It’s tempting to be sold on the idea of “ultimate reality”; that there exists something deeper than the reality we have, and that is the real arbiter that justifies or disconfirms the validity of our beliefs; the very concept of truth or even the mark scheme against which beliefs are considered more or less defensible… Continue reading “Ultimate Reality”?
Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, a very long time ago now, had their first podcast together. Whatever their schedule, their conversation turned to a massive disagreement about the concept of truth. It wasn’t about whether ‘truth’ is ever attainable, they disagreed about what it literally is. And, despite the commentary, it is not a case… Continue reading Truth: is it coherent? (A follow up on Sam Harris and Jordan B Peterson)
Anyone who can utter or attempt to defend the position―as Alister McGraph did―that theism is a reasonable position because “atheism… rest[s] on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis” simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Reasonable conversations do not work that way: they do not attempt to destroy an opposing view (presented accurately, or not) and then… Continue reading “Atheism rests on a less than satisfactory evidential basis”
Did man create God? Yes. I like to pick questions a part a little, and so I’m going to do that with this question, focussing on the words “create” and “God”. Firstly, I’m going to present a slightly facetious argument to help unpick the word “God”, and then I’m going to present a much more… Continue reading Did man create God?
One of the questions posed by religious people is how atheists propose to disprove the existence of a God. On the face of it, the question is ridiculous as there is no reason to believe God would be the default position; it is not on the atheist to disprove God before positive evidence is given… Continue reading Falsification or positive evidence?
All species exist within their ecology and niche. This is a combination of physical things, both favourable and unfavourable: nutrients and prey, predators and toxins, hot and cold, water and salt. If you imagine a deer in the woods, it exists among the trees, eating grass and bark. Humans are not like this. We live… Continue reading The Human Ecosystem: knowledge and philosophy
Contrary to many environmental philosophies, I think it is important to recognise humans as occupying a special niche within nature. Eco-philosophies often have the assumption that humans are, in fact, indistinguishable from the rest of nature and the logical conclusion is that humans have no special rights to abstraction and interference. I think the logical… Continue reading Deep Ecology, Eco-Moral Nihilism and Meat Eating
Not knowing. We've all had the religious try to shoehorn in their preferred deity where science has had the humility to admit it doesn't know. The arrogance may even have struck and annoyed many of us. So, I thought it would earn a full place in my book, and here are the 3,000 words I've… Continue reading Book Excerpt: To not know
It is easy to assert something; it is slightly harder to back it up. But endeavour, my comrades, for in the effort of backing a claim up you finally add some substance, enter into a real conversation and, most excitingly of all, run the risk of learning something. “Religion and science are incompatible”. Is that… Continue reading What is the Conflict between Science and Religion?
In my last post I said I would choose happiness and ignorance over misery and knowledge, if somehow those were my options, almost without hesitation. But it wasn’t without hesitation. I took many years to overcome my sense of pride that I associate with knowledge and to recognise the true bliss of just being happy.… Continue reading Happy and Ignorant or Miserable and Knowledgeable