The Profound difference between the Religious World View and the Scientific One:

[wavelength]

I don't like that you conflate theology and philosophy. One can philosophise in a secular manner but theology in inextricably bound to religion, which is always a bad starting point...

That's fine with me. I am content with having you converted from a reductionsist to a philosopher, what a huge step. 

But all kidding aside, you are right of course. Realizing that there is more to the world than its scientific aspects does not necessarily mean that theology has any value or that there is a God. However, I think it is important to see that spirituality cannot be ruled out by the self-refuting arguments of positivists like Dawkins and Atkins.

[Deicide]

That's fine with me. I am content with having you converted from a reductionsist to a philosopher, what a huge step. 

But all kidding aside, you are right of course. Realizing that there is more to the world than its scientific aspects does not necessarily mean that theology has any value or that there is a God. However, I think it is important to see that spirituality cannot be ruled out by the self-refuting arguments of positivists like Dawkins and Atkins.

Ich bin immer noch Reduktionist. Ich spiele halt mit, um Dir einen Gefallen zu tun. 

[wavelength]

Ich bin immer noch Reduktionist. Ich spiele halt mit, um Dir einen Gefallen zu tun. 

No question about it. The purpose of such a discussion is not to convince anyone, this is impossible anyway. At least - I have never seen it happen. The only reason why egos discuss with each other is to build themeselves up.

Nevertheless, as long as no one is able to challenge my arguments, you must concede to me the right to remain on my point of view that reductionism is obsolete. I'm just not able to find a logic argument that would support it.

[Deicide]

No question about it. The purpose of such a discussion is not to convince anyone, this is impossible anyway. At least - I have never seen it happen. The only reason why egos discuss with each other is to build themeselves up.

Nevertheless, as long as no one is able to challenge my arguments, you must concede to me the right to remain on my point of view that reductionism is obsolete. I'm just not able to find a logic argument that would support it.

Well, the fact that consciousness or awareness is a first I will not argue about. What is important to me is whether or not it is magic stuff or just a bunch of mechanical pieces forming a whole. You know what i think.

[wavelength]

Well, the fact that consciousness or awareness is a first I will not argue about. What is important to me is whether or not it is magic stuff or just a bunch of mechanical pieces forming a whole. You know what i think.

I was not talking about any magic stuff, never, throughout this whole thread. You are again trapped in the cyclic thought of reductionism. The "bunch of mechanical pieces" is already within the smaller bubble, which the bigger bubble of awareness has formed in the first place. If you agree that awareness is a first, you cannot possibly reduce it to a bunch of mechanical pieces. That is exactly what I have shown in post #134.

[Deicide]

I was not talking about any magic stuff, never, throughout this whole thread. You are again trapped in the cyclic thought of reductionism. The "bunch of mechanical pieces" is already within the smaller bubble, which the bigger bubble of awareness has formed in the first place. If you agree that awareness is a first, you cannot possibly reduce it to a bunch of mechanical pieces. That is exactly what I have shown in post #134.

Wellenlaenge, that's exactly what a reductionist does. Takes a big piece and reduces it to smaller pieces...awareness as a something may come first but in a hierarchy of its composition, it does not.

[wavelength]

Wellenlaenge, that's exactly what a reductionist does. Takes a big piece and reduces it to smaller pieces...awareness as a something may come first but in a hierarchy of its composition, it does not.

OK, if you are talking about philosophic reductionism, that's something else. I would still oppose that, but that's a different - purely philosophic - topic.

I was talking about scientific reductionism. Meaning, that you take awareness apart after reducing it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So you only look at the pieces left over after the scientific reduction. Throughout this thread you have clearly shown that you take the view point of a scientific reductionist (e.g. "bunch of mechanical pieces").

If you agree with my post #134, we can philosophically discuss why I think that philosophic reductionsim must also be challenged.

[Deicide]

OK, if you are talking about philosophic reductionism, that's something else. I would still oppose that, but that's a different - purely philosophic - topic.

I was talking about scientific reductionism. Meaning, that you take awareness apart after reducing it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So you only look at the pieces left over after the scientific reduction. Throughout this thread you have clearly shown that you take the view point of a scientific reductionist (e.g. "bunch of mechanical pieces").

If you agree with my post #134, we can philosophically discuss why I think that philosophic reductionsim must also be challenged.

Sigh..why must philosophic reductionism be challenged?

[Deicide]

I have to go to bed but let me just say that these are the sorts of arguments we can have after we eliminate (intellectually speaking) the fundies from society, you know, people who believe in the Flood and talking snakes. We have much in common if we stick to that directive.

[wavelength]

Sigh..why must philosophic reductionism be challenged?

 

I think what you mean by that sigh is that you don't think it matters whether it's philosophic or scientific reductionism, right? Atkins would kill you for saying that.

Scientific reductionsim can easily be ruled out by my post #134. For opposing your world-view nothing else is needed.

But here we go anyway:
If we take the position of a philosophic reductionist, we believe that we can take apart awareness philosophically e.g. by splitting it up into awareness of other things and self-awareness, and so on. If we then philosophically understand all the parts, we can put it all together again and understand what the whole thing is. The problem here is that we must assume in the first place that the complete information contained in awareness would be contained in the single pieces we believe it to be constructed of. There is no philosophic definition that splitting apart awareness in this manner would not take away essential parts of it. So by making such a preposition, we again construct a bubble within awareness, although much bigger than the scientific bubble. What we will never find in this bubble is the aspect of awareness that allows us to make a preposition like the one we need for philosophic reductionism. So although in this bubble, we will be able to find a much less mutilated form of awareness than in the bubble of scientific reductionsim, it will still be mutilated in some form.

I have to go to bed but let me just say that these are the sorts of arguments we can have after we eliminate (intellectually speaking) the fundies from society, you know, people who believe in the Flood and talking snakes. We have much in common if we stick to that directive.

I agree to some degree. For me, fundies and scientific positivists are very similar. Fundies think they can take spiritual scripture "literally", which in fact means "scientifically". They think that spiritual scripture competes with science. Scienitfic positivists think that - since everything can be explained through science - their scientific theories (also) compete with religion. This competition is a misconception on both sides.

However, for most "fundies", the main objective is not to oppose science. Their main objective is to follow the spiritual practice preached in scripture. Although what their egos think (and say) about this path maybe misleading, the purpose of all spiritual practice is to lead us beyond our thinking minds. So they may as well be on the path they need to go for their salvation, without really knowing why.