TrueScotsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2019
- Messages
- 1,816
- Reaction score
- 1,034
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In most atheist versus theist debate, very few of the atheists actually present what it is they think on matters of Naturalism as I would agree there is not a particular position implied by simply being an atheist. I do however think it does people a disservice in that I think its important for religious people to see how people might think after they have a purely natural way of looking at the world. This I think results in people being educated on a variant of Naturalism, which is Reductionism that I think has been a stumbling block for some. This I think stems from the Physicalism versus Idealism/Dualism debate on the reality of consciousness. Does one have to become Daniel Dennett if they become an atheist, and think everything about consciousness is an illusion?
I don't think so, there have been advances in our understanding of complex systems and a concept which is called Emergence. In short, small dumb things can in number and structure of organization produce bigger smarter things that have properties that the individual component parts do not possess. This concept I think is absolutely key for getting stuck in this bipolar philosophical argument of our history, which attempts to have a unified ontology of the universe. I think that if explanatory reduction is insufficient, then why should we give preference ontological reduction? This to me opens up a much more interesting way of talking about how things are "real," a pluralistic universe which is not just physics, but a whole universe of evolution of matter has produced incredible diversity. Especially here on earth, where organic chemistry and geology combined to create biology, and biology the psychological, and the psychological the cultural. Yes, in my worldview culture and politics are "real" in the sense that they emerge out of the activities, ideologies, and institutions that human beings operate. They emerge out of human behavior, which makes it incredibly complex but not tangible or metaphysical in a kind of plutonian ideal. All these institutions and cultures had an evolution of their own, all out of a similar context found on being thrust into life in this world and having to adapt a civilization.
I don't think so, there have been advances in our understanding of complex systems and a concept which is called Emergence. In short, small dumb things can in number and structure of organization produce bigger smarter things that have properties that the individual component parts do not possess. This concept I think is absolutely key for getting stuck in this bipolar philosophical argument of our history, which attempts to have a unified ontology of the universe. I think that if explanatory reduction is insufficient, then why should we give preference ontological reduction? This to me opens up a much more interesting way of talking about how things are "real," a pluralistic universe which is not just physics, but a whole universe of evolution of matter has produced incredible diversity. Especially here on earth, where organic chemistry and geology combined to create biology, and biology the psychological, and the psychological the cultural. Yes, in my worldview culture and politics are "real" in the sense that they emerge out of the activities, ideologies, and institutions that human beings operate. They emerge out of human behavior, which makes it incredibly complex but not tangible or metaphysical in a kind of plutonian ideal. All these institutions and cultures had an evolution of their own, all out of a similar context found on being thrust into life in this world and having to adapt a civilization.