So glad to hear that we agree, sort of.

You went on to assert (without substantiation or even so much as a shadow puppet) that people come to their beliefs without conscious determination; that people are “kind of” just sitting around thoughtlessly meandering and eventually stumbling upon their beliefs.

Bull. Here's a challenge for you: point out precisely where I asserted such a thing. Really, Freaky: learn to read.

----
So, we're done with your ideas that prompted this thread, right? You've argued yourself out on that front?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]"Intellectually impoverished."
The phrase has been bandied about by both pseudo- and actual real-live intellectuals who consistently haunt these threads, as a supposed complaint against Christianity and/or the complete canon of Scripture.

In their view (although never with any type of substantiation), Christianity is inferior to their singular a ...[text shortened]... teps possible. It makes one wonder exactly who the intellectually impoverished ones are.[/b]

In my opinion the Christian religion is just another product of the Human mind, like any other religion. I see nothing holy in the evolutionary process of the religions and I can monitor how exactly this concept made its way from animism to shamanism to polytheism to monotheism and eventually to atheism.
There is nothing that the Human achieved by means of the concept of the religion and by means of the pseudoscience known as Theology. Everything we achieve is simply a product of our philosophy and our science, and not a product of the miscellaneous religious beliefs.

I need religion not and I am satisfied with science and philosophy alone -however I understand your love and your dedication to your religion, and this is fine with me although the opinion you expressed at this post of yours is not acceptable even at a sophomoric level😵

Originally posted by LemonJello
So glad to hear that we agree, sort of.

You went on to assert (without substantiation or even so much as a shadow puppet) that people come to their beliefs without conscious determination; that people are “kind of” just sitting around thoughtlessly meandering and eventually stumbling upon their beliefs.

Bull. Here's a challenge for you: point o ...[text shortened]... with your ideas that prompted this thread, right? You've argued yourself out on that front?[/b]

Here's a challenge for you: point out precisely where I asserted such a thing. Really, Freaky: learn to read.
Here's what's on my nightstand:

“… just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)?”
and:
“… rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence.”
and then there's:
“…the individual is then probably just thrust into deliberation on what to do… "

How's my reading progressing?

So, we're done with your ideas that prompted this thread, right? You've argued yourself out on that front?
Yes, back to center, of course.
The original thought was about how some folks here (who consider themselves thinkers) have the audacity to denigrate Christianity with such dissmissive phrases as "intellectually impoverished," without so much as a thank-you for their own supposed elevated states.

That point remains.

Originally posted by black beetle
In my opinion the Christian religion is just another product of the Human mind, like any other religion. I see nothing holy in the evolutionary process of the religions and I can monitor how exactly this concept made its way from animism to shamanism to polytheism to monotheism and eventually to atheism.
There is nothing that the Human achieved by mean ...[text shortened]... h the opinion you expressed at this post of yours is not acceptable even at a sophomoric level😵

In my opinion the Christian religion is just another product of the Human mind, like any other religion.
Duly noted. Thank you.

I see nothing holy in the evolutionary process of the religions...
At least we see eye to eye so far.

... and I can monitor how exactly this concept made its way from animism to shamanism to polytheism to monotheism and eventually to atheism.
I'm sorry. To what concept are you referring?

There is nothing that the Human achieved by means of the concept of the religion and by means of the pseudoscience known as Theology.
Whoa. That is an overly broad brush all gobbed up with invisible paint you're wielding there! I can think of scores of advances made by "the Human" in the name of all manner of religions. Under what rock have you been hiding, and why didn't they teach you history there?

I need religion not...
Again, I find myself in a strange alliance with you on yet another point.

... and I am satisfied with science and philosophy alone...
Well, you had me at 'hello,' but lost me with your next word. Me? I'd rather have knowledge than the superficial vapor that is man's efforts in these areas.

... and this is fine with me although the opinion you expressed at this post of yours is not acceptable even at a sophomoric level.
I guess that makes you a true redshirt freshman?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In my opinion the Christian religion is just another product of the Human mind, like any other religion.
Duly noted. Thank you.

I see nothing holy in the evolutionary process of the religions...
At least we see eye to eye so far.

... and I can monitor how exactly this concept made its way from animism to shamanism to polytheism to ...[text shortened]... table even at a sophomoric level.
I guess that makes you a true redshirt freshman?[/b]

There have been very few advances made in the name of religion. Almost every advance has been made in spite of religion. Who knows how many advances we would have made by now if it weren't for the obstructionist hand of religion getting in the way?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In my opinion the Christian religion is just another product of the Human mind, like any other religion.
Duly noted. Thank you.

I see nothing holy in the evolutionary process of the religions...
At least we see eye to eye so far.

