Pardon me if I report old news, but it seems to me that this thread should already have been filled with this report.

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Cult not only don't represent other Christian churches, they condemn them for not being part of their unholy "Predestination" idea.  It's Calvinism thrown into Hyperdrive, featuring wife-beatin' and child-abusin' Fred with his grubby hands on the steering wheel.  His well-flogged child army follows him with their own brainwashed paws brandishing signs, lest they warrant extra licks next time inside Westboro's "discipline rooms."

stephen judd wrote:

---

Point taken but I'm a but concerned that your take on my "imprecise" use of language makes me out to be somewhat naive in terms of my understanding and use of both language and "rationality". I do not concede that I was discussing "subjective" truth -- because in fact it is possible for others to both experience and verify that "truth" through a variety of means -- but those means are not necessarily the product of only language or of an intellectual system. Metaphysics as a philosphical system of thought has tried to approach ways of verifying this kind of knowlege. So has Aesthetics. The problem with holding too rigidly to rationalism is that it privileges the knowlege of the mind over other forms of knowlege -- and that association of the word knowlege with other ways in which the body learns also has a fairly venerable tradition in the history of ideas. I may be an artist but my undergraduate training was in philosophy (although I don't want to even try to portray myself as a professional philosopher). I am interested that one of the more interesting threads of philosphical discourse is defining exactly what we mean by "knowlege" - which of course suggests that language itself is both imprecise and also is a field of contention even as we use it as a tool to both seek and certify "truth".  I am not myself inclined to the metaphysical . . .  but it has a long tradition in philosophy and certainly at least serves to raise the questions about whether there are forms of "knowing" that reside within the body (the senses) and the "soul" (assuming, as metaphycians do, that there is some form of existence outside of, or beyond materiality). As both an artist and a rationalist (how about that for a combination!) I'm quite aware of the pheomenon of experiencing "knowlege" in both ways. When, for instance, I finish a drawing. or a painting, or a scene design, I "know" when it is complete -- though someone watching my process might not understand how that happens. It is sometimes (although not always) possible to examine the work, determine the "logic" of its structure, and make a rational case (after the fact) for why it has reached that state of completeness. That is often the discourse of historians or critics, who then may translate that "intuited" knowlege of the maker into the discourse of the rational or, a least, the empirical. Most people agree, when looking at the "Night Watchmen" or the "Mona Lisa", that there is a finite range of experiences those paintings produce in the viewer, though many viewers may not be able to explain exactly why. Few people would describe the Mona Lisa as "hysterical" or the "Night Watchmen" as violent. That is knowlege, however imprecise, and within a certain limted frame, can show the way in which art can, in a non-specific way, elicit common experiences. In that sense most viewers come to share a "knowlege" of a painting that exists on a level that is not scholarly but is both sharable and even verifiable. I'm off for the night -- but thanks for the thoughtful response.

---

Stephen, thanks for a very interesting and thoughtful response.  It is probably no surprise when I say I have a science background, and I’m learning a lot from your post.  I’m sorry you took my post to imply you were “naïve” because I know you and your background.  For the record, you to have the stronger philosophical background.

 

I know almost nothing about art, but let me explain how it appears to me.  You were discussing your internal mental states when you “knew the work was completed”.  How did you “know” this?   Probably you used another “internal” mental state as your “evidence”.    For me “beauty” doesn’t exist.  It “exist” in the mind of the beholder, another internal mental state.   Dreams are internal mental states of humans. The objects of dreams don’t exist, but they “exist” for the dreamer.  Most of our language goes back to before the development of science and has undefined terms such as “soul”, etc.

 

When people say the supernatural exist, I take it to mean they believe it is more than just an internal mental state.  If God only “exist”, i.e. an internal mental state, I have no problem.  But people confuse language and say God exist and therefore we must do actions X, Y or Z.  If God is only an internal mental state, like beauty and love, I have no problem with theist using metaphorical language.  But since theists imply God exist in objective reality, then I contend we must used the precise language of science rather than the language of the artist.     

 

From the wide range of theist claiming to have “absolute truth”, I consider it very likely they are only describing their internal mental states: dreams , wishes, and other brain chemistry variations, rather than anything true in objective reality.

 

I hope you can respond and correct any misunderstanding I may have. 

 

 

 

 

Atheist wrote:

---

stephen judd wrote: Point taken but I'm a but concerned that your take on my "imprecise" use of language makes me out to be somewhat naive in terms of my understanding and use of both language and "rationality". I do not concede that I was discussing "subjective" truth -- because in fact it is possible for others to both experience and verify that "truth" through a variety of means -- but those means are not necessarily the product of only language or of an intellectual system. Metaphysics as a philosphical system of thought has tried to approach ways of verifying this kind of knowlege. So has Aesthetics. The problem with holding too rigidly to rationalism is that it privileges the knowlege of the mind over other forms of knowlege -- and that association of the word knowlege with other ways in which the body learns also has a fairly venerable tradition in the history of ideas. I may be an artist but my undergraduate training was in philosophy (although I don't want to even try to portray myself as a professional philosopher). I am interested that one of the more interesting threads of philosphical discourse is defining exactly what we mean by "knowlege" - which of course suggests that language itself is both imprecise and also is a field of contention even as we use it as a tool to both seek and certify "truth".  I am not myself inclined to the metaphysical . . .  but it has a long tradition in philosophy and certainly at least serves to raise the questions about whether there are forms of "knowing" that reside within the body (the senses) and the "soul" (assuming, as metaphycians do, that there is some form of existence outside of, or beyond materiality). As both an artist and a rationalist (how about that for a combination!) I'm quite aware of the pheomenon of experiencing "knowlege" in both ways. When, for instance, I finish a drawing. or a painting, or a scene design, I "know" when it is complete -- though someone watching my process might not understand how that happens. It is sometimes (although not always) possible to examine the work, determine the "logic" of its structure, and make a rational case (after the fact) for why it has reached that state of completeness. That is often the discourse of historians or critics, who then may translate that "intuited" knowlege of the maker into the discourse of the rational or, a least, the empirical. Most people agree, when looking at the "Night Watchmen" or the "Mona Lisa", that there is a finite range of experiences those paintings produce in the viewer, though many viewers may not be able to explain exactly why. Few people would describe the Mona Lisa as "hysterical" or the "Night Watchmen" as violent. That is knowlege, however imprecise, and within a certain limted frame, can show the way in which art can, in a non-specific way, elicit common experiences. In that sense most viewers come to share a "knowlege" of a painting that exists on a level that is not scholarly but is both sharable and even verifiable. I'm off for the night -- but thanks for the thoughtful response. Stephen, thanks for a very interesting and thoughtful response.  It is probably no surprise when I say I have a science background, and I’m learning a lot from your post.  I’m sorry you took my post to imply you were “naïve” because I know you and your background.  For the record, you to have the stronger philosophical background.   I know almost nothing about art, but let me explain how it appears to me.  You were discussing your internal mental states when you “knew the work was completed”.  How did you “know” this?   Probably you used another “internal” mental state as your “evidence”.    For me “beauty” doesn’t exist.  It “exist” in the mind of the beholder, another internal mental state.   Dreams are internal mental states of humans. The objects of dreams don’t exist, but they “exist” for the dreamer.  Most of our language goes back to before the development of science and has undefined terms such as “soul”, etc.   When people say the supernatural exist, I take it to mean they believe it is more than just an internal mental state.  If God only “exist”, i.e. an internal mental state, I have no problem.  But people confuse language and say God exist and therefore we must do actions X, Y or Z.  If God is only an internal mental state, like beauty and love, I have no problem with theist using metaphorical language.  But since theists imply God exist in objective reality, then I contend we must used the precise language of science rather than the language of the artist.        From the wide range of theist claiming to have “absolute truth”, I consider it very likely they are only describing their internal mental states: dreams , wishes, and other brain chemistry variations, rather than anything true in objective reality.   I hope you can respond and correct any misunderstanding I may have.         

