3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter

My thoughts.

I don’t think that his “circles” even do a good job of capturing the underlying beliefs. There is a lot of room for nuance and divergence.

And the whole “my beliefs are best!” implicit in it is - well, probably the point, but it’s rather distasteful at best. The more so unless it’s really rigorously justified with painstaking fairness, and I’m not seeing that. At all.

Also, it’s a rather sad commentary on Christianity that acknowledging that non-Christians can do good is even an issue. That it has to be justified with dodgy talking of “completeness”, to try and say that Christians are still better just shows that the problem is still there.

So, I don’t think that they are really good questions. And the answers aren’t that great either. (Well, the second question is worth asking, I guess, but the fact that it is worth asking is a pretty severe indictment of Christianity).

Tangle writes: It's a continuing source of puzzlement to me how you can read that totally unsubstantiated, almost meaningless tripe that's simply made up on the spot and be impressed by it.

First of all, it really isn't "made-up". But I'll never convince you unless I somehow can capture some objective proof some day.

Even then, I could see you fighting it. Most of you really want autonomy and never would trust a cosmic authority figure even if One could be proven to exist.

Phat writes: First of all, it really isn't "made-up". But I'll never convince you unless I somehow can capture some objective proof some day.

The words and ideas that these people spout is totally made up - there's no other source for them. On the few occasions I'm forced into church - births, deaths and marriages - I hear the priest riff around such stuff as though no one with a critical mind is listening. Which I guess they're usually not and which is why they get away with it. Preaching to the converted.

Most of you really want autonomy and never would trust a cosmic authority figure even if One could be proven to exist.

The same refuted stuff just keeps bouncing back as though it was never said. Most of us deal with the reality in front of us. If that ever involved this god thing of yours, we'd deal with it. You know, that stuff about when the facts change...?

I know it's alien to you but realists are capable of changing their minds based on evidence. Try it, you might like it.

Good morning, O Tangled One..(who introduced me to the concept of realism)
which I just looked up to jump-start my brain. Realism on Wikipedia One good feature that I like now about the evolving usefulness of Wikipedia is the feature that lets me simply hover over a sub-classification or word mentioned in an article and see the sub-definition pop up handily. Now that we are on the subject, allow me to try and do the same with references to Ellis Potter and his book...on Wiki. Im lazy this morning and am satisfied for now with learning through comparing and contrasting word definitions within a given topic. I did the same with our boy Danial Dennett and pigeon-holed his basic beliefs quite quickly. One thing that I noted which led me back around to Wikis article on Realism is the observation of Dennetts thinking and of how he was raised in the Empiricist tradition.

In regards to our ongoing discussions and debates between myself and youse guys, I am starting to understand your positions somewhat better, but for the life of me cannot figure why it is so hard for you to understand mine. I certainly didnt simply adopt a belief/philosophy which was simply (and entirely) made up!

There is a lot of anecdotal and subjective evidence within the community, and not everyone is a personified loon.

tangle writes: The words and ideas that these people spout is totally made up - there's no other source for them.

Yes I know... and you will again tell me that the characters are limited to the book. That characters in a book are totally created by the authors of said book. Your logic is sound, I will admit. Lets just say then for the sake of argument that the body of believers on the planet makes up their own characters and passes them around to each other as a collective mythos. Does that observation satisfy your demand for honesty? AddbyEdit:
I also clipped this from Wiki in an article titled "Belief".

wiki writes: There are various different ways that contemporary philosophers have tried to describe beliefs, including as representations of ways that the world could be (Jerry Fodor), as dispositions to act as if certain things are true (Roderick Chisholm), as interpretive schemes for making sense of someone's actions (Daniel Dennett and Donald Davidson), or as mental states that fill a particular function (Hilary Putnam).[2] Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief (Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief ("either we have a belief or we don't have a belief") with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence ("there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief").[2][3]

That fellow Roderick Chisholm is where i'm heading next.

Edited by Phat, : tangling up an idea

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: I am starting to understand your positions somewhat better, but for the life of me cannot figure why it is so hard for you to understand mine.

offs. Of course I understand your position! How many times have I explained to that I believed the same garbage as you do once. I completely get it.

But it's a delusion - once the smoke blows away you feel a complete idiot for ever believing it.

I certainly didnt simply adopt a belief/philosophy which was simply (and entirely) made up!

Of course you did. Just like you think everyone but you and your fellow Christian nutters think every other religion is made up. Despite those believers having exactly the same experience that you have and I had. Despite the fact that you couldn't have had your experience if you'd been born elsewhere or even to different parents. Wake up, you're not special.

I would only add that I believe that we are not originating the stories but are borrowing from the mind(s) in Holy Communion with the Living Spirit. (had to verify to you that I too was and am a loon!

I already knew Phat. It hurts.

I appreciate your feedback and honesty. This morning I am travelling down a rabbit trail regarding word definitions. I just found this one on Wikipedia:
Metaphysical naturalism ... (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

so i'm trying to defend the idea that my world view is not simply made up. I am observing many of the great minds quoted in support of science and scientific/philosophical concepts and definitions which built upon one another and which led to many further theories and schools of thought today.

Having observed this...my question is: Why is the religious theologians who have built their ideas ajnd philosophies upon the Bible and also on the thoughts of many church fathers thought of less respectfully for having gotten their world views thusly?

