Atheism

[Anonymous No.17151307]

As a former atheist, I started reading philosophy and I am a math major and I can say I was so blue pilled .What's your opinion on it?Btw i don't believe in any religion whatsoever just in a higher power/

[Anonymous No.17151387]

>>17151307
Philosophy in the purest sense of the terms, not taught as history of idea, should be the most important part of everyone's education between 5 and 16 years of age at least.
I don't really understand why biology, mathematics and physics are often given the nods ahead philosophy in most school system.

[Anonymous No.17151444]

>>17151387
my math teacher used to say that Math is applied philosophy and in a certain way it is actually.In ancient Greece there was no fucking difference in sciences .

[Anonymous No.17151461]

>>17151387
Because those subjects pushed are useful to the Techno-Industrial society we live in, and anything that isn’t productive to preserving this society, or is downright destructive to it, takes a backseat as a hobby for some or is ridiculed into obscurity.

[Anonymous No.17151468]

>>17151307
"A higher power" is a vague term that doesn't mean anything specific. You might as well be a Theist rather than buying into some pop spirituality bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17151506]

>>17151387
No, religion should obviously be the most important. Children don't need abstraction, they need a practical and active belief and truth.

[Anonymous No.17151509]

>>17151387
Why would you force kids into a theoretical education on topics like morality for which they have little experience and certainly cannot grasp it's gravity. Why wouldn't kids learn biology so they can help cure disease in the future.

[Anonymous No.17151515]

>>17151387
Most people don't have the time, ability or desire to understand philosophy and their time is better spent learning more practical knowledge that will help them find a job. Philosophy makes more sense being a specialized field.
Also good luck teaching a five year old who can barely read and spends all his free time watching Ben 10 Plato's One Over Many argument.

[Anonymous No.17151517]

>>17151461
I think it's more than just utility though. Teaching kids so much hard sciences in an early age seems to make them more inclined towards a mechanistic world view. Even a little philosophy would remove this bias (as seems to have happend to OP), but the organizers of public education don't seem to want this.

[Anonymous No.17151536]

>>17151517
>Teaching kids so much hard sciences in an early age seems to make them more inclined towards a mechanistic world view. Even a little philosophy would remove this bias
Except that metaphysical naturalism is the dominant view among philosophers. The hard sciences on the other hand are compatible with many philosophical frameworks.

[Anonymous No.17151538]

>>17151307
This picture has 8 fucking retards

[Anonymous No.17151542]

>>17151509
Very few of those children would go on to practice medicine or have any use for biology or physics later in life. For most, sciences will be just as theoretical as any philosophy. However, teaching kids only science and no philosophy would lead to the picture in the OP.

[Anonymous No.17151543]

>>17151387
>I don't really understand why biology, mathematics and physics are often given the nods ahead philosophy in most school system.
Because the purpose of the public education system is not to make complete, actualized human beings, but useful work-drones.

[Anonymous No.17151546]

>>17151517
>Neoliberal capitalist overlords want neoliberal materialist subjects

No way, how could this happen? You're saying books and school teachers don't just emerge from reality in an effort to purely spread knowledge?

[Anonymous No.17151550]

>>17151543
What in your definition constitutes a complete, actualized human being?

[Anonymous No.17151566]

>>17151536
Yeah, but philosophers are usually aware that they are merely construing the world in a naturalist sense. They know they could just as well not to. Even a hardcore naturalist like Quine admits this. But those little kids being taught about the Mitochondria in 3rd grade would dogmatically assume this mechanistic worldview later in life.

[Anonymous No.17151578]

>>17151307
Richard Dawkins is irrelevant nowadays, just like Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.17151582]

>>17151546
I myself agree with your sentiment and I find it very unfortunate. If I ever have children later in life, I would make sure they receive a proper classical education.

[Anonymous No.17151597]

>>17151582
I agree friend. I've been agonizing over where to go to achieve this without them getting trapped in some AI ran totalitarian hellscape. I'll get back to you on that but it's looking pretty doomed.

[Anonymous No.17151599]

>>17151387
Agreed. Big time. I had to seek out philosophy in college, it should be taught to high schoolers.

[Anonymous No.17151607]

>>17151566
>Yeah, but philosophers are usually aware that they are merely construing the world in a naturalist sense. They know they could just as well not to. Even a hardcore naturalist like Quine admits this.
Not really, since antirealism is an extremely minority view.
>But those little kids being taught about the Mitochondria in 3rd grade would dogmatically assume this mechanistic worldview later in life.
Nothing about Mitochondria implies mechanism. It may imply scientific realism, but this is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.17151625]

>>17151387
>I don't really understand why biology, mathematics and physics are often given the nods ahead philosophy in most school system.
People can't teach what they don't know. 99.999999% of people are retards who can't be considered human beings(the rest of the percentage is a guy called Aristotle)

[Anonymous No.17151716]

>>17151307
Theism is retarded, deism is not. Theism is egomaniacal anthropocentric schizo-ramblings and archetypes. Though non-dualism I’d say refutes both and affirms life and reality rather than engaging in death-denial.

