Magic: Who thinks they can do it, and why otherwise intelligent people buy it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Eris knows he's better than those pitiful people he feels sorry for.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's awesome that we can have this clubhouse where we're all so superior. Over those monkeys. Wouldn't want to be them, would we?

[East Coast Hustle]

Peedee forums: Where if you're not an atheist like Faust and ECH, we will call you names. Because we are awesome and enlightened, and you are a monkey.

this board is just a message forum that people post on.

some people have some views, some have others, and thankfully, whoever is in charge here has decided that nobody will be singled out of in any way oppressed by whatever piddling authority those who are "in charge" here have to wield.

this way, arguments stand on their own merits or lack thereof. If you feel that atheistic thought (which really has nothing to do with what this thread is about, but I digress) is overwhelming the discourse, you are free to balance that out with whatever you see fit and just like the atheistic ideas, your ideas will be discussed and picked apart and possibly found to have merit or not depending on your skill at communicating your ideas. I can't speak for anyone else, but at the end of the day, I, as a poster (and your friend), will still respect YOU as a person and as someone who raises the level of discourse here, regardless of what I may think of this or that idea that you have put forth.

YMMV.

ETA: I wrote this post before I read the quoted post, which I think is both shitty and unfair. Please point out where I or Faust has ever oppressed you or anyone else for not being in lockstep with our views (which are not in lockstep with each other).

[Shai Hulud]

We could rephrase this statement as "But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think objective thinking will get us there any better than subjective thinking."

Yeah, I totally agree with you there, Burns.  I think we're on the same page about this, and I like your ideas about combining the subjective/objective.

I think science is a lot like magic, insofar as it's just something that's in vogue with the monkeys right now.  At some point in the future it will be replaced by something unimaginably better, an future monkeys will be all like, "Wow, look how stupid those scientists were, think they can observe and repeat experiments."  And then after that another model will come along to make them look equally stupid, and so on.  Until the singularity!

[Epimetheus]

We may all be idiot monkeys, but there's a separation between those who at least WANT to get as close to objective truth as possible and those who see value in untruth that makes them feel comfortable.

My contention is that those who follow the scientific method unquestioningly fall into the latter category.  Sure, it feels nice to think we have some sort of a tool that can actually lead us to objective Truth.  Wow, what a comforting sensation that much be, but the fact is the thing-in-itself will always be behind a veil that science cannot penetrate.  Science also cannot say anything about the subjective, "qualia" if you will.  This is a domain where science cannot trespass, and we haven't got a tool to tell us about the complete Truth of the matter.  We have something that is very useful, but you're just an idiot monkey looking for comfort if you think it comes anywhere nearer the Truth than magic.  That's because being "near" the truth is a totally arbitrary distinction, predicated on usefulness.  Unless you've actually arrived at Truth, what good is it to be "near" it?  How can you tell?  What the fuck does that even mean?

The scientific method means dealing with the empirical world logically.
Just cut to the chase, Guy. Are you claiming there is no objective reality?
So what if this is an illusion and the search for knowledge is masturbation? What else are we supposed to do in such a world? It makes sense to want to find out all we can about this world, and that'll only work by a logical progress.

[Shai Hulud]

The scientific method means dealing with the empirical world logically.

Yes, but science does not have a monopoly on the use of applying logic to the world.  And limiting your investigations to the empirical world is a severe limitation indeed.

Just cut to the chase, Guy. Are you claiming there is no objective reality?

No, what I am claiming is that the answer that question is unknowable in principle.  But let's start defining our terms here.  What do you mean by "objective reality?"  How are we supposed to prove that there is one?

So what if this is an illusion and the search for knowledge is masturbation? What else are we supposed to do in such a world? It makes sense to want to find out all we can about this world, and that'll only work by a logical progress.

I agree that it makes sense to learn all you can about the world.  But you have to recognize when you are working within a framework and what about that framework is arbitrary.

[East Coast Hustle]

[Shai Hulud]

[East Coast Hustle]

Guy, while I think I understand what you're getting at, I just don't see the validity of it as applied to everyday life, whatever value it may have when applied to discussions about "the true nature of things".

since this thread is ostensibly about practices and their application and relation to everyday life, the barstool applies.

[Epimetheus]

Yeah, I was sort of trying to get at that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry for being a dick.

[Shai Hulud]

For you, Guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

I've already heard the song of which you speak
By that tedious and condescending cockney geek
His arguments are as spurious as his rhyming is weak
And of self satisfaction the whole thing does reek.
His shoehorned quotation from Hume is pathetic
And demonstrates that he really just doesn't get it.
Science might work, and that just happens to be his aesthetic,
But for some religion works, for others a joint,
And that chick in his song makes a good point.

[Epimetheus]

I wasn't linking it as an argument or to change your mind. I just thought it was a nice little poem.  But you have to go and be a meanie like that...

[Shai Hulud]

I wasn't linking it as an argument or to change your mind. I just thought it was a nice little poem.  But you have to go and be a meanie like that...

Just funnin', it is an entertaining poem:)

[Shai Hulud]

Guy, while I think I understand what you're getting at, I just don't see the validity of it as applied to everyday life, whatever value it may have when applied to discussions about "the true nature of things".

since this thread is ostensibly about practices and their application and relation to everyday life, the barstool applies.

I had to think about this one for a minute, because I really am inclined to go with you on this.  The idea that science is some sort of unflinching way of looking at "everyday life" is a very appealing notion.  But I just can't go that extra step and declare that it is better than religious or magical ways at approaching everyday life.

Let me give you an example: there is a Evangelical Calvinist minister whose blog I read, and whenever he goes off the deep end I like to post and chastise him about it.  I used to tell myself that it would do him good to bring him down to earth, or whatever.  Anyway, whatever I told him usually would roll right off his back.

Then recently this guy did a post about the historicity of Jesus, and how he thinks there is no parallel between Jesus and Mithras, Jesus and Osiris, etc.  I just couldn't contain myself, so I wrote a huge comment detailing how his history was shoddy, point by point.  I was shocked when he came back like two weeks later with a huge blog post trying to prove me wrong.  Apparently I struck a nerve, and it occurred to me that this guy really needs his illusions.  So I've since sworn off trying to bring him down to earth.

Because what good could possibly come of this?  This is a man who sincerely believes that without a big bearded guy living in the sky and watching over him like some sort of eternal jailer there is no reason to be good.  What would happen if I succeeded in convincing him that there probably was no historical Jesus?  It would pull the rug out from under him, he'd go off his nut, he'd see no more reason for morality.

I'm not saying it's necessary to have a divine foundation for moral principles, but it is necessary to have some sort of foundation.  For a lot of people, their magical thinking provides this, and they can't even conceive of anything else, the only alternative is sheer moral anarchy.  It keeps them grounded and productive and happy and even sane.  So if that's not a day to day use for magical thinking I don't know what is.