@cbontenbal@mastodon.social
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

cbontenbal

@[email protected]

Living in #TheHague in #TheNetherlands. Father of 2 girls. Math teacher. Communist. Incurably religious. No smartphone.
#philosophy #science #theology #religion #spirituality

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

EricLawton, to philosophy
@EricLawton@spore.social avatar

@davidesalerno68

Contrary to Thatcher, I think that there's no such thing as individuals without society.

Minds are a product of our existence as social beings, and that is part of the reason why reality is a social construct.

@cbontenbal @economics @smithkm @philosophy

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@EricLawton @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy I think that's a great idea!

ralphcrutzen, to philosophy Dutch
@ralphcrutzen@mastodon.education avatar

@cbontenbal @philosophy
Oops, I misinterpreted the word 'metaphysics'; I was under the false impression it had to do with the supernatural. You can ignore the last sentence in my toot!

The reason I conclude there are no gods: I see no need for any to exist. Gods once were invented by mankind to explain natural phenomena, but nowadays we have science to do this.

I find it hard to explain atheism. The burden of proof lies with people who claim that something exists, not the other way around.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@ralphcrutzen @philosophy I asked the question wrong. It should have been: what metaphysics do you use? And does God/god/gods have a place in it?

ralphcrutzen, to philosophy Dutch
@ralphcrutzen@mastodon.education avatar

@cbontenbal
Funny, I myself am an atheist and always wonder why people believe in the supernatural, because I never came across a convincing reason why something like that should exist.

Your question feels like I have to explain the obvious. For me, it's impossible to explain atheism in a metaphysical way, because I can't describe something in terms of the very thing it rejects.

@philosophy

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@ralphcrutzen @philosophy Can I conclude from this that your metaphysics leads to the conclusion that god does not exist? Or didn't you mean your toot like that?

EricLawton, to philosophy Dutch
@EricLawton@spore.social avatar

@cbontenbal

Minds are part of physical reality.

They're abstract, but so are bodies. The atoms they're made of change fairly rapidly; it's not the matter that matters.

Are bodies less real than atoms (which exist in ways we find strange and can't understand well without complex mathematical theories)?

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@EricLawton @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy The physical reality is part of the mind.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @EricLawton @economics @smithkm @philosophy Yes, but a powerful trick!

EricLawton, to philosophy
@EricLawton@spore.social avatar

@cbontenbal

It depends. Generally yes, if we have very widely agreed ways of distinguishing between real and otherwise.

But only real numbers. Not imaginary ones. (😀 - jk).

Colours can be very subjective.

Unfortunately, we seem to be losing our social construction¹ of the laws of nature.

  1. A nod to Berger and Luckmann "The Social Construction of Reality"

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@EricLawton @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy “Everything is a social construct” sounds more like something that exists in the mind than in physical reality.

EricLawton, to philosophy
@EricLawton@spore.social avatar

@cbontenbal

No, countries, libraries, money, … are all real.

They are generally, eventually grounded in matter but not in an obvious way. Money is an especially clear example because it changes its material basis rapidly and radically.

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@EricLawton @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy And what about laws of nature? Or language? Numbers? Music? Colors?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum @philosophy @davidesalerno68 @smithkm @EricLawton @economics No, I did not.

cbontenbal, to philosophy Dutch
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@ergoplato @philosophy I have an intuitive idea of what is rational and what is not, and atheism falls (for now) under the latter. Unless there is someone who convinces me otherwise.

I agree with you that most believers will not recognize my image of god.

cbontenbal, to philosophy Dutch
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

I find myself not understanding the concept of atheism. Who wants to explain it to me in a coherent way for a beginner? With a metaphysical substantiation please, if that is at all possible.

@philosophy

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@lxvtnii @Drew @philippsteinkrueger @philosophy Thank you for this substantive response. You are one of the few who respond substantively.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@msteenhagen @spencer @philippsteinkrueger @Drew @philosophy You hit the nail on the head. My question should have been more specific, although I wonder whether the average fellow man sees himself as a naturalist or nihilist.
To start with those two: is naturalism or nihilism rationally defensible according to you?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy At least you have a good understanding of what the word "god" usually means, unlike most here.
A personal question: do you have experiences that you could call spiritual?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum @Drew @philosophy @philippsteinkrueger Something that is not itself a being but passes beyond being, something that is not part of this reality but is its source. Like (to use a metaphor) a programmer creates a computer game without having to be part of it.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@msteenhagen @spencer @philippsteinkrueger @Drew @philosophy And then the question arises: which rationally defensible world views remain?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy Do you think that the same applies to physical experiences?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy So matter is the only 'real' thing?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@Vincarsi @philosophy OK, that is clear. The next question is: what is your personal worldview?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@pauld @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy Many (most?) philosophers would not agree with that.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy Thoughts!

