His idea of Truth rests on millennia of human endeavour, not just 400 years of scientific thought. What was True about life in 2000 bce?
OK, but we do need to keep pointing out that it isn;t actually true and that we can establish facts about the world best via evidence.
-
-
It's a diff way of viewing the world, but a far more edifying and useful one. What use is knowledge of science if ur a cunt & ppl hate u?
-
OK, but this is a different argument. One about ways of thinking abt morality & meaning, not abt truth. I do the former with humanism.
-
Yes, a pseudo religion predicated on human value. Much like Peterson’s ‘Christianity’.
-
Serves the same purpose, yes. I have said I have no problem with people exploring meaning & morality in any way they see fit.
-
I just wish to keep objective truth separate from this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The evidence indicates that life is meaningless, morals a sham and free will an illusion.
-
Only if you require meaning and morality to exist outside human brains.
-
Which of course people do, regardless of what they say.
-
They do? Most just take it for granted, I think. I know few people who believe in a god or think abt the sources of meaning & morality
-
I’m quite sure that most people I know think that their moral feelings reflect an external reality. Why disabuse them?
-
Because they're wrong? And usually its a god & that hasn't worked out well for humanity? I really need to go to bed now.
-
Good night, and thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And what if pointing out that it isn’t true is destructive of social bonds?
-
What is not pointing out that it isn't true is destructive of social bonds. I'll be writing a review of a book arguing just this shortly.
-
This is an empirical question. I compare the Christians with whom I grew up to the atheists I dwell among now. No comparison.
-
So is the book. It's about post-truth, the fragmentation of US & UK society & how its sources are in ideas like these.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He's not remotely Chopra-lite New Age or alt-right shill. You guys shd give him his due and spend the time to engage. He's important.
-
No, honestly, it's fine. I hate that shit but have many other sources for thinking about meaning and morality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He's talking about truths that serve life: how to BE. Religious stories are our 1st attempts at defining that. They emerged from observation
-
That was never the point of disagreement. We are in full agreement about what he means by truth and the purpose it serves.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.