Creationism

[Belacqua]

Big fucking whoop.

The best book on this is still Hofstadter's classic Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It's a thoroughly researched analysis of the frequent US belief that the efforts we make must be utilitarian or somehow productive -- almost always toward making money.

So it's common for Americans to dismiss metaphysics as mental masturbation, since it is unlikely to have any practical application. 

It's easy to see that the roots are in Puritanism. They think masturbation is bad because it doesn't make babies, and anti-intellectuals think that pure learning is bad because it doesn't produce something useful. Are you interested in discussing the fundamental nature of the universe? Big whoop.

A lot of atheists are Protestant in the way they think. Even though they've given up the God part, they still hold to Protestant values of practicality, self-reliance, etc. 

Another Protestant trait that anti-intellectuals have is suspicion of pleasure. Especially the pleasures that other people have that they don't share. So if someone here gets a lot of pleasure from discussing metaphysics, from pure learning about non-practical subjects, anti-intellectuals are happy to pass judgment on that, and express their disapproval. Pure pleasure is suspect.

I guess I hold to a view that's closer to the Aesthetic Movement (in Britain) or the Decadents (in France). For these people, the purpose of education (past a certain basic level) is to increase one's capacity for pleasure. The more you know, the more different kinds of pleasure you can have. People who know very little are limited in their pleasures -- usually they enjoy the commercial goods that they're sold, like pop music or Star Wars. To enjoy difficult or esoteric stuff, you have to do the reading.

I follow a guy on social media who reads a dozen Asian languages in both their modern and ancient forms. He writes books about the spread of astrological/astronomical knowledge from the Middle East into China and Japan. It's hard to imagine a less practical field, yet his work is full of fascinating imagery and unexpected historical detail. Largely I follow him because when he does field work, and goes to some obscure temple in Nepal or somewhere, the joy he feels in the discovery is so evident. He does not believe in astrology.

There are atheists who are more like Catholics in their views, and it's not a surprise that the Aesthetes and Decadents were attracted to Catholicism, though they were lukewarm about believing in God. Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe in pure Goodness, unrelated to one's practical efforts. For them, a good life may consist in a devotion to impractical beauty or learning. The goal is not some sort of reward received from the world for hard work, but a focus on that which is lovely in its own right. 

They also believe in a hierarchy of goods, while Protestants tend to equalize anything that isn't worldly success. So it's common for Protestants and Protestant-style atheists to say that where pleasure is concerned, everything is a personal choice and everything is just entertainment and there is no criteria for judging better or worse. It's personal and unimportant what you like, "as long as you're not hurting anybody," and Star Wars is as good as Plato if that's what you like. 

Like so many Protestant goals, this one is extremely helpful in a culture where the only standards are consumer values. 

By nature I am very much not a Puritan, and I find it hard to understand people who disapprove of my pleasures.

[downbeatplumb]

The "god did it" is not very good an explanation.
It never says how it did it or where it got the stuff, just waggled its magic nose and everything just happened. 
It literally just avoids explaining things and has no positive value.

If you see someone claiming that "god did it" is a good explanation, or that nose-waggling is involved, you should argue against that person.

The first cause argument involves neither of those things. It says that all contingent things rely for their existence on something non-contingent.

No one on this thread has said why the argument is wrong.

No, the argument that people who say god did it boils down to this.

"I have no idea how things started so I am just going to say something did it and I think they did it on purpose"


So did something start the universe. I don't know. It may have been part of an eternity of past causes and effects.
BUT what I can say is that the chances of it being done on purpose by a sentient being is as close to zero as makes no difference.

If the universe had a start my money is on some natural as yet unknown cause.

God, is the lazy, no answer answer.

[Belacqua]

So did something start the universe. I don't know. It may have been part of an eternity of past causes and effects.
BUT what I can say is that the chances of it being done on purpose by a sentient being is as close to zero as makes no difference.

The Thomist first cause argument isn't about the universe having a start. I don't know why you'd bring that up in this context.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cant make up your mind whether people reject these arguments for atheism reasons™ or protestantism reasons™......? All you know is that if they had catholicism reasons™ they'd be much friendlier.

[brewer]

Big fucking whoop.

The best book on this is still Hofstadter's classic Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It's a thoroughly researched analysis of the frequent US belief that the efforts we make must be utilitarian or somehow productive -- almost always toward making money.

So it's common for Americans to dismiss metaphysics as mental masturbation, since it is unlikely to have any practical application. 