[Anonymous No.17151734]

>>17151607
This is not a question of philosophy of science and I don't know why you bring up scientific realism. It's a question of naturalism/non-naturalism, and looking at the philpapers survey, philosophers seem equally divided on the topic. My point is that such heavy focus on the mechanism of life (e.g., Mitochondria), introduces an arbitrary bias against other equally plausible but less materialistic views.

[Anonymous No.17151771]

I think there are some misunderstandings in our perception of reality that lead to us needing a prime mover model. I'm not a scientific reductionist, but I even when I do envision something "higher" it still falls within ideas of higher dimensions or different interpretations of time -- and thus is still grounded in a consistent physical model that we haven't figured out.

Sometimes I'm certain that there are extra-dimensional beings after I take psychedelics or have crazy symbolic dreams. But I also defer to materialism and look up ideas about residual memory in photoreceptors to explain closed eye hallucinations away.

[Anonymous No.17151778]

>>17151734
>My point is that such heavy focus on the mechanism of life (e.g., Mitochondria), introduces an arbitrary bias against other equally plausible but less materialistic views.
Well I don't understand what philosophical view do you think studying Mitochondria pushes you into.

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.17151795]

>Btw i don't believe in any religion whatsoever just in a higher power/
Ur welcome.

[Anonymous No.17151804]

>>17151778
That we are merely biological machines? If you only study how the body functions as machine (and nothing else), you will be disposed to believe that life is merely matter and nothing more. As I said, this heavy, needless, focus on the sciences in early education introduces a bias towards materialistic views.

[Anonymous No.17151860]

>>17151795

This quote is stupid. The apostles had everything to lose by calling the bullshit

[Anonymous No.17151875]

>>17151307
I was the one who said this in the "top 5 pseud writers" thread and I'll say it again: I don't trust any motherfuckers in the 21st century. If you're alive and famous, you're bought.

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.17151876]

>>17151860
What's your reasoning?

[Anonymous No.17151888]

>>17151307
prove Hasse-Weil faggot

[Anonymous No.17151893]

>>17151804
>That we are merely biological machines? If you only study how the body functions as machine (and nothing else), you will be disposed to believe that life is merely matter and nothing more.
I don't think that's how it works, most people don't even understand what materialism is. They don't understand what it means to say that mental states supervene on physical states or are reducible to them. These are very subtle distinctions that you need to study philosophy in order to grasp them in the first place.
>As I said, this heavy, needless, focus on the sciences in early education
So what is your proposal, removing physics and biology from the carriculum? Adding philosophy is out of the question since it is way too hard for students in this age.

[Anonymous No.17151908]

>>17151387
This is a good idea if u disregard all of psychology and neuroscience

[Anonymous No.17151926]

>>17151893
It is true that most people, not being educated in philosophy, don't explicitly understand materialism, in that if you brought up the thesis and asked them to recite a supporting argument, they won't be able to. That said, most people today unknowingly, unconsciously have adopted all sorts of materialistic views, in that if you tell them that something beyond mere matter exists, they will tell you you're wrong just because science (this is the dogmatism I earlier talked about). I don't advise removing science, but I don't see how adding philosophy is out of question. If the students are intelligent enough to study the relativity theory and quantum physics (even if at a surface level), then they are competent enough to study basic philosophy at a surface level. In fact, many European countries teach philosophy in high school.

[Anonymous No.17151952]

>>17151893
>So what is your proposal, removing physics and biology from the carriculum? Adding philosophy is out of the question since it is way too hard for students in this age.
I wouldn’t say it’s way too hard to learn and study for children aged 5 to 16, provided you begin teaching them at the earliest possible stage in a simple manner. I also believe subjects such as biology and other sciences could still be focused on but perhaps to a lesser extent, but then again cramming so much into a child’s education can’t exactly be a good thing, so I’ve just contradicted myself, but I still believe that at least entry-level philosophy can still be taught in all schools across the world .

[Anonymous No.17151953]

>>17151804

All of reality exists within the same ontological sphere. Stop spouting on about shit

[Anonymous No.17151963]

>>17151953
This is a philosophical thesis you are asserting. If you have an argument for it, some other time I might be interested to hear it. For the time being, I don't see why I must accept it dogmatically.