---

Wow. That gave me something to think about for sure. Unfortunately I'm kind of on the run with getting the summer season up so can't spend too long on what is a really provocative exchange.

You are right in your identifying of "internal mental states" as not "existing" in a material sense. On the other hand, the work of the artist does have objective existence, and it is using language (and developing it in a precise a way as we can) to point to the mental state that produced it  (and the mental state through which it is perceived by the audence) that enables us to compare and contrast how different people perceive the work. This act (when it occurs) of examing the production and effect of the work of art enables us to both develop a more precise language for speaking about art and also to try to develop an objective framework to learn how we can validate or verify "knowlege" that has often been labeled as subjective and therefore not verifiable. I think artists are in a unique position (more so than metaphysicians) because we aren't trying to prove the existence of something but rather to focus on the tools we have to talk about something that already does exist, but the production of and the apprehension of occurs on a plane of experience that is other than simply linguistic or rational (damn that is an awkward sentence -- sorry).

So in a sense, for me, the existence of art is humbling in that it opens up the possibility for me of a world of experience (and knowlege) that in fact does have truth (that is discoverable and even can be broadly universal) and yet is neither rational nor only materia, since the work of art is itself an material artifact of a process that is immaterial. In essence, the work of art is a complex symbol of a "truth" that is the mental process of the artist that developed it in a different yet similar way that language is an artifact (and symbol) of the thought processes that produces the ideas that language attempts to describe.

God I hope that makes some sense . . . 

I agree with you that the popular use of language ("soul" and some of the others you use) is imprecise in the sense that the people who use it tend to accept the conventional meanings rather than to look at the language as a "tool". But I think that is the distinction between a believer and a critic, if you will. A believer, havng already accepted the premise of his/her belief, generally doesn't feel the need to continue to critical examine those beliefs or the discourse upon which belief is based. On the other hand, professional skeptics/critics in any of these areas (aesthetics; metaphysics; etc.) are constantly looking for more precise ways to describe and to verify experiences which most people simply accept (usually non-critically) or reject entirely because of their very ambiguity, as I suspect you have elected to do (that isn't intended asa criticism, simly as an observation).

Having said that -- I'm comfortable with using the language of science general;y because I think it tends to attempt to be more precise. On the other hand, I can;t accept (as an artist) that the only phenomena worth examining are those that exist in the material world. For me, the art artifiact, as a materia object, exists because it points to a world behind the object itself that is real, but immaterial.

OK -- I really have stayed too long here. But thank you so much for posing some excellent responses and sharing your own thinking. That is very helpful, and now i will go through my day as I work wondering more about why I make things as well as simply enjoying the process of making and the effect that making has on myself and on others. It is easy to get in that  . . .

Atheist, I'm not entering the deep conversation between you and Stephen, but I want to comment on one thing you said,

"building hospitals, helping the poor and hurricane victims (so that they can convert people?). (No offense intended.) "

Christians have several mandates. One is to "go into all the world" to "make disciples of all nations" but another is that whatever we do unto "least of these" we have done unto Jesus. In other words, we build the hospitals, etc., because that's part of our mandate to serve. The mandate to convert lies alongside, rather than beneath, the mandate to help people. (Hope that image makes sense.) If the helping results in conversions, then fine, but the helping would not stop if there were no conversions. We were told to help, so we help. We're told to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is not followed by any qualification such as, "but only if your neighbor agrees with you or loves you back."

PS to FAA -- I may have spoken too hastily about +BH.

More theist activities.  (Oh, but they aren't real theist!)

CNN--Indictment: Suspects wanted to 'kill all the devils we can'
U.S.: 'Homegrown terrorists' eyed Sears Tower

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/23/miami.raids/index.html

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

Atheist, The plural of athiest is atheists. You seem to struggle with that.