I already knew Phat. It hurts

oh hush. I edited that post and went off in another direction. My basic question, after hovering over scientists and philosophers in the wiki pages, was why you so flippantly stated that *we* make stuff up with no source behind it. But the science mi9nds and philosophy minds use each others words to build on their own theories. Yes, these theories can be better tested than can the theological theories, but to limit the ideas to empirical evidence is a bit biased in my mind. In philosophy, you often have to take what is said with the premise that you yourself don't need to believe it but are curious where the idea comes from.

Phat writes: Lets just say then for the sake of argument that the body of believers on the planet makes up their own characters and passes them around to each other as a collective mythos.

Let's not forget that "the body of believers on the planet" don't all believe the same things you believe. There are Hindus, Mormons, etc. who all believe as fervently as you do and all have "experiences" as convincing as yours - and YOU think THEIR beliefs are made-up nonsense.

You actually reason the same way as atheists do. The only difference is that you hang on to one set of made-up nonsense.

Phat writes: But the science minds and philosophy minds use each others words to build on their own theories. Yes, these theories can be better tested than can the theological theories, but to limit the ideas to empirical evidence is a bit biased in my mind. In philosophy, you often have to take what is said with the premise that you yourself don't need to believe it but are curious where the idea comes from.

Science is not philosophy. And theology is neither.

Theology is wholly made up, has no foundation in anything but a core feeling that mankind is special above all other organisms that are born and die. We made it all up for our own purposes and it became a power structure that survives only while it is culturally acceptable.

Philosophy thinks that it can think itself an understanding of the world. Just by sitting in a chair and thinking really hard. At least it's rational and logical, but it gets nowhere if the conclusions it forms can't be tested in the real world. Science is the only thing we've invented that can test the real world an get reproducible, independent, objective answers.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

RE:Message 273

In PaulK's topic, Time and Beginning to Exist PaulK states that of the many definitional subsets of Monism, he would most likely agree with Substance Monism.

Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[3] Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.

PaulK writes: ... substance monism comes closest to my views.

Given that I never even knew the concept of Monism until roughly 2 months ago when I read Ellis Potters Book...And given the fact that Pauls Main Topic is in the Science Forums, perhaps we can discuss the spiritual rabbit trails more completely here without dragging the other topic off of its Science Foundation.

PaulK writes: I don’t think that my views would be fairly classified as either. Some things should be science-centred. Others should be human-centred.

Your other topic is appropriately science-centered. I was hoping that you and I could "flesh out" the human centered and philosophical aspects of your view on Monism, which I ironically found as I was googling the Wiki Definition of Materialism. And as for Potter defining his own terminology, perhaps we can understand his viewpoint eventually also. I would love to send you his book...its not too thick and could be devoured in one afternoon...but I've no idea how busy you are or if you would even be receptive to such an idea. Perhaps if we continue to discuss it, I can provide the Cliff Notes version as we dialogue.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Theology is wholly made up, has no foundation in anything but a core feeling that mankind is special above all other organisms that are born and die. We made it all up for our own purposes and it became a power structure that survives only while it is culturally acceptable.

Yet the fact remains that of all species known, humans are the only species that attempt to understand the entire universe. Theology is as useful of a tool as is math. You wont understand the WHY and HOW of anything through Math alone. You stubbornly refuse to consider Theology a tool only because you have rejected the basic premise and subsequent usage of such a tool.

I reject your notion that all beliefs are relative and equally valid. You may have rejected one God more than I have, but you are then stuck explaining the WHY and the HOW of where this universe came from and whether or not we humans collectively or specifically exclusively are going anywhere. Objective evidence, materialistic determinism, or Pauls current adherence to physicalism seem to be the only tools you have left in your box, having thrown Jesus and Schrodinger's Cat out.

ringo writes: It isn't about skipping belief. It's about realizing that belief is a last-ditch copout when you just can't bring yourself to admit that you don't know.

Why must you always place Jesus last? You seem to have His incarnate message higher up on your list, which is a good thing, but having thrown all of the gods away, you are now being challenged to take a leap of faith and stand for something rather than rest on your laurels of not knowing. You humanists will never make it off of the planet without standing for something.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: I reject your notion that all beliefs are relative and equally valid.

You can reject gravity for all I care. Until you have something to back up your rejection, you're just blowing smoke.

Phat writes: You may have rejected one God more than I have, but you are then stuck explaining the WHY and the HOW of where this universe came from and whether or not we humans collectively or specifically exclusively are going anywhere.

That isn't "stuck". I'm one step ahead of YOU because I at least have a POSSIBILITY of learning something. YOU are stuck with having to reject what we do learn if it denies your dogma.

Phat writes: Why must you always place Jesus last?

I didn't. Why don't you read what I wrote?

Phat writes: You seem to have His incarnate message higher up on your list, which is a good thing...

You have it backwards, as usual. It isn't "His messsge." It's an eternal message that He happened to understand.

Phat writes: You humanists will never make it off of the planet without standing for something.

1. I have no desire to make it off the planet.

2. I do stand for something: humanity.

I don’t think that my “monism” is what Potter is talking about at all.

But let’s deal,with the physicalism. In my view mind is supervenient on physical phenomena. There is no “spirit” at least as a concrete entity.

PaulK writes: There is no “spirit” at least as a concrete entity.

If by concrete you mean material, I would argue that there was at one time Jesus Christ as a concrete entity and when He rose, the Body of Christ or the Church became the resident of the Spirit as concrete entity. We can all quibble until the cows come home about that, and were we in India, perhaps the Hindu may argue that the cows themselves represented the concrete entity of Spirit residence.