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@msteenhagen @HeavenlyPossum @philippsteinkrueger @philosophy @Drew I don't force anyone to do anything. What I am curious about is whether the person is looking for explanations at all, for example physical explanations for certain phenomena.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy At the moment I'm mainly asking questions here.

Do you think that physical experiences are also a byproduct of the conscious mind?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum @msteenhagen @philippsteinkrueger @Drew @philosophy God does not "exist" the way a pumpkin exists. People, plants, things exist. The existence of god or gods is a metaphor for something that cannot otherwise be explained. Thinkers of earlier times would say that God transcends being.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum @msteenhagen @Drew @philosophy @philippsteinkrueger I think only thoughts are real.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@Flyy @MsDropbear84 @philippsteinkrueger @Drew @philosophy You could say the same about a concept like "truth".

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy I consider myself an idealist in the philosophical sense. Thoughts are more real to me than physical things. Furthermore, I observe that people have spiritual experiences (just as they have physical or aesthetic experiences). Just as the physicist deduces that there is a physical reality, I conclude that there is also a transcendent reality.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy Then we would agree that those zeros and ones are not the story, but the carriers of the story.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@HappyHeathen @philosophy It seemed belittling to me. Glad it wasn't meant that way.
What exactly did you mean to say?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@pauld @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy Good questions that I don't have an answer to right now. I am going to think about it.
It was certainly not the intention to provide a philosophical explanation. That'll come. When I have my thoughts a bit more straight.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@pauld @tetranomos @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy From experience I can say that that is completely correct.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy That's right. It's also true the other way around: if the creator changes the story, the zeros and ones change.
Natural science is used to providing answers to questions by reduction. The humanities by doing the opposite: asking for higher causes.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@HappyHeathen @philosophy Are there still things that are real to you?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy The question remains: is reality fundamentally physical in nature, or spiritual in nature?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy I think the relationship between God and reality is non-physical.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@Jakra @philosophy OK, that seems like a reasonable position to me.
Religion and science have had a bad relationship over the last few hundred years. Personally, I see the enormous value of science, also when it comes to the origins of the universe and the origins of the human species.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@economics @davidesalerno68 @smithkm @philosophy The brain is an 'object' in the mind.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@davidesalerno68 @jordan_kendrick @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy God has no place in the universe! God is beyond the universe. God is beyond being, and beyond thinking.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@jordan_kendrick @davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy Exactly what @jordan_kendrick says.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@pauld @davidesalerno68 @economics @smithkm @philosophy I think (but I'm still looking for the arguments for it) that the division between transcendent and immanent is fundamental and absolute.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@pauld @davidesalerno68 @jordan_kendrick @economics @smithkm @philosophy You should read Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, especially his book Mystical Theology. Rooted in the Neo-Platonic tradition, it forms the basis of the thinking of, for example, Eriugena and Thomas Aquinas.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@SusanHR @davidesalerno68 @pauld @economics @smithkm @philosophy Thank you for articulating the materialist's creed: "Credo in materia. Nihil aliud. Amen."

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@pauld @davidesalerno68 @jordan_kendrick @economics @smithkm @philosophy Other thinkers can formulate what I mean better.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@SusanHR @pauld @davidesalerno68 @jordan_kendrick @economics @smithkm @philosophy I don't think I said that God is a man. And if I did that by accident: apologies.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@Jakra @davidesalerno68 @philosophy Standing on the outside looking in, its quite apparent that science is a human invention. Standing on the inside looking out, I'm sure that people are convinced theirs is the true understanding of reality.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@msteenhagen @EdwardJCornwell @lack @spencer @philosophy @Drew @philippsteinkrueger Isn't the problem that we want to separate object and subject? Maybe phenomenology provides an answer?

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@EdwardJCornwell @msteenhagen @lack @spencer @philosophy @Drew @philippsteinkrueger Edward, you're right! My thread has been completely stolen! :-)

By the way, I agree with you that I cannot verify the existence of God. I haven't decided on the colors yet.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@msteenhagen @EdwardJCornwell @Drew @philippsteinkrueger @spencer @lack @philosophy Plotinus! Now we are getting somewhere!

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@msteenhagen @EdwardJCornwell @Drew @philippsteinkrueger @spencer @lack @philosophy Plotinus. Philo. Dionysius. Eriugena. Cusanus. Eckhart. Böhme. Kant.

cbontenbal,
@cbontenbal@mastodon.social avatar

@dingodog19 @ber @philosophy Some do not understand that 'God' is beyond reality. God is transcendent, in other words, God is, as it were, the ground of reality.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •