Dr. Frank's What's-it

You sound like a proto-pragmatist, Doc.

Read some Richard Rorty.

Meh, I thought the dear doctor was a born and raised God fearing Catholic.....I at least read that somewhere. Probably somebody pulling a Jim Frey no doubt.

Plato and Aquinas were certainly ignorant. They didn't have the tools we have for observing the Universe nor the knowledge stock that we have at our fingertips. Their obviously not stupid, but there is no reason to deny that the Universe is an excellent tool to use when trying to learn about the Universe; and that as our ability to subject the Universe to more intricate tests and to measure more accurately the outcomes, our knowledge about the Universe will increase. Besides, Science is just Philosophy where you check your answers in the back of the book.

Modern people who believe in a flat earth aren't necessarily stupid (though many undoubtably are). Cognitive dissodence and selective memory are part of the human condition. No single person is a legitimate truth-seeker on all subjects at all times. Besides our conscious brains aren't always running the show anyway. Who knows why we believe some things and not others?

I have to disagree about your conclusion that materialism is boring. Relativity and Quantum theory are mind-blowing when you think about it; as are biopsychology, economics, biology, and anything else that allows us to reveal and form a cogent model out of the many bizarre seeming observations that we make everyday. How can you possbily find the Universe boring?

Of course, none of that is to say there is no god, it's just that a Universe without god is still a fascinating and exciting thing. The possibilities are still endless. I'm not a crusader for atheism or anything, but, come on, how somebody as smart as you are can find a material view of the Universe "boring" is baffling. But I guess that's what makes the Universe so interesting.

Unrelated to this topic, but I was watching the news this morning and it showed a clip of Oprah talking to Frey and finding out about all of the mistakes (lies) in his book. I guess she said she regrets making the phone call when he was on Larry King.

I know I can sleep better now knowing that Oprah's not being fooled and she's making sure we're all in the know with her.

Well, Josh, I'm glad I can, in my small way, make your universe more interesting! But I don't believe the material universe is boring; I mean that I'm interested in the experience of the transcendent and the reality beyond reality, etc. I'm interested in what those who have studied and explored these matters have to say. A world where you're not allowed to think about that stuff (or where for ideological, cultural, class, or political reasons you choose not to be seen engaging it) is less interesting for me.

Plus, come on: you've got to admit that all that "Atheists! Fuck Yeah!" stuff in the Butterflies and Wheels comments is pretty funny.

This is entirely unrelated, but it was news to me, you will enjoy if you haven't heard yet http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/01/27/oprah.frey/index.html

I'm not trying to be threatening but let's admit, it's conversations like these that start wars.

"I mean that I'm interested in the experience of the transcendent and the reality beyond reality, etc. I'm interested in what those who have studied and explored these matters have to say."

Right, and that makes you stupid and morally inferior.

Wait, come to think of it, those arguments are pretty funny.

"I mean that I'm interested in the experience of the transcendent and the reality beyond reality, etc. I'm interested in what those who have studied and explored these matters have to say."

So am I, as a matter of fact. But I object to, for instance, the sleight of hand by which (some, dogmatic) theists talk about that but still insist that the beyond reality transcendent thingy fiddles around down here in the muck. It's one or t'other but it can't very well be both.

"A world where you're not allowed to think about that stuff (or where for ideological, cultural, class, or political reasons you choose not to be seen engaging it) is less interesting for me."

And - I said that or anything resembling it where, exactly?

I do wish people could disagree with atheists without mischaracterizing what we say. Apart from anything else, the discussion is more interesting that way. Fighting with straw men - now that's really boring!

Actually, Ophelia, I don't believe I said that you said that. I'm just speaking for myself. I can't think why people would want to restrict their field of vision or the scope of their philosophy in such a way and to attack with such bitterness those who disagree with that restriction. My guesses were ideology, culture, class, or politics, but there could be other reasons certainly.

I suppose, though, if I had anyone specific in mind when I wrote those sentences, it was "Stewart." I love that guy. I certainly think it's a bit much to claim that one who believes in God only does so because he is incapable of "real thought," and that this is why, in the end, the Atheist Team will inevitably win the Meaning of Life Trophy. There are many "god botherers" who are quite capable, I should have thought.

As for whether the Beyond can ever intrude on the here and now, I'm not sure I agree that it can't necessarily be both beyond and present. But maybe that's just my blinkered, limited horizons talking.

And furthermore: you're also interested in the experience of the transcendent and the reality beyond reality, etc., despite the fact that it's a lie? What? There's no such thing, but you're interested anyway? Explain.

Not the experience so much, maybe. But ideas about it? Sure. Speculation about alternative universes, speculation that the universe we know is actually just one atom in another universe - sure, that interests me. I like poetry, too, and (good) novels, and fairy tales, and all sorts of things! I just don't like it when speculation is called something else.

So you're cool with discussing the Beyond and non-material reality, as long as no one is gauche enough to mention the word "God" in the process of trying to grapple with it? Because that would be totally crazy? Because of your "visceral dislike of having religion forced" upon you? As some of my young fans are wont to say: "issues..."

Well, the equation here is revealing: Ophelia thinks that spiritual belief is essentially speculation -- that theism can be understood as essentially like speculating about our universe being an atom in another universe or, say, whether are silicon-based life forms on other planets.

I think that this is why you just don't get what theists are up to, Ophelia -- because you don't seem to appreciate that spiritual belief isn't just speculation; it's something that *articulates an experience of the transcendent* for the believer.

Which doesn't mean that it's necessarily any less prone to folly than mere speculation is. It's just not the same thing. So in reducing spiritual belief to speculation, you get easy grounds for dismissing spiritual belief. But they're *too* easy; they render theists as, well, retards who simply don't understand that they are stupidly holding to "truth claims" which they have no proper evidence for believing ...

With the amount of over zealous protestants these days Catholicism is kind of becoming the punk rock of religion.

Catholicism is becoming the *Style Council* of religion. Have you checked out Benedict's shoes?

Maybe this is worth adding: There are plenty of people whose "spiritual beliefs" are essentially what Ophelia's caricature would make it out to be. (Perhaps we're all among them at one time or another.) For Ophelia, as far as I understand her, there's basically no meaningful distinction to be made between spiritual belief and irrational dogmatism. But the fact that someone might claim to be articulating an experience of the divine when in fact he's just asserting irrational dogmatism doesn't mean that there's no meaningful difference between articulating an experience of the divine and just asserting irrational dogmatism.