---

Thanks for the correction, Curmudgeon.  And for reading all I wrote to find that/those error(s).  I guess that is something I caught from responding to Stephen Judd. 

What did you think of the content of the post?

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

The plural of post is posts.

---

I was speaking of the content of the last item I posted. 

P.S. You missed several of the spelling errors in my earlier posts, not to mention some punctuation errors.

Atheist wrote:

---

stephen judd wrote: Wow. That gave me something to think about for sure. Unfortunately I'm kind of on the run with getting the summer season up so can't spend too long on what is a really provocative exchange. You are right in your identifying of "internal mental states" as not "existing" in a material sense. On the other hand, the work of the artist does have objective existence, and it is using language (and developing it in a precise a way as we can) to point to the mental state that produced it  (and the mental state through which it is perceived by the audence) that enables us to compare and contrast how different people perceive the work. This act (when it occurs) of examing the production and effect of the work of art enables us to both develop a more precise language for speaking about art and also to try to develop an objective framework to learn how we can validate or verify "knowlege" that has often been labeled as subjective and therefore not verifiable. I think artists are in a unique position (more so than metaphysicians) because we aren't trying to prove the existence of something but rather to focus on the tools we have to talk about something that already does exist, but the production of and the apprehension of occurs on a plane of experience that is other than simply linguistic or rational (damn that is an awkward sentence -- sorry). So in a sense, for me, the existence of art is humbling in that it opens up the possibility for me of a world of experience (and knowlege) that in fact does have truth (that is discoverable and even can be broadly universal) and yet is neither rational nor only materia, since the work of art is itself an material artifact of a process that is immaterial. In essence, the work of art is a complex symbol of a "truth" that is the mental process of the artist that developed it in a different yet similar way that language is an artifact (and symbol) of the thought processes that produces the ideas that language attempts to describe. God I hope that makes some sense . . .  I agree with you that the popular use of language ("soul" and some of the others you use) is imprecise in the sense that the people who use it tend to accept the conventional meanings rather than to look at the language as a "tool". But I think that is the distinction between a believer and a critic, if you will. A believer, havng already accepted the premise of his/her belief, generally doesn't feel the need to continue to critical examine those beliefs or the discourse upon which belief is based. On the other hand, professional skeptics/critics in any of these areas (aesthetics; metaphysics; etc.) are constantly looking for more precise ways to describe and to verify experiences which most people simply accept (usually non-critically) or reject entirely because of their very ambiguity, as I suspect you have elected to do (that isn't intended asa criticism, simly as an observation). Having said that -- I'm comfortable with using the language of science general;y because I think it tends to attempt to be more precise. On the other hand, I can;t accept (as an artist) that the only phenomena worth examining are those that exist in the material world. For me, the art artifiact, as a materia object, exists because it points to a world behind the object itself that is real, but immaterial. OK -- I really have stayed too long here. But thank you so much for posing some excellent responses and sharing your own thinking. That is very helpful, and now i will go through my day as I work wondering more about why I make things as well as simply enjoying the process of making and the effect that making has on myself and on others. It is easy to get in that  . . . Stephen, I really appreciate you responding because I’m retired and you are busy working as chairman, as well as, faculty leader in AAUP and Faculty Senate.   If you find time, I would benefit from your comments on my reply to your latest post.   Internal mental states do have a physical representation. Brain activity has been studied via brain scans that have identified areas simulated during various mental states.  However, the interpretation of these brain functions by the individual is what constitutes the subjective “internal mental state” experienced by the individual.   I would describe your explanation of the “art process” in the following way.  Humans receive “brain stimulations” long before birth.  After birth the stimulations are very large and frequent long before language exist.  So I would say that, without being aware of it, we have all been program by our interaction with the physical world.  For example, when we hear Beethoven’s Fifth we are not likely to be reminded of flights of bumblebees.  We learned, long before language, that big, heavy things that can fall and hurt us make very deep, low frequency sounds, while small thing tend to make higher pitch sounds.  I’m sure you are an expert in our visual programming that results in the optical illusions and effects employed by both artist and magicians.          So artists have the ability to “press our buttons” and cause us to move into predetermined “internal mental states”.  This internal world “exist” only in our mind and doesn’t exist in the sense we use the word in the rest of our dealing with everyday things.   The problems occur when we say, “The picture is beautiful” because the picture doesn’t possess the property of beauty.  Beauty is the internal mental state in us caused by the picture.  It may cause a different mental state in another person.  I still must make an effort to enjoy a “beautiful sunset” because I know the wonderful colors are being caused by the dust and pollution in our atmosphere.  (Ignorance is bliss.)    Is this what the theist is doing?  Using very old and confusing language resulting in thinking God exist instead of God “exist”.    And therefore acting as if they have knowledge of reality that others don’t have.   This results in crusades, inquisitions, killing of abortionist and homosexuals, bombing nonbelievers etc, etc, as well as, building hospitals, helping the poor and hurricane victims (so that they can convert people?).  (No offense intended.)    So what do you think?  Please correct my misunderstanding. 

