en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/782068 Comments by philosophylnge http://www.philosophylounge.com/reply-friends-remarks-nature-philosophy/#IDComment199935786 You may quote postings in my website, but please credit the author. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:01:16 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/reply-friends-remarks-nature-philosophy/#IDComment199935786 http://www.philosophylounge.com/remarks-philosophyastherapy-idea-2/#IDComment196913300 Sure, given your definition philosophy is therapeutic. thanks for the comment. Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:29:21 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/remarks-philosophyastherapy-idea-2/#IDComment196913300 http://www.philosophylounge.com/conflict-science-religion/#IDComment193386334 Zar, you have Interesting ideas and perspectives on the issue of religion and science, although I don't agree on much of what you say. We could, if we had the time and inclination, have a wonderful debate. But who has the time? Thanks for your feedback and contribution. Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:55:07 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/conflict-science-religion/#IDComment193386334 http://www.philosophylounge.com/view-humanism-humanity-crutches/#IDComment187781743 Russell, if you really want to write, go ahead and write. The best way to learn to write is to write; in addition, sometimes a course in writing can help, especially if you get some good feedback from the instructor and other students. Reading good writers is another way to start building good writing habits and techniques. That's my five cents of advice. Good luck finding time to do it, given the demands of a working career! Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:35:26 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/view-humanism-humanity-crutches/#IDComment187781743 http://www.philosophylounge.com/case-mild-insanity-physics-philosophy/#IDComment187445436 I suppose if the view of some physicists is correct, there is no one, definite past. I'm replying to your comments of the past few days, but that path of the past my not be targeted by my reply, so it might never connect. Also, among those philosophical-"scientific views" is that objective reality as we know may be a fiction. As flesh-and-blood persons, you and I are mere fiction; after all, atomic physics has shown that all reality is nothing but atoms and energy. So maybe my reply will never be seen by your collection of atoms (which are mostly empty space and energy anyhow), even if it makes sense to say that collection of atoms can perceive, read, and comprehend. So maybe you're right in your objection to my objection to the crazy metaphysics that many scientists and philosophers adopt. Of course, this is mere complaining, which I suppose your commentary was not? But I appreciate your form of complaint anyway. Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:58:12 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/case-mild-insanity-physics-philosophy/#IDComment187445436 http://www.philosophylounge.com/natural-sciences-religion-conflict/#IDComment181614546 Yes, a poetic expression of the poet's vision of God and the world, and man's limited vision of reality. Interesting and beautiful. Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:29:04 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/natural-sciences-religion-conflict/#IDComment181614546 http://www.philosophylounge.com/i-could-not-have-done-otherwise-than-what-i-did/#IDComment181603958 I intended only to give an example of how some people might argue the case for determinism. If you'll note, I go on to express some doubt about many explanations of human behavior in terms of causal conditions; yet I don't deny that causal explanations of human behavior has its place and can reveal much about why we do as we do. Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:59:35 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/i-could-not-have-done-otherwise-than-what-i-did/#IDComment181603958 http://www.philosophylounge.com/doubts-mysticism-basis-knowledge-morality-spirituality/#IDComment181602411 You have made thoughtful, interesting remarks. I don't have any problem with claims that mystical experiences can be very significant and even disclose 'knowledge' about oneself. My quarrel is with those who claim that mystical experiences can base claims as to objective reality, a 'knowledge' that rivals scientific knowledge. Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:55:35 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/doubts-mysticism-basis-knowledge-morality-spirituality/#IDComment181602411 http://www.philosophylounge.com/nuclear-war-inevitable/#IDComment180696199 Yup, we can't please everyone! Sorry about causing your "eyeballs to ache." We don't wish to cause anyone any suffering. Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:42:16 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/nuclear-war-inevitable/#IDComment180696199 http://www.philosophylounge.com/george-orwells-call-honesty-clarity/#IDComment180694622 It would be interesting the see what you mean by "commentary being completely rationalized"? It would be interesting to take up the subject of what constitutes 'proof' in philosophical arguments and discussions. I'll bet you that proof of any kind is hard to find. As to being convinced of Orwell's call of honesty and clarity, I don't see how any rational person could question the legitimacy of such a call. Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:33:07 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/george-orwells-call-honesty-clarity/#IDComment180694622 http://www.philosophylounge.com/rulon-cosmological-coincidences-god/#IDComment180195935 Firooz, first of all nothing I have said or written implied or even remotely suggested that I considered myself a "theologian." Where you picked up this deluded idea is beyond me. As to your "mathematical statement" in the internet: Fibonacci number series and the Fibonacci patterns in nature --- yes, I have heard of this before; as I have have heard about all the wonderful patterns of fractal geometry (not Euclidean geometry) in nature. Some enthusiasts for a theistic view of nature draw from all this the invalid inference that the hand of a designer is indicated, as did the narrator of the piece you cite. Dream on, like every other wonderful, mysterious aspect of nature, there are alternative, naturalistic explanations that do not require the postulation of a designer God. But you made a good try anyway! At least a C+ for your effort. Thu, 4 Aug 2011 22:10:42 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/rulon-cosmological-coincidences-god/#IDComment180195935 http://www.philosophylounge.com/rulon-cosmological-coincidences-god/#IDComment180133067 Firooz, I'm not sure who is guilty of "ignoring logic." Defective and misleading thought comes about in many ways, more ways than lead to effective, clear thought. God talk and thinking about God is hardly ever clear and effective. I had heard that little anecdote about the professor, the student, and horse droppings. Yes, it is funny; but hardly makes the point that you seem to draw: namely, that scientists' have nothing of value to contribute regarding the beliefs of the super-naturalists (e.g. belief in a supernatural god) since they don't know the nature of horse crap. When it comes to "horse crap," it is hard to beat the level of expertise of the religionists and theologians! Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:47:29 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/rulon-cosmological-coincidences-god/#IDComment180133067 http://www.philosophylounge.com/hanging-day-happen/#IDComment180131913 Magnificent writing comes and goes. Hopefully the various writers who contribute postings (including myself) won't be too boring. We'll try to avoid boring the readers. Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:42:18 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/hanging-day-happen/#IDComment180131913 http://www.philosophylounge.com/rulon-cosmological-coincidences-god/#IDComment179786321 Firooz, either one tries to understand and rationally explain human life and human reality, or one merely adopts one of many religious dogmas-myths to obtain some comfort or satisfaction. Those who apply the sciences and critical philosophy to human life are taking the first alternative. Those who continue to tell us about THEIR IDEA of the all-knowing, all-wise, omniscient god are just opting for the latter alternative. This is nothing new nor is it surprising to anyone who has studied history and philosophy. Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:37:58 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/rulon-cosmological-coincidences-god/#IDComment179786321 http://www.philosophylounge.com/philosophy-secular-humanism/#IDComment178083881 No, I have not read the book you mention. Yes, I am familiar with some of the thinking of scientists who are sympathetic to a mystical worldview. Being sympathetic is one thing; explicating that mystical world view is another thing. I don't find that many do a good job of the second task. Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:45:35 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/philosophy-secular-humanism/#IDComment178083881 http://www.philosophylounge.com/robert-richert-strong-doubts-gods-intervention/#IDComment176607325 Reply to John Mize: You're quite correct, I cannot offer much word of comfort or hope to those who have lost loved ones in wars or in other events such as the European and Asian Genocides of the twentieth century. I cannot resort to the hope that they have gone to a "better place" or that in the end their suffering and death will be recompensed in a greater, cosmic harmony. But I wonder just how much comfort there is for people who have experienced tragedy? I wonder how much comfort they derive from these supernatural, mystical hopes? That "gift of hope" that you find in religion ofter turns out to be a very bitter pill, one that trivializes the tragedy, for many people. Read the chapter on "Rebellion" in Dostoevsky's novel "The Brothers Karamazov" when Ivan expresses the non-believers reaction to the religious hope (in face of tragedy and suffering) to which his pious brother, Alyosha, appeals. Dostoevsky, who was Christian himself, does a good job of expressing how ineffectual most nonbelievers find the "gift of hope" offered by supernatural religion to be. In the face of the overwhelming tragedy and inhumanity in history the consolation you offer almost sounds like a philosophical joke. This "gift of hope" may work when you hold to some form of supernatural consolatory scheme. But for those who who have reasonable, natural doubts about the whole made-up story, the suffering and tragedy that life presents are the reality to be dealt with; and for many decent, moral people, dealing with that reality is hardly enhanced by reference to some superstition or supernatural belief. Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:34:07 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/robert-richert-strong-doubts-gods-intervention/#IDComment176607325 http://www.philosophylounge.com/robert-richert-strong-doubts-gods-intervention/#IDComment176303447 Belief that there's ultimate justice and harmony to be found in the universe --- and that all who suffer will be comforted --- may be consolation for some. But there are many others who find no consolation in such mysticism, supernaturalism, and metaphysics. Believing that God is out there taking care of everything, despite appearances to the contrary, may be a comfort to some. But others don't get any comfort from such belief nor do they seek such comfort. I count myself among those who seek a realistic picture of nature, society, and history, and by seeking such a realistic picture I am not thrown into a pit of despair. Contrary to what many theists and supernaturalists believe, a world without a supernatural God is not a despairing world. It is a realistic world which in time will deal with the many tragedies that life presents in a realistic way, not in the way of wishful thinking and a belief in a delusional cosmic harmony. Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:07:58 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/robert-richert-strong-doubts-gods-intervention/#IDComment176303447 http://www.philosophylounge.com/reply-friends-remarks-nature-philosophy/#IDComment176300979 You may copy but I would appreciate that the author's name remain with the pieces that you copy. Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:57:30 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/reply-friends-remarks-nature-philosophy/#IDComment176300979 http://www.philosophylounge.com/view-humanism-humanity-crutches/#IDComment173143061 I also have had problems and objections to some of the tactics of the so-called "new atheists" and with the bad tactics of demonizing all religious people and ridiculing religious practice. Besides distorting the character and history of religious faith and religious thought, those tactics are counter-productive and reflect badly on all non-believers (I consider myself one), implying a degree of historical ignorance and philosophical primitivity. However, I do like most of Daniel Dennett's work, and I'm sorry to see him classified as a one of the "four horsemen," the new atheist 'prophets' and Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly a very good evolutionary scientist. Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:59:32 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/view-humanism-humanity-crutches/#IDComment173143061 http://www.philosophylounge.com/reply-friends-remarks-nature-philosophy/#IDComment171155966 I don't know. I'll check with my web designers and try to get you an answer. Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:20:00 +0000 http://www.philosophylounge.com/reply-friends-remarks-nature-philosophy/#IDComment171155966