I figure. If God wants to quit hiding and let me know that he exits, then he knows how to do just that. I am thoroughly convinced that it won't be old Jehovah. So whoever she is she knows what it takes. In the meantime I'll just go on talking to my invisible unicorn 🦄. What do you mean, that I'm probably not interested?
Connecting this post to your recent post on “bad Stoicism,” where you, among other things, distinguish those who adopt the philosophy itself, from those who simply leverage and apply its learnings and techniques to their life. Your point there was to take-down the most egregious manipulators of this wisdom tradition, but I think it begs a further question as well: If a person (any person, not just the obnoxious) rejects the core metaphysics of a wisdom tradition, can they ever be seen as having “adopted” that philosophy?
It seems to me that no person can claim to adopt a philosophy if they reject its core metaphysics. You’ve made similar arguments in the past with respect to the embrace by many in the West of Buddhist learnings and techniques outside of its metaphysical envelope. Nothing wrong with that. But “being” a Buddhist means more than meditating - it means adopting its metaphysics. Same here with respect to Stoicism, it seems to me.
Belief in the Logos lives at the core of Stoicism. It’s its core metaphysics, and it’s a transcendent and spiritual concept. It’s belief in an enchanted Nature (and is the rationale for a life lived in accordance with the Cardinal Virtues). Atheism, by definition, calls for the rejection of that belief. Which means, it seems to me, that an atheist cannot “be” a Stoic.
Interestingly enough, it seems to me that an “atheistic Stoic” is actually an Epicurean, a person who does not strive (or embrace Virtue Ethics) to align themselves with the Logos, but rather to advance toward Eudaimonia as an end in and of itself. It’s personal excellence and personal flourishing for one’s personal sake (even if the person feels called to self-sacrifice out of a sense of duty - they answer the call because it does, in its own way, bring them pleasure).
There is a positive (and I’d argue necessary) role for the Cardinal Virtues and Stoic learnings and techniques within Epicurean philosophy - much of Epicurus speaks to or hints at that. But it’s not Stoicism.
I suspect you disagree. Interested in your perspective! (And apologies for the long comment!)
"the mystical / supernatural view of the world has produced exactly no advance in human knowledge, understanding, or ability to manipulate the world. None."
It is damned hard to prove a negative. How do you prove this statement is true? Or is this a statment made because you believe that "I don’t think there is sufficient reason or evidence".
I am wondering if this statement is a belief of yours, or is it simply because you "don't think" it, which can just as well be attributed to a lack of imagination.
Second question:
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion of Chat-Gpt and large learning models. This has led to increased speculation about the possibility of eventually producing what is now termed an "Artificial General Intelligence". As someone who has worked in the field, I don't think there has been any evidence that an AGI can be eventually constructed.
The question is: what is your position on this question? Are you an a-AGI-ist, without a positive belief in an eventual AGI, or do you think it would be eventually possible?
The reason why I ask this question is that it involves matters of insufficient reason, belief and other epistemic matters, but it is entirely "scientific" in the sense that it involves no reference to the supernatural. After all, there is a natural case of human intelligence, so an appeal to the supernatural is not necessary.
This is my attempt to carve up this problem at the joints.
From a Christian perspective the answer is quite simple. When the skies open (whatever that means) and the new Jerusalem descends, the dead leave their tombs, the seas give up their dead, and Jesus takes control of all the governments, then I would probably change my mind. For other religions, if knowing god is really that important to god, then shouldn't an all powerful and all knowing being who is apparently desperate for affection be able to demonstrate its existence effectively?
Also bravo on incorporating Star Trek into your post. Live long and prosper.
I’m also an atheist. However, I don’t dare to discard that I will no longer believe in God again. Perhaps, in the proximity of imminent and inevitable death, I will return to the faith I was raised in. Or some mental decline will render me again submitted to it. I don’t know. That faith is Catholicism and has a clear advantage over others: I you repent sincerely at the last minute, you will be granted eternal pardon. It’s a good ace to keep in the sleeve. So rather than being an atheist, I prefer to say I’m a Catholic on leave.
How does one disbelieve God yet believe in Fate, another invisible non empirical belief system tirelessly used to explain life’s occurrences? God willing. Or, if Fate allows. I’m trying to work out the differences. Isn’t fate also considered as some kind of dominant, decisive force?
Interesting that atheists are often asked this question, whereas it is considered bad manners to ask a theist what would lead them to abandon their faith
I completely agree. I might add that the human brain is, in part, a three-pound hallucination engine. Normally, it does a great job in representing reality, however imperfectly in some respects, and it's a little off-putting to realize that most if not all of our perceptions of reality are mediated by our brains.
I figure. If God wants to quit hiding and let me know that he exits, then he knows how to do just that. I am thoroughly convinced that it won't be old Jehovah. So whoever she is she knows what it takes. In the meantime I'll just go on talking to my invisible unicorn 🦄. What do you mean, that I'm probably not interested?
