Love it, I tried to convey something similar using the term 'falsifiable belief' but I like propositional a lot more. I remember being one of those atheists unable to connect with metaphor outside of propositional belief to such an extent that I couldn't even let myself enjoy the fantasy genre because of the employment of magic systems. Now it is one of my favorite genres, and perhaps my enjoyment of these stories and the lessons within played a large part in helping me to appreciate the value of having faith in the unseen world, or at least being able to connect with the unknowable in a way that is personally meaningful.
I had been in a similar place back then. That's the pernicious thing IMO about certain forms of atheism/materialism: some of the popular proponents actively poo-poo absolutely everything that is not "science" (in their definition of it), to the point that one can come to the conclusion that literature, philosophy, art, not to mention spiritual writings, are nothing but primitive woo-woo. It's really sad, actually, at least that's how I feel about myself in a certain period of my life.
Regarding falsification, you probably thought along very similar lines as me. I don't really like talking about falsification though, because to me Popper's great contribution to the philosophy of science was just that: a great contribution to the philosophy of science. Nothing more, nothing less. And yet many people constantly deify the falsification principle as if the "scientific method" had been forever defined and everything else can be excluded. It's also funny because Popper was actually a die-hard anti-materialist.
To play devil's advocate, I suppose the common rejoinder to your analogy of the squirrel would be that there isn't a consistent, falsifiable method for determining tree disappearance. One squirrel may have a theory about the timber industry, another about alien abductions, a third about trees turning into birds overnight, but without an objective verification process, it's all guesswork and begging. In other words, if truth is beyond the ability of squirrels to test, than it either doesn't exist or may well as not exist, and there's actually no difference, in that model of squirrel epistemology.
Yes, this is precisely the answer one would get from certain types. It is rather boneheaded though, isn't it? It lacks curiosity and imagination. (McGilchrist has a great chapter on the importance of imagination for gaining knowledge.)
Besides, suppose there is a mathematical pattern to the tree felling (not unlikely). A curious squirrel would ask the hard questions: Why? What's this all about? What does it have to do with me?
Mr. Nut-Jones, on the other hand, would simply declare that since we can't design an experiment to answer such questions, they are just gobbledygook and everybody trying to find answers via other means should be canceled from the squirrel academy... Heck, they should be canceled even IF they manage to design an experiment that yields results, if of a subtle kind...
Right. And I'd actually add a little something to that.
I suspect it's not only a lack of imagination. That obviously plays a role, but there might be something else higher up the priority chain. I think that this something else is akin to a fear of "being right" about the timber industry theory. Not just fear, either, but a paralyzing existential terror of what a real timber industry and market might mean.
⚠ Beware: most egregiously long quote ahead, enter at your own discretion.
~~
Thankfully, Nuts-Joneses, PhD don’t exhaust the pool of scientists. The Great Explainer had this to say ↓↓
🗨 It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe, beyond man, to contemplate what it would be like without man, as it was in a great part of its long history and as it is in a great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are fully appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting.
It usually ends in laughter and a delight in the futility of trying to understand what this atom in the universe is, this thing—atoms with curiosity—that looks at itself and wonders why it wonders. Well, these scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.
Some will tell me that I have just described a religious experience. Very well, you may call it what you will. Then, in that language I would say that the young man's religious experience is of such a kind that he finds the religion of his church inadequate to describe, to encompass that kind of experience. The God of the church isn't big enough.
"it is not about “believing” something, but about choosing the right object of faith, and then overcoming all the challenges that the world keeps throwing at you, with your inner vision sternly focused on that object of faith."
I liked this. Eliphas Levi said the magician must accept the twin pillars of reason and faith, each are as important as the other. "The definitive alliance of reason and faith results not in their absolute distinction but in their mutual control and their fraternal confluence."
Good to see that the distinction between Faith and Belief is gaining broader attention. My interpretation of Pistis is somewhat narrower than Faith as explained here, not object-oriented but rather an open attitude to others, to new information and experience: Good Faith. I covered this topic in a paper, which is reproduced here: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/transcendental-theology-for-non-believers
That’s it. Used an opening to plug my pet fascination with QBism and its entertaining visualisation of humans (but not dogs) going around collapsing wavefunctions 😊
~~
PS You may want to offer a non-committal option to buy you a coffee. Just sayin’.
Hey, I'm actually interested in Quantum Physics and its interpretations. I wil probably write something about it at some point, but need to think some more :)
Love it, I tried to convey something similar using the term 'falsifiable belief' but I like propositional a lot more. I remember being one of those atheists unable to connect with metaphor outside of propositional belief to such an extent that I couldn't even let myself enjoy the fantasy genre because of the employment of magic systems. Now it is one of my favorite genres, and perhaps my enjoyment of these stories and the lessons within played a large part in helping me to appreciate the value of having faith in the unseen world, or at least being able to connect with the unknowable in a way that is personally meaningful.