... and I can monitor how exactly this concept made its way from animism to shamanism to polytheism to ...[text shortened]... table even at a sophomoric level.
I guess that makes you a true redshirt freshman?[/b]

edit: “I'm sorry. To what concept are you referring?”
I was referring to the concept of religion, which is used because there are always people eager to replace philosophy with theology; I think it 's enough to admit that we do not know whatever we do not know, however once upon a time the religious fellas considered that the rainbows were divine signs simply because they were ignorant. Well, are the rainbows really messages sent by the so called "god"?


edit: “Whoa. That is an overly broad brush all gobbed up with invisible paint you're wielding there! I can think of scores of advances made by "the Human" in the name of all manner of religions.”
Every achievement of ours is solely a product of the science and of philosophy alone, thus a product of the human mind that became possible by means of man’s efforts in these areas alone. Whether these achievements are made “in the name of all manner of religions” or not, is irrelevant.


edit: “I'd rather have knowledge than the superficial vapor that is man's efforts in these areas.”
Understanding the core beliefs of a religion, the Christian one included, is not enough to earn us knowledge because theology lacks of reasoning. This is the reason why the Human uses science and philosophy instead of theology in order to progress. The superficial vapor is caused by the believers of the so called “absolute truth” and not from the results and the further analyses of the given scientific facts and evidence, which they remain under constant evaluation
😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Here's a challenge for you: point out precisely where I asserted such a thing. Really, Freaky: learn to read.
Here's what's on my nightstand:

“… just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)?”
and:
“… rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evid so much as a thank-you for their own supposed elevated states.

That point remains.[/b]

“… just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)?”
and:
“… rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence.”
and then there's:
“…the individual is then probably just thrust into deliberation on what to do… "

How's my reading progressing?

As usual, it sucks. Here's the claim you tried to saddle me with: "that people come to their beliefs without conscious determination; that people are “kind of” just sitting around thoughtlessly meandering and eventually stumbling upon their beliefs."

Now, nothing you have quoted of me above implicates this claim in the slightest. The first and third quote of mine above have to do with unintentional deliberation (which, by the way, you alread agreed with me exists). That everyday cases of unintentional deliberation exist (which was exactly my point with these two quotes) certainly does not entail anything like this claim you tried to saddle me with. This is really pretty obvious, so I don't understand how you could be so confused there. The only reason I brought up examples of everyday cases of unintentional deliberation is because you were initially stubbornly insisting that all your deliberations are intentional.

The second quote of mine, again, has to do with a certain type of belief formation -- belief formation that attends conscious deliberation, or the consideration of reasons. That this doesn't entail the claim above that you tried to saddle me with is something I have already addressed. Like I implored before, start paying attention! Here's what I wrote on the previous page of this thread:

"What I said is that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. That doesn't mean that purposeful examination does not play a role in belief. You can choose to examine (deliberate on) some question -- say, whether or not the earth is flat. But, it is not within your active control to just decide to believe (in any direct or non-ersatz way) that the earth is flat. You can choose to deliberate on some question, but beliefs that grow out of such deliberation will adhere to what you take to be the evidence that bears on the question, in a way that just garners the assent of your intellect."

You see, Freaky, I would never endorse the idea that people come to their beliefs "without conscious determination" and through "thoughtlessly meandering". On the contrary, I believe people are often very thirsty for knowledge and actively engage all matters of inquiry. How many times do I need to impress this upon you? People actively choose to engage topics and learning all the time, and they very often do this with truckloads of conscious determination and without any thoughtlessness or meandering; and out of this comes many beliefs. That's a different matter from what I claimed. For the last time, my claim was something regarding limitation on doxastic control as it regards our theoretical deliberations. That one engages belief-building deliberation with "conscious determination" and without "thoughtless meandering" is still fully consistent with the idea that, at the end of the day, beliefs that attend such deliberation are handcuffed to one's interpretation of the evidence.

Seriously, learn to read.

The original thought was about how some folks here (who consider themselves thinkers) have the audacity to denigrate Christianity with such dissmissive phrases as "intellectually impoverished," without so much as a thank-you for their own supposed elevated states.

That point remains.

I still don't even understand the point. You said before that without Christianity's "ruling ideology", there would be no intellectual freedom. I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? And how would you go about supporting such a claim?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]“… just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)?”
and:
“… rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence.”
and then there's:
“…the individual is then probably just thrust into deliberation on what to do… "

How's my reading progressing?

As ...[text shortened]... posed to mean? And how would you go about supporting such a claim?[/b]

edit: "I still don't even understand the point. You said before that without Christianity's "ruling ideology", there would be no intellectual freedom. I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? And how would you go about supporting such a claim?"

Now c'mon LJ, under what rock have you been hiding, and why didn't they teach you history there?
😀😀😀

Originally posted by rwingett
There have been very few advances made in the name of religion. Almost every advance has been made in spite of religion. Who knows how many advances we would have made by now if it weren't for the obstructionist hand of religion getting in the way?

There have been very few advances made in the name of religion.
Here's a small one: Christopher Columbus hits up the Spanish royalty to find a new route to India, with the hope of prostelyzing any new worlds with the message of the state religion.

Or, how about antiseptic surgery?
The discovery of Neptune?
Does the name Copernicus sound familiar?
Was the reform of the Gregorian calender a big deal?
Cyast's first discovery of a meteor through a telescope?
Flamsteed's establishment of Greenwich?
Galilei?
Grimaldi's discovery of light diffraction?
Keppler?
Lemaitre?