[Anonymous No.17151982]

>>17151515
>Also good luck teaching a five year old who can barely read

Aren't you begging the question here? Why can't children read? Maybe you are pointing to a separate problem instead of actually criticizing the idea of an early education/exposure to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17151995]

>>17151387
>I don't really understand why biology, mathematics and physics are often given the nods ahead philosophy in most school system.
Because these sciences are actually useful.

[Anonymous No.17152016]

>>17151307
The consciousness we feel is God, and it is the same consciousness, the same God. Divided and ciphered in order to distract the undivided God from his infinite loneliness.

[Anonymous No.17152310]

>>17151995
You can always learn them later in college.
The average man have no use for 90% of what he'll learn in maths, physics and biology class and they won't make him grow and give him as much access to culture as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17152331]

>>17151444
Exactly, mathematics takes their origins from philosophy, at least in the west.
It's an application of logical and philosophical principle.

[Anonymous No.17152358]

>>17151995
>actually useful

[Anonymous No.17152364]

>>17152331
Mathematics is much older than philosophy, not only in the West, but everywhere.

[Anonymous No.17152383]

>>17151307
Love how this image is supposed to show how the older, more respected scientists are more intelligent yet just reveals they are platonist idiots still spooked under the old dualism (with Einstein as the exception). Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins actually have the better quote in their pair.

[Anonymous No.17152384]

>>17152331
>It's an application of logical and philosophical principle.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean here, but mathematics wasn't grounded in logic until the late 1800s/early 1900s. Formal logic as we know it is more modern than a lot of the mathematics we're familiar with.

[Anonymous No.17152386]

>>17152364
Prove it, maths are reducible to philosophical principle.
I was talking about our representation of it.

[Anonymous No.17152398]

>>17152364
The only way you could believe this is if you dodn't know what the word "philosophy" meant.

[Anonymous No.17152403]

>>17152358
>badmouths STEM
>posts garbage spewed from humanities & social sciences academia

[Anonymous No.17152405]

>>17151538
This, with the exception of Einstein, since a modern physicist would never admit such an obvious truth.

[Anonymous No.17152466]

>>17151387
Philosophy has less practical aplication, it's not useful to the system, therefore it's not taught. Not only that but anyone with a philosophical education would be calling for the reform/destruction of the technocapitalistic hellsystem we live in. Every aspect of the system serves only to preserve itself and from both a financial and political standpoint it has no use for philosphy

[Anonymous No.17152699]

>>17151461
God I wish that were me

[Anonymous No.17152750]

>>17151926
>That said, most people today unknowingly, unconsciously have adopted all sorts of materialistic views, in that if you tell them that something beyond mere matter exists, they will tell you you're wrong just because science (this is the dogmatism I earlier talked about).
There are some people who think this way but I don't believe it has anything to do with learning about Mitochondria. It's just that materialism, being an influential position among philosophers, has influenced popular culture.
>If the students are intelligent enough to study the relativity theory and quantum physics (even if at a surface level), then they are competent enough to study basic philosophy at a surface level. In fact, many European countries teach philosophy in high school.
To my knowledge Relativity theory and Quantum physics are not being teached in high school, this is university-tier education for those with a specialization in physics.

[Anonymous No.17152777]

>>17151982
I am saying that maybe a five year old who just learned how to read and only understands simple words should get at the very least a decent understanding of language and get a little older before delving into Platonic metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17152794]

>>17151538
Four. Four real scientists and four retarded pseuds.

[Anonymous No.17152824]

>>17151307
>Taking an active stance for religion
Fine
>Taking an active stance for a philosophy
Fine
>Not answering the question (or lit:"I don't know")
Fine
>Taking a passive stance against religion (lit: "I'm agnostic")
Distasteful
>Taking an active stance against religion
Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.17152850]

>>17151387
>>17151387
>Philosophy in the purest sense of the terms, not taught as history of idea
What do you mean by this? Like those classes in logic and argumentation so fashionable in first year university?

[Anonymous No.17152862]

>>17151307
The term 'philosophy' used like this is an umbrella term for any system of thought. That modern scientists taking fault not only with religions (which are cryptic by themselves) but also with philosophy just shows how fundamentalist they are in their own materialist positions.

Dawkins' books especially exist as a very clear example of someone going
> Things are composed of smaller things, what do you mean "metaphysics"???
But I do thank him for weeding out the religious people who were just in for the Creationism etc.

[Anonymous No.17152863]

>>17152824
Religion as an institution is pretty shit, my dude.