I had been in a similar place back then. That's the pernicious thing IMO about certain forms of atheism/materialism: some of the popular proponents actively poo-poo absolutely everything that is not "science" (in their definition of it), to the point that one can come to the conclusion that literature, philosophy, art, not to mention spiritual writings, are nothing but primitive woo-woo. It's really sad, actually, at least that's how I feel about myself in a certain period of my life.
Regarding falsification, you probably thought along very similar lines as me. I don't really like talking about falsification though, because to me Popper's great contribution to the philosophy of science was just that: a great contribution to the philosophy of science. Nothing more, nothing less. And yet many people constantly deify the falsification principle as if the "scientific method" had been forever defined and everything else can be excluded. It's also funny because Popper was actually a die-hard anti-materialist.
'Nother Popper's great contribution = the charge at Wittgenstein for continually polishing his glasses without ever looking through them 😇
Great stuff, as per usual.
To play devil's advocate, I suppose the common rejoinder to your analogy of the squirrel would be that there isn't a consistent, falsifiable method for determining tree disappearance. One squirrel may have a theory about the timber industry, another about alien abductions, a third about trees turning into birds overnight, but without an objective verification process, it's all guesswork and begging. In other words, if truth is beyond the ability of squirrels to test, than it either doesn't exist or may well as not exist, and there's actually no difference, in that model of squirrel epistemology.
Yes, this is precisely the answer one would get from certain types. It is rather boneheaded though, isn't it? It lacks curiosity and imagination. (McGilchrist has a great chapter on the importance of imagination for gaining knowledge.)
Besides, suppose there is a mathematical pattern to the tree felling (not unlikely). A curious squirrel would ask the hard questions: Why? What's this all about? What does it have to do with me?
Mr. Nut-Jones, on the other hand, would simply declare that since we can't design an experiment to answer such questions, they are just gobbledygook and everybody trying to find answers via other means should be canceled from the squirrel academy... Heck, they should be canceled even IF they manage to design an experiment that yields results, if of a subtle kind...
Right. And I'd actually add a little something to that.
I suspect it's not only a lack of imagination. That obviously plays a role, but there might be something else higher up the priority chain. I think that this something else is akin to a fear of "being right" about the timber industry theory. Not just fear, either, but a paralyzing existential terror of what a real timber industry and market might mean.
⚠ Beware: most egregiously long quote ahead, enter at your own discretion.
~~
Thankfully, Nuts-Joneses, PhD don’t exhaust the pool of scientists. The Great Explainer had this to say ↓↓
🗨 It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe, beyond man, to contemplate what it would be like without man, as it was in a great part of its long history and as it is in a great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are fully appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting.
It usually ends in laughter and a delight in the futility of trying to understand what this atom in the universe is, this thing—atoms with curiosity—that looks at itself and wonders why it wonders. Well, these scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.
Some will tell me that I have just described a religious experience. Very well, you may call it what you will. Then, in that language I would say that the young man's religious experience is of such a kind that he finds the religion of his church inadequate to describe, to encompass that kind of experience. The God of the church isn't big enough.
🗨 trees turning into birds overnight
😂 Too good! Freaky almost 🤭
Hi Luc, like I said before I found the article intriguing, and so I wrote a response here: https://foliededieu.substack.com/p/the-dead-end-of-religion-without
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will answer you in the comments on your stack once I find the time.
"it is not about “believing” something, but about choosing the right object of faith, and then overcoming all the challenges that the world keeps throwing at you, with your inner vision sternly focused on that object of faith."
I liked this. Eliphas Levi said the magician must accept the twin pillars of reason and faith, each are as important as the other. "The definitive alliance of reason and faith results not in their absolute distinction but in their mutual control and their fraternal confluence."
Good to see that the distinction between Faith and Belief is gaining broader attention. My interpretation of Pistis is somewhat narrower than Faith as explained here, not object-oriented but rather an open attitude to others, to new information and experience: Good Faith. I covered this topic in a paper, which is reproduced here: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/transcendental-theology-for-non-believers
Thanks for the comment, and I'm intrigued by your work - will check it out!
💬 that vast sea of unknown terrain
👌 The preposterous captures the ineffable just perfectly—meet the spiritual realm that defies the best attempts at taming by naming.
Oh dear, I hadn't even noticed it. I guess an editor's verdict would be "bad style". But come to think of it, it does seem rather apt!
Speaking of style but of technical kind 😉 Thank you is due for properly formatted headings that make chapters linkable directly 🙂
Way too much of me here, I know, don’t cancel me!! Please?? 😳 Just a link and I’m done. The squirrels seem to have stirred smth quite deep in.
💬 faith has a lot to do with facing resistance from the world.
The world is loose at joints, and pushes back on us when we try to shape it → https://schoolecosystem.wordpress.com/tag/quantum-physics/.
That’s it. Used an opening to plug my pet fascination with QBism and its entertaining visualisation of humans (but not dogs) going around collapsing wavefunctions 😊
~~
PS You may want to offer a non-committal option to buy you a coffee. Just sayin’.
Hey, I'm actually interested in Quantum Physics and its interpretations. I wil probably write something about it at some point, but need to think some more :)
Great idea about the option to buy me a coffee (or book!) - you can now do so here: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/luctalks