---

Can't stay long tonight -- a long day and an equally long morrow. However, I'll try briefly to reply (perhaps only enough to acknowlege my want to continue the conversation in more depth and with time) and to honor your thoughtful response.

I agree with you that the adjectives by which we respond to things cannot be ascribed to the things themselves. I would say that just as we can observe the object, we can also observe the response -- both are observable phenomena. What we learn in art is that art becomes a way to, on one hand, measure the agreement of response across to an artwork among observers -- which can then lead us, perhaps, to begin to make some predictions about the kind of response we can generally expect from the work (although I quickly admit those responses are subject to change over time). So, in the sense that a broad number of observers have agreed that when they contemplate Robert Motherwell's Elegy to the Spanish Republic the experience most describe captures some sense of an experience of the tragic, then the painting can be said to possess those qualities most people associate with the tragic -- perhaps in a similar way that the red in the painting is "red", although we know it isn't materially red at all but is the product of the impact of reflected light on our optical sensors. For me, the reality isn't, strictly speaking in the object, but in the relatonship between object and observer. Without the object that stimulates the observer has no specific experience; without the observer the object can evoke nothing - it simply is.

I think this is one reason that rather than being an atheist, I count myself an agnostic. First, because as an artist I know there are planes of experience that are "true" and yet are not material. And because not material, not materially (and thus scientifically) verifiable.

And second . . .  because it makes sense to me that if something existed that I would understand to be "god", it would by definition transcend the physcial and material (although it might participate in it) -- which also means transcending my ability to both sufficiently describe or even to verify it in terms that science utilizes. So it also makes sense to me that "god" simply isn't provable in conventional terms using the tools we have. 

I don't find that disturbing, though I am not myself convinced enough to become a believer. The love that exists between lovers is also not really "provable", only observable. We can measure the effect. We can write poems celebrating its existence. But in the end the surest evidence we have of the existence of love are the examples of devotion that proves itself over time between people -- and even then, we do not have absolute certainty. If it is difficult to prove something even when people quite clearly, exist as objects in the material world, it should be no suprise that it would be impossible to rationally prove something in a trancendent, immaterial one.

Paul says that faith is evidence . . .  he never claims it is proof. In fact, I think his radical challenge to those of us who do not believe is his stipulation that we have to abandon hope of proof in order to be open to the effects of faith. I suspect this is because the act of faith itself ought to be humbling -- an act that when made is a confession that we cannot know, really, cannot circumscribe that which is outside ourselves, in the presence of which we must acknowlege our limitations of knowlege -- and perhaps of the kind of presumptuous arrogance that allows people to presume to speak for god, or to act in his/her name in ways that have sometimes been far more absolute ( your "bombing of non-believers" for instance) than is warrented by the limitations of our experience of God(s). 

