David Hume, in Section X titled “Of Miracles” from his 1748 work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, presents a skeptical view on the credibility of miracles. He defines a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” David Hume+7Wikipedia+7mytutor.co.uk+7
Hume’s Core Argument
Hume argues that our belief in any event should be proportional to the evidence supporting it. Since the laws of nature are established by “a firm and unalterable experience,” any claim of a miracle—which by definition violates these laws—faces overwhelming contrary evidence. Therefore, he posits that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the event it seeks to establish. A Philosopher’s View+2Wikipedia+2Philosophies of Life+2The New Yorker+1Wikipedia+1
Reasons for Skepticism
Hume provides several reasons to doubt miracle reports:
Human Fallibility: People are prone to error, deception, and the influence of strong emotions, especially when faced with the extraordinary.
Religious Zeal: Witnesses may be biased, either consciously or unconsciously, due to their religious beliefs.Wikipedia
Cultural Context: Miracle stories often originate from “ignorant and barbarous nations,” where critical scrutiny is lacking.Wikipedia
Hume concludes that it’s always more rational to disbelieve a miracle report than to accept it, given the weight of consistent natural laws and the unreliability of human testimony in such matters. His argument has significantly influenced discussions on the intersection of religion and empirical evidence.Wikipedia
An appeal to faith alone can’t reliably distinguish which religion, if any, is true, because:
1. Faith is Subjective
Faith is deeply personal and can be sincere across many religions. A Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Buddhist may all have strong faith in their respective traditions—but they can’t all be correct in their mutually exclusive claims (e.g., about the nature of God, salvation, reincarnation, etc.).
If faith means “trust without proof” or “conviction in things unseen,” then it becomes non-discriminating—anyone can claim it. That makes it epistemically weak as a tool for identifying truth.
2. Competing Faith Claims
Different religions often claim exclusive truth. For example:
Christianity: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
Islam: “The only religion with Allah is Islam.” (Qur’an 3:19)
Hinduism (in some forms): Truth is many, and paths to it are diverse.
Each may appeal to faith to support their doctrine. But if all do this, then faith becomes neutralized as a method of arbitration—it can support any claim, including false ones.
3. Circular Reasoning
Using faith to justify a religion often leads to a circular argument:
“I know my religion is true because I have faith. My faith is valid because my religion is true.”
This doesn’t allow an outsider or a skeptic to evaluate the truth from the outside. It’s not a shared, common ground for discussion—it’s a closed loop.
4. Faith After Evidence vs. Faith as Evidence
Some thinkers distinguish faith after investigation (i.e. trust based on reasoned commitment) from faith as primary evidence (i.e. belief without or despite contrary evidence).
If faith comes after a rational process (historical evidence, coherence, lived experience), it might play a valid role in one’s personal commitment. But it’s not the criterion for truth—it’s the result of thinking something is likely true.
So how could faith play a role?
Internal consistency: Faith might be a response to the internal beauty or coherence of a worldview.
Experiential resonance: One might have faith because a religion “makes sense” of their life experience.
Pragmatic function: Some adopt a faith because it works for them (ethically, emotionally, socially).
But these are all subjective, and none of them offer a universal, comparative standard to decide between conflicting truth claims.
Would you like to explore how different religions might claim to be verified beyond faith—like through miracles, moral transformation, historical reliability, etc.? Or are you more interested in how faith itself might still be philosophically defended?
This passage presents a detailed critique and extension of Wilfrid Sellars’ philosophy, particularly concerning the problem of how we perceive and conceptualize physical objects. The author engages with Sellars’ views on language acquisition, the nature of perceptual experience, and the relationship between sensory data (sensa) and the conceptual framework of physical objects. Here’s a structured breakdown of the key themes and arguments:
I. The Gap: Seeing Physical Objects
Sellars’ Assumption of Behaviorese:
Sellars assumes a pre-existing “Behaviorese” language for the mythical Ryleans but does not explain how they acquire it. This hides the deeper problem of how physical objects are recognized in the first place.
