First of all, yeah, that is awesome. And, well posted, as this topic should shake up the unpleasantly cheery consensus that has prevailed around here.
By the way, why can't the government just ban the false ideas so we don't have to listen to them? I mean if they're clearly and demonstrably false, isn't it an immense waste of resources having idiots repeating them all the time?
Anyway, as cool as all this is, it doesn't really solve the existential problem of religion, which is that many people strongly believe something unverifiable (e.g., that God talks to them). I don't believe Kierkegaard's analysis of the dilemma has been improved upon.
If we go that far, I suppose I would also like to introduce what I am just now naming Horgan's Anxiety - the idea that we are the playthings of a malevolent superbeing (a notion also entertained by some of the gnostics). Although unpleasant to contemplate, this squares better with much of human experience than some conventional religious narratives.
The central question is whether it's stupid to set aside common sense, or apply different standards of evidence when trying to answer the question "why are we here?" (You could argue, as Wittgenstein does, that the question is flawed, but if you accept his final account of things all questions are flawed but unlikely to go away.
As the Laird is recuperating I won't bust out the Feyerabend until later.
5 Comments:
First of all, yeah, that is awesome. And, well posted, as this topic should shake up the unpleasantly cheery consensus that has prevailed around here.
By the way, why can't the government just ban the false ideas so we don't have to listen to them? I mean if they're clearly and demonstrably false, isn't it an immense waste of resources having idiots repeating them all the time?
Anyway, as cool as all this is, it doesn't really solve the existential problem of religion, which is that many people strongly believe something unverifiable (e.g., that God talks to them). I don't believe Kierkegaard's analysis of the dilemma has been improved upon.
If we go that far, I suppose I would also like to introduce what I am just now naming Horgan's Anxiety - the idea that we are the playthings of a malevolent superbeing (a notion also entertained by some of the gnostics). Although unpleasant to contemplate, this squares better with much of human experience than some conventional religious narratives.
The central question is whether it's stupid to set aside common sense, or apply different standards of evidence when trying to answer the question "why are we here?" (You could argue, as Wittgenstein does, that the question is flawed, but if you accept his final account of things all questions are flawed but unlikely to go away.
As the Laird is recuperating I won't bust out the Feyerabend until later.
Did Anybody See "Three's Company" Last Night?
"Anyway, as cool as all this is, it doesn't really solve the existential problem of religion"
I'm sure the producers of this video are very disappointed that it did not solve the existential problem of religion.
What problem do you think they were trying to solve?
We both know the purpose of the video was not to "solve a problem."
Post a Comment
<< Home