[Anonymous No.17152876]

>>17152863
It's pretty irreplaceable, my dude. Nothing else unifies ontology, morality, spirituality, culture and social life like religions do.

[Anonymous No.17152880]

>>17152876
Under their interpretation, sure.

[Anonymous No.17152889]

>>17151307
I see no need for a "higher power" to explain anything whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.17152907]

>>17152750
>There are some people who think this way but I don't believe it has anything to do with learning about Mitochondria. It's just that materialism, being an influential position among philosophers, has influenced popular culture.

Which contemporary philosophers? You mean autistic Anglos? Also I think most people are materialists these days and it’s a concerning development. The way people discuss ‘mental health’ these days by jokingly referring to their levels of dopamine and serotonin is beyond grim. We are rife with people who have a mechanistic view of humans

[Anonymous No.17152909]

>>17152889
How about the universe?

[Anonymous No.17152913]

>>17151716
This

[Anonymous No.17152925]

>>17152909
What about it do you think requires a higher power?

[Anonymous No.17152945]

>>17152909
This is just a low-bar God of the gaps response.

[Anonymous No.17152949]

>>17152925
Its existence. Naturalism can explain everything in the universe except the universe, it logically seems to require an above-natural premise to exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17152956]

>>17152945
Gaps aren't cases of logical inference. The limits of naturalism in accounting for the universe are...

[Anonymous No.17152973]

>>17152949
What about its existence requires a higher power? There are plenty of other ways to explain it. "The universe," first of all, means something different to each of us. What do you think it means to a dog? Secondly, if you think it requires a creator, then you also think it requires a creation event, but it could be that it never had such an event, and that time and space are a product of the mind, and the universe is merely an inconceivable flux with no beginning or end where no real sense of subject or motive is possible except from our limited points of view, which means a creator is unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.17152975]

>>17152949
Solipsism can also explain everything in such a way. In fact, it's a rather airtight system. It doesn't mean we should accept it just based on the sufficiency though. In the way that naturalism transcends solipsism in its explanation, metaphysical theories also transcend naturalism in providing a better explanation of the world.

[Anonymous No.17152981]

>>17152907
>Which contemporary philosophers? You mean autistic Anglos?
The only contemporary philosophy that isn't a joke.
>The way people discuss ‘mental health’ these days by jokingly referring to their levels of dopamine and serotonin is beyond grim. We are rife with people who have a mechanistic view of humans.
This has nothing to do with materialism. Much like we often talk about proper diet in terms of vitamins etc. we also talk about mental health in terms of hormones that influence the mental states in question.

[Anonymous No.17152987]

>>17152973
>There are plenty of other ways to explain it.
Name one that doesn't rely on supernaturalism.
>What do you think [universe] means to a dog?
Huh?
>that time and space are a product of the mind
Huh? Bro idc, the universe clearly exists and I wanna know why, naturalist explanations don't get us far.
>Creator
Who knows, I'd prefer to frame it as something supernatural.
>>17152975
There's nothing airtight about solipsism, it's just a reduction, but doesn't address existence of such reduced universe.

[Anonymous No.17152991]

>>17151953
>the same ontological sphere
what does this mean sounds cool

[Anonymous No.17152997]

>>17152973
The key is in understanding time. Once we unlock that, I believe we will figure everything out.

[Anonymous No.17153001]

>>17152973
You can have spinozist conceptions of god that aren’t necessarily anthropomorphic and refer to ‘creators’.

It seems here that God is what accounts for the unexplainable, yet is also what lies behind the explainable. I don’t know

[Anonymous No.17153011]

>>17152987
I gave you one that doesn't.

Supernatural means nothing at all. You want something that would be, by definition, unknowable, inconceivable and also incapable of interacting with nature (since if it could, it would be part of it, rendering it just "natural") to be able to explain nature. It's laziness, sloppiness, or incompetence.

[Anonymous No.17153028]

>>17153011
>I gave you one that doesn't.
You gave me a "universe with no beginning and no end". That not only doesn't conform to what we know about the natural world (all of which is limited in one way or another), but it doesn't address existence of the unvierse, it only does away with the beginning of the existence. Existence as such is not addressed.
>Supernatural means nothing at all.
It means beyond the natural. How knowable it is, I don't know. I just know natural things don't account for themselves.

[Anonymous No.17153039]

>>17153001
>spinozist conceptions of god
That's what the word nature means today.

>It seems here that God is what accounts for the unexplainable, yet is also what lies behind the explainable
That's just a god in the gaps, a kind of deification of the unknown. It doesn't really explain anything and calling our ignorance a higher power is a bit much, don't you think?