The author argues that recognizing physical objects requires a concept of physical objects, but how is this concept acquired? Sellars’ answer—through natural and social evolution—is seen as insufficiently specific.
The Role of Sensa:
Sellars introduces sensa (non-conceptual sensory states) as theoretical entities to explain perception. However, the author questions how sensa, as unstructured elements, can ground the learning of Behaviorese or the recognition of physical objects.
The gap between the “Heraclitean flux” of sensory processes and the structured language of physical objects needs bridging, possibly through a Representational System (RS).
Animals and Pre-Linguistic Concepts:
Animals and pre-linguistic humans seem to “rs-see” physical objects without logical concepts. This suggests an innate, non-linguistic capacity for perceptual structuring (e.g., “ur-concepts” or “rs-concepts”).
The author aligns this with theories like Richard Gregory’s (and Helmholtz’s) that perception involves “unconscious inference” or hypothesis formation from sensory data.
Perception as Hypothesis Formation:
Perception is likened to forming hypotheses about sensory data, though not in the conscious, linguistic sense. This explains phenomena like ambiguous figures (e.g., the duck-rabbit) and perceptual constancies.
Sellars critiques this view (e.g., in his debate with Feyerabend), arguing that the “Manifest Image” (common-sense framework) is not a theory about sense data but a distinct conceptual framework.
II. The Computer Analogy
Sellars uses computer models to explain language and thought but fails to account for perception of physical objects.
The author distinguishes between:
Hardware-level logic (innate, unconscious processing of sensory data).
Software-level logic (conscious, rule-governed language use).
This suggests a middle ground: animals might use a “weaker” logic (e.g., associative or intuitionistic) to structure perceptions without full conceptual thought.
III. Order of Being vs. Order of Knowing
Sellars distinguishes between:
Ontological priority: Thoughts exist before being known (e.g., as neural patterns).
Epistemic priority: Knowledge of thoughts requires language.
The author questions whether Sellars grants conceptual thought prior to language. Sellars seems to hold that conceptual thinking emerges only with language learning, while non-conceptual “rs-thoughts” may exist innately.
IV. Logical Construction
Traditional “logical construction” aims to reduce physical objects to sensory elements, but Sellars seems to propose something different: a theoretical unification of sensory data into objects.
This is not strict analysis but a “cross-categorical correspondence” (e.g., a pink ice cube as a swarm of molecules).
V. Unalterability of RS-Concepts
The author argues that some perceptual ways of seeing (e.g., visual illusions like the Müller-Lyer lines) are unalterable and independent of belief.
This suggests a hardwired, innate stratum of perception (the “Manifest Image”) that persists despite scientific or linguistic sophistication.
Key Disputes and Implications
Innate Mechanisms:
The author argues Sellars is committed to innate perceptual structuring (rs-concepts), even if Sellars avoids explicit innatism.
Perception vs. Theory:
Sellars rejects the idea that the Manifest Image is a theory about sense data, but the author sees it as analogous to scientific theorizing (just unconscious and non-linguistic).
Language and Thought:
Sellars ties conceptual thought tightly to language, but the author suggests pre-linguistic “rs-concepts” may play a foundational role.
Conclusion
The author extends Sellars’ framework by:
Positing innate, non-linguistic representational systems (RS) to explain perception.
Drawing parallels between perceptual “hypotheses” and scientific theorizing.
Highlighting the independence of perceptual constancies/illusions from belief, suggesting an unalterable core to the Manifest Image.
This critique enriches Sellars’ philosophy by addressing gaps in his account of perception and concept acquisition, while also challenging his strict division between non-conceptual sensory experience and linguistically mediated thought.
The distinction between animal intentionality by association and the human capacity for language with negation offers valuable insights into the divide between intuitions and concepts. However, this distinction alone may not fully account for the complexity of this cognitive rift.