I'm sure we could go on, but each of these noted were profoundly influenced by their faith, with stated desires to glorify their Creator through their efforts of understanding His creation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]There have been very few advances made in the name of religion.
Here's a small one: Christopher Columbus hits up the Spanish royalty to find a new route to India, with the hope of prostelyzing any new worlds with the message of the state religion.

Or, how about antiseptic surgery?
The discovery of Neptune?
Does the name Copernicus sound famil ...[text shortened]... tated desires to glorify their Creator through their efforts of understanding His creation.[/b]

I say their faith was incidental to their rate of discovery. That if they a different faith or no faith, they would have discovered at least as much.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]There have been very few advances made in the name of religion.
Here's a small one: Christopher Columbus hits up the Spanish royalty to find a new route to India, with the hope of prostelyzing any new worlds with the message of the state religion.

Or, how about antiseptic surgery?
The discovery of Neptune?
Does the name Copernicus sound famil ...[text shortened]... tated desires to glorify their Creator through their efforts of understanding His creation.[/b]

You forgot good ol' Charles Darwin who discovered the pearl of His creation!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You forgot good ol' Charles Darwin who discovered the pearl of His creation!

I certainly had overlooked Chuck!

Originally posted by rwingett
I say their faith was incidental to their rate of discovery. That if they a different faith or no faith, they would have discovered at least as much.

You can say whatever you want and pretend you scored a hit; that's child's play. However, you cannot substantiate any type of dismissal related to their faith informing/inspiring/influencing their efforts. They said as much themselves!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]There have been very few advances made in the name of religion.
Here's a small one: Christopher Columbus hits up the Spanish royalty to find a new route to India, with the hope of prostelyzing any new worlds with the message of the state religion.

Or, how about antiseptic surgery?
The discovery of Neptune?
Does the name Copernicus sound famil ...[text shortened]... tated desires to glorify their Creator through their efforts of understanding His creation.[/b]

Your approach is totally wrong. As an example I will offer Anaximander’s case because his philosophic system is the one that set the pace for the theories of Aristarchus and Copernicus. Copernicus was a Catholic clerk amongst else, and I will show briefly that he brought up his theory based on scientific facts and evidence of his time alone, and not thanks to his religious beliefs.

Which way Anaximander concluded that the Earth floats freely within the Universe, setting amongst else into motion the core idea of the Newtonian gravitational forces? Definitely, he came not to his conclusion thanks to his religious beliefs.

The ones who taught me some history (under a rock called Parthenon) concluded that Anaximander appears to debate over his teacher’s theory, and this is my opinion too: Thales had offer a system whose causal reasoning was leading towards to ad infinitum problems that had to be answered in order to have the theory established (Thales said that Earth was floating on the water, therefore his student, Anaximander, thought that if this was the case we should offer scientific explanations regarding the necessary invariable position of the ocean, therefore we should then find out what elements or constructions and by what means they support and hold the ocean at its place etc. etc. ad infinitum).
Of course soon Anaximander dismissed this kind of exegesis due to the fact that this problem is solved solely by means of replacing it by another similar problem and by another and yet another similar problem ad infinitum, and also because his common sens was forcing him to accept the fact that such a propping up system cannot be existent (BTW this is exactly the case with the miscellaneous religious concepts about the so called “Creator” who created the hypermachine-like Universe, but that’s another story).

So Anaximander started to think about a symmetry able to guarantee that the Earth could not “fall”, and for this purpose he applied the axiom according to which it is impossible to have differentiations in conditions that they remain stable. This axiom forced him to think that the Earth had to be stable, and also that it maintains a stable distance from everything else within the Universe. Anaximander failed to notice that the Earth is not cylindrical as he claimed but spherical solely because he was stranded by the indications of his empiricism. Therefore, the main agent that forced Anaximander to bring up his system is merely Thales’ theory along with the given scientific facts and evidence of his time, and not a religious belief or his empiricism alone. A disciple of the great philosopher Thales, Anaximander was not lacking a sure feeling for truth and he never permitted himself to become misled into relying on the consistency of Thales’ system alone. As soon as he discovered inconsistencies in Thales’ thesis, his endeavour to eliminate them became the sole agent that lead him to a worldview quite opposed to that of his teacher.

It's clear that the main agent that forced Copernicus to bring up his theory is merely Anaximander’s theory along with the given scientific facts and evidence of his time, and not his religious beliefs. Whether this specific theory was brought up “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of Buddha” or “in the name of the science and of the philosophy” etc is irrelevant and merely a sophism.

At the same time it ‘s absurd to claim that Copernicus’ theory was brought up thanks to Christianity’s ruling ideology, as you said, and it ‘s also absurd to claim that the cornerstone of the evolution and the progress of the Human as a whole is related to Christianity’ ruling ideology. And of course I assume that this is the case with every other achievement of the Human.


Your severe criticism and your falsification are more than welcomed
😵