Just a reminder that it is possible to find an actual implementation of the Library of Babel here: https://libraryofbabel.info/
Maybe some of you my get extremely lucky and find the accurate description of the universe and its history!
Connecting this post to your recent post on “bad Stoicism,” where you, among other things, distinguish those who adopt the philosophy itself, from those who simply leverage and apply its learnings and techniques to their life. Your point there was to take-down the most egregious manipulators of this wisdom tradition, but I think it begs a further question as well: If a person (any person, not just the obnoxious) rejects the core metaphysics of a wisdom tradition, can they ever be seen as having “adopted” that philosophy?
It seems to me that no person can claim to adopt a philosophy if they reject its core metaphysics. You’ve made similar arguments in the past with respect to the embrace by many in the West of Buddhist learnings and techniques outside of its metaphysical envelope. Nothing wrong with that. But “being” a Buddhist means more than meditating - it means adopting its metaphysics. Same here with respect to Stoicism, it seems to me.
Belief in the Logos lives at the core of Stoicism. It’s its core metaphysics, and it’s a transcendent and spiritual concept. It’s belief in an enchanted Nature (and is the rationale for a life lived in accordance with the Cardinal Virtues). Atheism, by definition, calls for the rejection of that belief. Which means, it seems to me, that an atheist cannot “be” a Stoic.
Interestingly enough, it seems to me that an “atheistic Stoic” is actually an Epicurean, a person who does not strive (or embrace Virtue Ethics) to align themselves with the Logos, but rather to advance toward Eudaimonia as an end in and of itself. It’s personal excellence and personal flourishing for one’s personal sake (even if the person feels called to self-sacrifice out of a sense of duty - they answer the call because it does, in its own way, bring them pleasure).
There is a positive (and I’d argue necessary) role for the Cardinal Virtues and Stoic learnings and techniques within Epicurean philosophy - much of Epicurus speaks to or hints at that. But it’s not Stoicism.
I suspect you disagree. Interested in your perspective! (And apologies for the long comment!)
I regard science not as a body of knowledge nor a method of acquiring knowledge but as an 'ethic':
"Thou shall not believe shit without sufficient evidence"
with 'sufficient' defined by Hume's criteria.
Two questions:
First question:
"the mystical / supernatural view of the world has produced exactly no advance in human knowledge, understanding, or ability to manipulate the world. None."
It is damned hard to prove a negative. How do you prove this statement is true? Or is this a statment made because you believe that "I don’t think there is sufficient reason or evidence".
I am wondering if this statement is a belief of yours, or is it simply because you "don't think" it, which can just as well be attributed to a lack of imagination.
Second question:
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion of Chat-Gpt and large learning models. This has led to increased speculation about the possibility of eventually producing what is now termed an "Artificial General Intelligence". As someone who has worked in the field, I don't think there has been any evidence that an AGI can be eventually constructed.
The question is: what is your position on this question? Are you an a-AGI-ist, without a positive belief in an eventual AGI, or do you think it would be eventually possible?
The reason why I ask this question is that it involves matters of insufficient reason, belief and other epistemic matters, but it is entirely "scientific" in the sense that it involves no reference to the supernatural. After all, there is a natural case of human intelligence, so an appeal to the supernatural is not necessary.
This is my attempt to carve up this problem at the joints.
From a Christian perspective the answer is quite simple. When the skies open (whatever that means) and the new Jerusalem descends, the dead leave their tombs, the seas give up their dead, and Jesus takes control of all the governments, then I would probably change my mind. For other religions, if knowing god is really that important to god, then shouldn't an all powerful and all knowing being who is apparently desperate for affection be able to demonstrate its existence effectively?
Also bravo on incorporating Star Trek into your post. Live long and prosper.
I’m also an atheist. However, I don’t dare to discard that I will no longer believe in God again. Perhaps, in the proximity of imminent and inevitable death, I will return to the faith I was raised in. Or some mental decline will render me again submitted to it. I don’t know. That faith is Catholicism and has a clear advantage over others: I you repent sincerely at the last minute, you will be granted eternal pardon. It’s a good ace to keep in the sleeve. So rather than being an atheist, I prefer to say I’m a Catholic on leave.
How does one disbelieve God yet believe in Fate, another invisible non empirical belief system tirelessly used to explain life’s occurrences? God willing. Or, if Fate allows. I’m trying to work out the differences. Isn’t fate also considered as some kind of dominant, decisive force?
Interesting that atheists are often asked this question, whereas it is considered bad manners to ask a theist what would lead them to abandon their faith
I completely agree. I might add that the human brain is, in part, a three-pound hallucination engine. Normally, it does a great job in representing reality, however imperfectly in some respects, and it's a little off-putting to realize that most if not all of our perceptions of reality are mediated by our brains.
A grand and thoughtful essay, one I’m honored to be mentioned in. Thanks, friend.