It's easy to see that the roots are in Puritanism. They think masturbation is bad because it doesn't make babies, and anti-intellectuals think that pure learning is bad because it doesn't produce something useful. Are you interested in discussing the fundamental nature of the universe? Big whoop.

A lot of atheists are Protestant in the way they think. Even though they've given up the God part, they still hold to Protestant values of practicality, self-reliance, etc. 

Another Protestant trait that anti-intellectuals have is suspicion of pleasure. Especially the pleasures that other people have that they don't share. So if someone here gets a lot of pleasure from discussing metaphysics, from pure learning about non-practical subjects, anti-intellectuals are happy to pass judgment on that, and express their disapproval. Pure pleasure is suspect.

I guess I hold to a view that's closer to the Aesthetic Movement (in Britain) or the Decadents (in France). For these people, the purpose of education (past a certain basic level) is to increase one's capacity for pleasure. The more you know, the more different kinds of pleasure you can have. People who know very little are limited in their pleasures -- usually they enjoy the commercial goods that they're sold, like pop music or Star Wars. To enjoy difficult or esoteric stuff, you have to do the reading.

I follow a guy on social media who reads a dozen Asian languages in both their modern and ancient forms. He writes books about the spread of astrological/astronomical knowledge from the Middle East into China and Japan. It's hard to imagine a less practical field, yet his work is full of fascinating imagery and unexpected historical detail. Largely I follow him because when he does field work, and goes to some obscure temple in Nepal or somewhere, the joy he feels in the discovery is so evident. He does not believe in astrology.

There are atheists who are more like Catholics in their views, and it's not a surprise that the Aesthetes and Decadents were attracted to Catholicism, though they were lukewarm about believing in God. Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe in pure Goodness, unrelated to one's practical efforts. For them, a good life may consist in a devotion to impractical beauty or learning. The goal is not some sort of reward received from the world for hard work, but a focus on that which is lovely in its own right. 

They also believe in a hierarchy of goods, while Protestants tend to equalize anything that isn't worldly success. So it's common for Protestants and Protestant-style atheists to say that where pleasure is concerned, everything is a personal choice and everything is just entertainment and there is no criteria for judging better or worse. It's personal and unimportant what you like, "as long as you're not hurting anybody," and Star Wars is as good as Plato if that's what you like. 

Like so many Protestant goals, this one is extremely helpful in a culture where the only standards are consumer values. 

By nature I am very much not a Puritan, and I find it hard to understand people who disapprove of my pleasures.

There's nothing as fulfilling as changing the subject, well actually abandoning it. But nice try to turn my responses into motivated by anti-intellectualism or money or Protestantism. Your issue with me is that I'm not willing to let you be the authority that you want to be, that mentally you need to be.

Have you noticed that you don't participate in any threads that are not about philosophy or religion? Or if you do, you derail them into philosophy or religion. Then proceed to try to run and direct the conversation. This is classic self absorption. So go ahead and increase your pleasure to the exclusion of others. I understand you think it's all about you.

[Foxaèr]

Have you noticed that you don't participate in any threads that are not about philosophy or religion?

And then ironically it takes me returning to create these kinds of threads where discussion on particular subjects is increased.



Maybe I'm a peculiar type of anti-theist, but I prefer religious type discussions over what's your favorite color this week type poppycock.

[Deesse23]

The best book on this is still Hofstadter's classic Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It's a thoroughly researched analysis of the frequent US belief that the efforts we make must be utilitarian or somehow productive -- almost always toward making money.

So it's common for Americans to dismiss metaphysics as mental masturbation, since it is unlikely to have any practical application. 

It's easy to see that the roots are in Puritanism. They think masturbation is bad because it doesn't make babies, and anti-intellectuals think that pure learning is bad because it doesn't produce something useful. Are you interested in discussing the fundamental nature of the universe? Big whoop.

A lot of atheists are Protestant in the way they think. Even though they've given up the God part, they still hold to Protestant values of practicality, self-reliance, etc. 

Another Protestant trait that anti-intellectuals have is suspicion of pleasure. Especially the pleasures that other people have that they don't share. So if someone here gets a lot of pleasure from discussing metaphysics, from pure learning about non-practical subjects, anti-intellectuals are happy to pass judgment on that, and express their disapproval. Pure pleasure is suspect.

I guess I hold to a view that's closer to the Aesthetic Movement (in Britain) or the Decadents (in France). For these people, the purpose of education (past a certain basic level) is to increase one's capacity for pleasure. The more you know, the more different kinds of pleasure you can have. People who know very little are limited in their pleasures -- usually they enjoy the commercial goods that they're sold, like pop music or Star Wars. To enjoy difficult or esoteric stuff, you have to do the reading.

