7 Answers

  1. You can answer that “no” and calm down.

    But I have a big counter-question – and why on earth should these doctrines (atheism – a position in relation to faith in the deity and physicalism – an ontological teaching) solve the problem of epistemology and logic?

  2. Well, strictly speaking, our cognition is so arranged that no one is able to solve the problem of infinite regression. Just as other approaches can solve it by arbitrarily setting a point here, and not anywhere else, physicalism and atheism can solve it, I don't see any problems.

    Seriously, what is god as a point that has no beginning and no cause, but serves as the beginning and cause of everything, better than a singularity, as something that has no beginning and no cause and serves as the beginning and cause of everything? No better, and even worse, because the singularity doesn't teach me how to live.

  3. I'm not a doc in philosophy and I can write some nonsense, but I think it's just religion and idealism that have problems with infinite regression.

    Faith is based on spiritual experience, and spiritual experience is based on faith, and wherever this vicious circle is broken, the result will be unsatisfactory.

    I don't see any problems with atheism. The source of everything is experience. It doesn't need to be believed or disbelieved, it isn't true or false, it just is. And then we analyze and synthesize on its basis a certain model that describes it. In this model, we ourselves appear — the subject receiving this experience, objective reality appears, which is the source of this experience, the model itself appears recursively as a set of concepts in the subject's thinking, the concepts of truth and falsehood appear. I don't understand why it's so difficult for idealists to adopt this approach. Perhaps because the first steps of this process occur before the appearance of consciousness and are not available for introspection? But it cannot be otherwise, without the first steps, the very appearance of consciousness is impossible.

  4. I don't understand what kind of regression we are talking about at all. I see only constant progress. I visited this site for the first time. Maybe I missed something? Please enlighten me if you have any time to spare.

  5. Atheism is always synonymous with progress and development, and dogmatic cults are always synonymous with regression. The reverse has never happened in human history. So some very, very strange question.

  6. Provide a description of the problem, then you can talk about something.�

    If there is a typo and we are talking about progress and problems like the Peters barrier. Then humanity regularly ran into such “barriers”, received catastrophic events for the people of its time, rolled back, changed, and then moved on.

    In general, you need to understand what this is about.

  7. If I understood correctly, the infinite regression problem in the question is the problem of finding the truth in the absence of belief in anything. In my opinion, faith can both help and hinder the search for the truth. Faith is not a necessary or sufficient condition for revealing the truth. And here's why.

    Let's imagine the whole world as true. Let's say the world is a knitted sweater. It is complex in structure, but it is all connected by a single long thread. To discover the truth of the whole world, we need only find at least something true inside this world. Then we can build a picture of the rest of the world relative to this small truth. It's like finding a loop on a sweater, finding out what it's connected to, and so on, until we find all the loops and know the design of the entire sweater. Now, such a loop, such a small truth, is the truth of existence. Everyone knows that they exist. Its existence and its ability to know are equal. You can build the rest of the world around this truth. To do this, you need to start asking questions: how I exist, what surrounds me, what and how I can perceive, what tools I can find to expand my perception. In such a system, when describing any phenomenon as true, the final argument will be the answer “because I am”. For example: why does an atom exist? Because there is an electron microscope. Why is there a microscope? Because I'm looking into it. Why are you looking through it? Because I am. In such a system, faith is not a necessary link in the chain. It can help you skip certain stages of perception. For example, it is useful to believe a teacher who tells you about an experiment, instead of repeating the experiment yourself. But the belief in some truth-the root cause of the world in such a system is useless.

    Another question is whether such an existence of consciousness in the world is the only way of existence, or whether there are other ways of being. To answer this question, you need to look for connections not outside, but inside your mind. Ask yourself questions: do I exist when I don't perceive anything, how does my mind move when it's not attached to any thoughts, am I free, what is my self made up of, is there anything permanent in my self, or is it a changing process?

    Faith is useful when it helps a person solve a problem. Faith is harmful when it creates problems. Problems arise because of illusions, inadequate perception of reality. Therefore, it is useful to observe what problems arise, what causes them, and whether belief in something is one of the causes of problems that arise.

Leave a Reply