Animal Intentionality by Association
Animals exhibit intentional behaviors that are often driven by associative learning. For instance, a dog may associate the sound of a leash with going for a walk, leading to anticipatory excitement. Such behaviors suggest a form of intentionality grounded in direct experiences and associations. However, this form of intentionality is typically limited to immediate contexts and lacks the abstraction found in human thought .
Language with Negation and Human Conceptual Thought
Human language introduces the capacity for negation, enabling individuals to conceive of and communicate about non-existent or abstract concepts (e.g., “unicorns do not exist”). This linguistic feature allows for complex reasoning, hypothetical thinking, and the formation of concepts that transcend direct sensory experience .
Bridging Intuitions and Concepts
While the presence of language and negation in humans facilitates advanced conceptual thinking, the gap between animal intuitions and human concepts is not solely bridged by these features. Research indicates that some animals possess rudimentary conceptual abilities, such as categorization and problem-solving, albeit without the full-fledged linguistic structures humans use .PMC
Conclusion
In summary, while the capacity for language with negation significantly contributes to the development of complex concepts in humans, it does not entirely explain the cognitive divide between animal intuitions and human conceptual thought. Other factors, including memory, abstraction, and social learning, also play crucial roles in this intricate cognitive landscape.PMC
The dogmatic differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism are deeply rooted in theology, authority, and tradition. While both share much in common—such as the Nicene Creed, apostolic succession, the sacraments, and reverence for Church Fathers—there are significant divergences. Here’s a breakdown of the major dogmatic differences:
1. Authority of the Pope
Catholic: The Pope is the supreme head of the Church, with universal jurisdiction. He is considered infallible in matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter).
Orthodox: Reject papal supremacy and infallibility. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is a “first among equals,” but has no jurisdictional authority over other Orthodox churches.
2. Filioque Clause
Catholic: The Nicene Creed includes “the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father and the Son [Filioque].”
Orthodox: Reject this addition as a unilateral alteration of an ecumenical creed and hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, as originally stated.
3. Original Sin
Catholic: Original sin includes inherited guilt and a fallen nature.
Orthodox: Affirm a fallen nature and mortality, but generally reject the idea of inherited guilt. Sin is more a condition than a culpability passed down.
4. Immaculate Conception
Catholic: Mary was conceived without original sin—a dogma proclaimed in 1854.
Orthodox: Do not accept the Immaculate Conception, partly because of their different understanding of original sin.
5. Purgatory
Catholic: Believe in purgatory—a temporary state of purification for souls destined for heaven.
Orthodox: Reject purgatory as defined by Catholic doctrine but believe in prayers for the dead and a process of purification after death in a more mysterious or undefined way.
6. Transubstantiation
Catholic: Dogmatically affirm transubstantiation—the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ in substance.
Orthodox: Believe in the real presence, but are less precise or scholastic about the mechanism. They reject the Aristotelian explanation as dogma.
7. Original Authority and Councils
Catholic: Accept 21 ecumenical councils, including those after the East-West Schism (e.g., Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II).
Orthodox: Recognize only the first seven ecumenical councils (up to Nicaea II in 787) as binding.
8. Clerical Celibacy
Catholic: In the Latin Rite, celibacy is required for priests.
Orthodox: Married men may be ordained as priests (but not bishops). Bishops are celibate monks.
9. Conception of the Church
Catholic: The Church is a visible, hierarchical institution centered on the papacy.
Orthodox: The Church is a communion of autocephalous (self-governing) churches, united by shared faith and sacraments but not centralized.
Would you like a table summarizing these for easier reference?
4o
You said:
yes
ChatGPT said:
Here’s a comparison table summarizing the dogmatic differences between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity:
Doctrine / Issue
Catholic Church
Orthodox Church
Papal Authority
Pope is supreme, universal head of the Church; infallible ex cathedra.
No pope; Ecumenical Patriarch is first among equals, no universal jurisdiction.
Filioque Clause
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque).
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.
Original Sin
Involves inherited guilt and fallen nature.
Emphasizes fallen nature; generally rejects inherited guilt.
Immaculate Conception
Mary was conceived without original sin (dogma since 1854).
Not accepted; inconsistent with Orthodox view of original sin.
Purgatory
Defined as a state of purification before entering heaven.
Rejects purgatory as defined; affirms prayers for the dead and purification.
Transubstantiation
Eucharist becomes body and blood of Christ in substance (transubstantiation).
Real presence affirmed; mechanism not dogmatically defined.
Ecumenical Councils
Accepts 21 councils, including post-schism ones.
Accepts only the first 7 councils (up to Nicaea II, 787).
Clerical Celibacy
Mandatory for Latin Rite priests (exceptions exist).
Married men can be ordained as priests; bishops must be celibate monks.
Church Structure
Centralized under the Pope.
Decentralized; communion of autocephalous churches.
Theological Method
Scholastic, often uses philosophical definitions (e.g., Aristotelian terms).
Mystical and apophatic; wary of overly rational explanations.
Let me know if you’d like this turned into a printable chart or infographic.
Make a case for emergent materialism with examples.
ChatGPT said:
Emergent materialism is the view that mental properties (such as consciousness, intentions, or qualia) emerge from physical systems (like brains), but are not reducible to or fully explainable by the physical properties of those systems. Unlike reductive materialism, which says that everything mental just is something physical (e.g., pain = C-fiber firing), emergent materialism says mental phenomena are novel and causally efficacious, but still ultimately depend on matter.
Here’s a structured case for emergent materialism, with examples:
1. The Core Intuition: Novel Properties Arise from Complex Systems
Argument:
Complex systems often display properties that are not present in their parts, nor predictable from them alone.
These emergent properties are real and make a causal difference.
Example:
Wetness of water: A single H₂O molecule isn’t wet. Wetness arises only when many molecules interact in specific ways. The property is real and has practical consequences (e.g., you can drown in it), even though it depends on the molecules.
2. Consciousness as an Emergent Property
Argument:
Consciousness arises from neuronal activity, but no individual neuron is conscious.
The mind appears when a certain organizational threshold is crossed—likely involving specific patterns of information integration, feedback, and plasticity.
Example:
Compare a single neuron (not conscious) to a functioning human brain.
The conscious experience of redness is not found in any neuron or synapse, but in the patterned activity across neural assemblies in the visual cortex.
3. Irreducibility and Non-derivability
Argument:
Mental properties cannot be derived from physical laws alone. Even if we knew all the physics of the brain, we’d still be puzzled about why certain physical configurations produce subjective experience.
Example:
The “hard problem of consciousness” (Chalmers): why does brain activity feel like anything at all?
Functional explanations (like input/output behavior) don’t seem to explain qualia (what it’s like to see red).
4. Causal Powers of Emergent Properties
Argument:
Emergent properties can have causal effects that are not simply reducible to the base components’ interactions.
Example:
A person’s belief (a mental state) that it’s raining can cause them to grab an umbrella and act.
The belief isn’t just a brain state; it’s a representational state that interacts with other mental states and goals.
The brain state realizes the belief, but the belief does explanatory work in terms of rational action.
5. Coherence with Scientific Practice
Argument:
Scientific models in biology, psychology, and neuroscience often rely on higher-level explanations that treat mental properties as real.
Example:
In cognitive neuroscience, models of decision-making use terms like attention, memory, and intention that don’t reduce neatly to molecular or cellular descriptions.
6. Avoids the Pitfalls of Both Dualism and Reductionism
Argument:
Emergent materialism allows us to affirm the physical basis of the mind (avoiding dualism’s ghost-in-the-machine problem) while acknowledging the autonomy and novelty of mental phenomena (avoiding the reductionist dismissal of experience).
Summary
Emergent materialism makes a compelling case that:
Mental phenomena depend on physical processes,
Yet are not reducible to them,
And introduce genuinely new causal powers,
Which we need in order to explain behavior, reasoning, and conscious experience.
It’s like saying: the mind is what the brain does, but what it does is more than the sum of its parts.
To argue that Jesus was a secular revolutionary using Archibald Robertson’s The Origins of Christianity, we can draw from Robertson’s Marxist historiography and materialist reading of early Christianity. Robertson presents Jesus not as a supernatural figure, but as a historical actor shaped by class conflict and the socio-political context of 1st-century Roman-occupied Judea. Here’s how we can build the case, step by step:
1. Jesus as a Product of Class Struggle
Robertson, influenced by Marxist thought, emphasizes the material conditions and class tensions in Judea at the time of Jesus. He sees Jesus as a representative of a popular movement among the oppressed lower classes—particularly Galilean peasants—against both Roman imperial authority and the collaborationist Jewish priestly aristocracy.
“The Jesus of history was a product of the economic and political ferment of his time—a time of deepening misery and growing unrest under Roman rule.” — Robertson, The Origins of Christianity
This positions Jesus as a revolutionary figure fighting for material justice, not merely spiritual salvation.
2. Anti-Roman and Anti-Priestly Polemic
Robertson notes how many of Jesus’s teachings can be read as subversive critiques of both Roman power and the Temple elite. The cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-18) is seen as a politically charged act, not just a religious gesture. It challenged the economic exploitation at the heart of the Temple system, which had become integrated with Roman interests.
“The overturning of the money-changers’ tables was not the act of a mystic, but of a man who recognized the collusion between religious authority and economic oppression.”
Here, Jesus aligns with a popular anti-elite sentiment—a key feature of secular revolutionary movements.
3. The Kingdom of God as an Earthly Order
Robertson insists that the “Kingdom of God” in Jesus’s message was not a transcendent heaven but an immanent socio-political transformation. The “kingdom” would reverse the social order, uplift the poor, and depose the powerful—echoing themes of egalitarian revolt.
“Jesus proclaimed the coming of a kingdom in which the poor would inherit the earth—not in some afterlife, but here and now. This was the language of revolution.”
This interpretation aligns Jesus with movements for redistributive justice, not spiritual otherworldliness.
4. Repression and Execution as Political Punishment
Robertson stresses that crucifixion was a Roman method of executing political rebels. Jesus’s death is not best understood as a religious martyrdom, but as the state’s punishment for sedition.
“If Jesus had merely preached peace and piety, Rome would have ignored him. The fact that he was crucified proves that his message was seen as a direct threat to the political order.”
Thus, Jesus dies the death of a revolutionary agitator, not just a theological symbol.
5. Later Spiritualization as Historical Distortion
Finally, Robertson argues that Pauline Christianity and the early Church spiritualized and depoliticized Jesus’s radical message in order to survive and gain favor within the Roman world.
“The original movement of Jesus, a mass uprising of the dispossessed, was gradually transformed into a mystical religion palatable to the ruling classes.”
This shift obscured Jesus’s revolutionary character and turned him into a divine figure, removing the radical edge of his message.
Conclusion: Jesus as a Secular Revolutionary
Using Robertson’s framework, we can argue that:
Jesus emerged from a context of social and economic oppression.
His teachings and actions were revolutionary, aimed at overturning unjust systems.
His execution was political.
The later Church reinterpreted his message to fit religious paradigms, thereby erasing his secular, revolutionary origins.
Robertson gives us a Jesus who stands not as the founder of a church, but as a leader of the oppressed, whose real aims were political and material—a secular revolutionary in a deeply unequal society.
I want to define what I will call a secular christian. A secular christian accepts salvation by works alone- no faith. He is an atheist, but he follows Christ in his preferance for the poor and helping them. He is more than a cultural christian aka Dawkins. What do you think of this?
ChatGPT said:
Your concept of a “secular Christian”—an atheist who follows Christ’s ethical teachings, particularly prioritizing the poor and valuing salvation through works alone—is both intriguing and philosophically rich. It extends beyond the commonly used term “cultural Christian,” which typically refers to someone who appreciates Christian traditions and values without adhering to its theological beliefs.
However, your “secular Christian” concept goes further by emphasizing active engagement with Christ’s ethical teachings, especially concerning aiding the poor, and focusing on salvation through works rather than faith. This approach aligns with certain interpretations of Jesus’s teachings that highlight compassion and social justice.
Philosophical and Theological Considerations
This idea resonates with ongoing discussions about the role of Christian ethics in secular contexts. Some argue that Christian moral principles can be appreciated and practiced independently of religious belief, serving as a foundation for ethical behavior in a secular society.
However, traditional Christian theology often emphasizes salvation through faith, as seen in passages like Ephesians 2:8-9. Your emphasis on works over faith challenges this doctrine, suggesting a reinterpretation of Christian teachings that prioritizes ethical actions over belief.
Potential Implications
Adopting this “secular Christian” identity could appeal to individuals who find value in Christian moral teachings but do not subscribe to its theological claims. It offers a framework for ethical living grounded in compassion and social responsibility, reflecting aspects of Jesus’s message that transcend religious boundaries.
In summary, your concept of a “secular Christian” presents a thought-provoking perspective that bridges ethical teachings of Christianity with a secular worldview. It invites further exploration into how religious moral frameworks can inform ethical behavior in a secular context.
I want to characterize ananarchism so that it fits all. It seems that all want to recect a central government whixh does not rely on a bottom-up structure—though a bottom-up federal structure is acceptable. Nevertheless the unit of organization must be small, let us say 150 members. Anarchist say they reject government. But this is ambiguous. A government may be imposed from outside the community, or from within. Government by consensus is ok. The matter of economics is variable, and depends on thw wishes of the community. Is this an adequte charaterization of ananarchism? What am I missing?
ChatGPT said:
Your characterization of anarchism captures several core principles, but there are nuances worth exploring to provide a more comprehensive understanding.
1. Rejection of Hierarchical Authority
Anarchism fundamentally opposes coercive authority and hierarchical structures, particularly those imposed by the state. Anarchists advocate for stateless societies organized through voluntary, non-hierarchical associations. Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3
2. Emphasis on Voluntary Association and Consensus
Anarchists support decision-making processes that are inclusive and non-coercive. Consensus decision-making is often favored, aiming for solutions that all members can accept, rather than majority rule. The Anarchist Library
3. Preference for Small-Scale, Localized Organization
While there’s no strict rule, anarchist models often emphasize small, manageable communities to facilitate direct participation. The number 150 aligns with Dunbar’s number, suggesting a cognitive limit to stable social relationships, which some anarchists consider when organizing communities.
4. Diverse Economic Practices
Anarchist economic models are diverse and adaptable to community preferences. Some favor decentralized planning, where communities determine their needs and organize production accordingly. Others may adopt gift economies, mutual aid, or market-based approaches, provided they align with anarchist principles of voluntary association and opposition to exploitation.Reddit
5. Flexibility and Diversity
Anarchism is not a monolithic ideology; it encompasses various schools of thought, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, and anarcho-capitalism. Each interprets anarchist principles differently, especially concerning economic organization and property relations.
6. Critique of Capitalism
Many anarchists critique capitalism for perpetuating inequality and coercive hierarchies. They argue that capitalism, like the state, imposes authority through economic means, and thus, a truly anarchist society would need to address both political and economic forms of domination.
7. Importance of Education and Culture
Anarchists often emphasize the role of education and cultural practices in fostering autonomy, critical thinking, and mutual respect. They advocate for educational systems that are non-hierarchical and promote self-directed learning.
8. Environmental Considerations
Some anarchist perspectives incorporate ecological concerns, advocating for sustainable living and harmony with the natural world. This eco-anarchism emphasizes decentralized, community-based approaches to environmental stewardship.
In summary, your characterization aligns with several anarchist principles, particularly the emphasis on voluntary association, consensus decision-making, and localized organization. However, acknowledging the diversity within anarchist thought and its critiques of both political and economic hierarchies can provide a more nuanced understanding.