I follow a guy on social media who reads a dozen Asian languages in both their modern and ancient forms. He writes books about the spread of astrological/astronomical knowledge from the Middle East into China and Japan. It's hard to imagine a less practical field, yet his work is full of fascinating imagery and unexpected historical detail. Largely I follow him because when he does field work, and goes to some obscure temple in Nepal or somewhere, the joy he feels in the discovery is so evident. He does not believe in astrology.

There are atheists who are more like Catholics in their views, and it's not a surprise that the Aesthetes and Decadents were attracted to Catholicism, though they were lukewarm about believing in God. Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe in pure Goodness, unrelated to one's practical efforts. For them, a good life may consist in a devotion to impractical beauty or learning. The goal is not some sort of reward received from the world for hard work, but a focus on that which is lovely in its own right. 

They also believe in a hierarchy of goods, while Protestants tend to equalize anything that isn't worldly success. So it's common for Protestants and Protestant-style atheists to say that where pleasure is concerned, everything is a personal choice and everything is just entertainment and there is no criteria for judging better or worse. It's personal and unimportant what you like, "as long as you're not hurting anybody," and Star Wars is as good as Plato if that's what you like. 

Like so many Protestant goals, this one is extremely helpful in a culture where the only standards are consumer values. 

By nature I am very much not a Puritan, and I find it hard to understand people who disapprove of my pleasures.

There's nothing as fulfilling as changing the subject, well actually abandoning it. But nice try to turn my responses into motivated by anti-intellectualism or money or Protestantism. Your issue with me is that I'm not willing to let you be the authority that you want to be, that mentally you need to be.

Have you noticed that you don't participate in any threads that are not about philosophy or religion? Or if you do, you derail them into philosophy or religion. Then proceed to try to run and direct the conversation. This is classic self absorption. So go ahead and increase your pleasure to the exclusion of others. I understand you think it's all about you.

I am just as dismissive of Bels BS as you are, yet neither am i american, puritan, protestant, anti-intellectual, obsessed with money or any other BS he claims about his adversaries . Hope you had fun writing all that   down, Bel.

Its quite amusing to see the lengths he went to set up an ad hom and poison the well (fuck you Bel for that pathetic attempt). As far as i am concerned he can stick to his pet version of special pleading as long as he wants. In fact one day maybe we indeed will find an "uncaused cause", but until that day i remain sceptical. However painting himself as some kind of intellectually superior because he is less sceptical and more gullible than anyone else, well Bel does Bel: Thinking that name dropping(s) like "Aquinas!" or "Aristotle!" would leave a lasting impression on anyone here, at least the kinda impression Bel thinks of.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There's nothing as fulfilling as changing the subject, well actually abandoning it. But nice try to turn my responses into motivated by anti-intellectualism or money or Protestantism. Your issue with me is that I'm not willing to let you be the authority that you want to be, that mentally you need to be.

Have you noticed that you don't participate in any threads that are not about philosophy or religion? Or if you do, you derail them into philosophy or religion. Then proceed to try to run and direct the conversation. This is classic self absorption. So go ahead and increase your pleasure to the exclusion of others. I understand you think it's all about you.

I am just as dismissive of Bels BS as you are, yet neither am i american, puritan, protestant, anti-intellectual, obsessed with money or any other BS he claims about his adversaries . Hope you had fun writing all that   down, Bel.

Its quite amusing to see the lengths he went to set up an ad hom and poison the well (fuck you Bel for that pathetic attempt). As far as i am concerned he can stick to his pet version of special pleading as long as he wants. In fact one day maybe we indeed will find an "uncaused cause", but until that day i remain sceptical. However painting himself as some kind of intellectually superior because he is less sceptical and more gullible than anyone else, well Bel does Bel: Thinking that name dropping(s) like "Aquinas!" or "Aristotle!" would leave a lasting impression on anyone here, at least the kinda impression Bel thinks of.

Ah Bel dishonestly assigning identities and motives to his opponents .As predictable as the tide .

[Ranjr]

For a guy who fancies himself a philosopher, that is quite the fallacy salad.

[brewer]

To be fair I did ad hom Bel.......... a bit.

Guess I'll never know exactly what he considers "being". Probably just as well. He'll just repeat what he's read/heard.

Mental masturbation = pleasure. aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha