[PLUG-TALK] Holy-Smoke

Aaron Burt aaron at bavariati.org
Tue Oct 4 23:45:15 UTC 2011


On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 01:53:24PM -0700, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> 
> > After all, _all_ metaphysical knowledge _must_ be intra-personal. 
> > The only knowledge we've found so far that is trans-personal is 
> > scientific knowledge.
> 
> I think the line between subjective and objective knowledge is far 
> less clear than that in practice.
> 
> I can describe "love" or "freedom" but there's no way I can prove they 
> exist.

However, that is true with most all religious concepts.  We humans are
machines for turning food and air into (subjective) meaning and stories.
We invented science in order to rein in our natural subjectivity and force
us to be objective, at least in a very narrow field of activity where it
especially helps.

> I'm not saying, by the way, that "God" is merely a useful concept in 
> some endeavors. I'm just pointing out that even the most scientific 
> among us use and even rely on unproveable abstractions. (And "use and 
> rely on" comes suspiciously close to "faith" in many contexts.)

Well put.  I *would* argue that "God(s)" does serve as a useful concept
for many people, in many endeavors.  (This is part of the central thesis of
Dennett's "Breaking the Spell")

It's not exactly a new idea, though; even Uncle Al (surname rhymes with
holy) started from that idea and moved on to "how can I intentionally use
religious concepts to manipulate my own brain?"

I suspect that most other folks who get that idea just go, "no wonder the
Osmonds are so perky". :)



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list