I suspect I may come across as dodging your question -- am I? Clearly this is an area in which I accept - - and perhaps even embrace -- ambiguity.

I share with you an abhorance for the kind of intolerances and horrific actions that religious belief has caused -- have you ever read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer?" As a former evangelical I am apalled at my own former certitude . . . . the best examples we have of faith in most great religious stories are those in which the believer experiences doubt, skepticism, and even sometimes nearly rejects belief even as he or she struggles t maintain a relationship with a god that is often as absent as present. The problem I have with many who are co certain is that their god is too easy -- always present, always clear always speaking with absolute precision and enabling them to hear and see with abolute clarity of understanding - a state no married couple, however much devoted, would ever claim as a permenant one.

Doubt -- whether from outside of belief or from inside of belief -- should be humbling. And that humility should lead us to be doubtful of saying or doing anything that will have irreversible effects -- the worst of which is murdering in behalf of faith.

I've rambled on way too long and probably haven't even really fully satisfied your question -- but this is the best I can do for the moment.

I'll apologize, as always, for the typos and mispells.  

Cossack wrote:

---

"building hospitals, helping the poor and hurricane victims (so that they can convert people?). I am sure that the poor and hurricane victims are really hacked that they were helped by devious Christians trying to save their souls. They should have waited for the Atheist Benevolent Society to come and help. Oh, I forgot, there is no Atheist Benevolent Society and the world is wondering why.

---

Cossack, sorry I almost missed your post.  I agree there is no "Atheist Benevolent Society". However, atheists are good (and bad) citizens just like everyone else.  Personally I worked with the Red Cross in hurricane relief and I give to charities, both religious based and non-religious, especially ones that help the poor.  Atheists do these things without being "order to to them or fear going to hell". 

LVN wrote:

---

Atheist, you and Stephen could both stop quoting the other's entire post, and that would help as far as the length of each post.

---

I agree, LVN.  I try to only quote the last part of his post, but he keeps quoting the entire exchange.  I think he is very busy.  Thanks.

Fred will sizzle, I hope you think you're smart. How's the weather in Naples FL??

Cossack, sorry I almost missed your post. I agree there is no "Atheist Benevolent Society". However, atheists are good (and bad) citizens just like everyone else. Personally I worked with the Red Cross in hurricane relief and I give to charities, both religious based and non-religious, especially ones that help the poor. Atheists do these things without being "order to to them or fear going to hell"


My point is this: if you are member of an organized religion, great. If you are in a cult, great. If you are an Atheist, great. Whatever you believe, keep it private. As for helping those less fortunate, my only criteria is that the money I give goes to help, not to pay overhead of an organization. The Salvation Army is much more efficient than the Red Cross in dollars put into helping versus overhead than the Red Cross.

MSNBC--Stephen Hawking touches on God and science
Physicist says Pope John Paul told scientists not to study universe’s origins

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13340672/

"Hawking quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."   ...

"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said during a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology."

 

Cossack wrote:

---

In contrast, Atheists often attempt to suppress the free speech of religious folks by trying to get laws passed and/or sue in court. I maintain my stance that Atheists are the mirror image of religious folks. Neither stays quiet and pursues their personal beliefs in a private way. So far though, I do not recall anyone posting under the handles of Christian, or Baptist, Catholic, or Church of the Left Handed Sinners. Religious folks and Atheists are tied to each other an interesting way, similar to two magnets. Fortunately, I tend to like folks in both groups whenever they discuss things other than religion or lack of religion. Actually, I even like both groups when they squabble.

---

Cossack, as far as I know, the only cases of citizens attempting to suppress the "free speech of religious folks" through law is when the religious folk use state owned public address systems at ball games or graduations for prayer.  The obvious reason is citizens consider it against the constitution.  If you know of other cases, please inform me so I may educate myself.  My posts have been in response to theists public actions. Since H'burg is in the Bible belt, I think a little balance is a healthy thing.  It gives people something to think about.

P.S. I picked my name in order to be open and honest of my position(s).