Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Appeal Of Atheism?


Mudcat

Recommended Posts

Personally I would have been happy to see young Wesley get his head cut off.... The earlier the better... An irritating fellow...

Yeah....I never did care for Ensign Crusher.

My favorite episode with him on it, was the one where he became a Traveler.

Why....because I found comfort that the next few episodes would be Wesley free, as he would be off Traveling.

I digress from the thread as well....but c'mon...he was the worst character....second only to Tasha Yar.

Link to comment
A favorite quote of mine: ""There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of 'Heaven' ridiculous by saying they do not want to 'spend eternity playing harps'. The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." --C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

In other words, if you think you will get bored in heaven over the course of eternity then you don't really understand what heaven is. The LDS concept of eternal progression might be a help there.

Finite knowledge? If the universe is infinite, and has lasted from an infinite time in the past to an infinite time in the future. then knowledge of it cannot be finite by definition.

You provide a quote by somebody who doesn't believe in the LDS concept of heaven to prove that I've misunderstood the LDS concept of heaven. Rich. And in any case I was responding specifically to the Evangelical point of view (as I understand it), as I was talking with my Evangelical friend, Mudcat.

Jason, if you truly believe that I cannot understand books written for grown-ups (the Bible!), I'll do us both a favor by following Mr. Lewis' advice and not talking with you about them. thanks.

Link to comment
I think the "external" framework would only end up being based on the nature of a community of human-like social beings--the Gods and thier dealings. So in a sense it would be back to the internal framework of secularism but moved up a level to the heavenly social world. Not different in kind.

In other worlds, the morality of the Mormon Gods is still relative to the sociality that they enjoy. It's objectivity would be something about the structure of that sociality and simply "what works". That's the position we are in anyway--its just down here and not up there.

Well Tarski, this is a beginning of a difficult discussion due to our lack of experimentation on the matter - we have few alien races to observe to make philosophy-free judgments. I agree that much of morality can be explained by social behaviors coming about from evolution (ie. reciprocal altruism, etc). That said, fundamental discussions of why life (or genes) and why it is motivated towards survival vs. the general non-chalance of inanimate objects we get into some tricky attributions to anything internal to the system.

Link to comment
Well Tarski, this is a beginning of a difficult discussion due to our lack of experimentation on the matter - we have few alien races to observe to make philosophy-free judgments. I agree that much of morality can be explained by social behaviors coming about from evolution (ie. reciprocal altruism, etc). That said, fundamental discussions of why life (or genes) and why it is motivated towards survival vs. the general non-chalance of inanimate objects we get into some tricky attributions to anything internal to the system.

I agree its a trickiy philosophical question. I just submit that the existence of God doesn't magically clear it up. It's like all the same problems resurface on a new level.

Link to comment

Great thread guys and gal... I admire all of the thinkers on this thread.

If anyone would care to answer, I'm curious as to the "non-theists"..... You disallow, or disbelieve in the existence of a "god" in it's classical description. Do you also disallow for the existence of a spirit that continues when the physical body expires? Is the sense of "I am" just a product of matter creating mind, chemical reactions, synapses firing and a projection of the brain? Or is there a unique entity, intelligence, consciousness that is separate and eternal and continues? Just curious....as to how great thinkers, deal with an ego who's kinda fond of the idea that it will continue....

Link to comment
My quibble is with the explanatory power of the ghost or God or whatever. If you say "where does morality come from" and I answer "God", have I really answered the question ? Think about it, let us say that God gets in a Taxi with you. The two of you look at a robbery on the street and agree that it is 'bad' or 'wrong'. Does God's decision that it is bad make it so ? How is that different than any being deciding that something is bad ? If we agreed that it was bad, shouldn't I, the curious truth seeker, then ask "well WHY is it bad" ? If God says "because I said so" that provides the same level of morality as me saying that my own whims are the source of morality. Clearly, God must use some external framework to decide what is and is not moral. Thus, the statement that we need God for morality is like saying we need (insert any random word) for morality.

If anything, saying God is the source just distracts us from the 'external framework' which is the actual source of our concept of morality.

Mormon theology makes ample room for this external framework - just think about the 'eternal laws which even bind God'. There you have it, the eternal laws are the source (lets get into those) rather than God him/her/itself.

Finally, a camp I can hang out with in this debate.

A Theistic(LDS) Evolutionist who believes Laws( <-------- Oh geesh, and don't make me explain what I think laws are... something on the lines of eternal principles and gravity, thats right, just gravity and no other scientific theories, all others are crap, jk) are greater than God.

Link to comment
Great thread guys and gal... I admire all of the thinkers on this thread.

If anyone would care to answer, I'm curious as to the "non-theists"..... You disallow, or disbelieve in the existence of a "god" in it's classical description. Do you also disallow for the existence of a spirit that continues when the physical body expires?

Personally, I am just as agnostic or skeptical about this. But, it isn't part of the definition of atheism.

Is the sense of "I am" just a product of matter creating mind, chemical reactions, synapses firing and a projection of the brain?

The role of embodiment and sociality in creating "mind" is underestimated, but at bottom, yes, it is the dance of whatever it is that physicsts study (matter, fields..)

Or is there a unique entity, intelligence, consciousness that is separate and eternal and continues?

Since it is clearly the brain that is the organ of thought and decision making, what role would this extra stuff play. Also, where is the evidence?

Hey, we all want to keep living but we shouldn't let that wish cloud our judgment of what is plausible or what beliefs are warranted.

Link to comment
Finally, a camp I can hang out with in this debate.

A Theistic(LDS) Evolutionist who believes Laws are greater than God.

Well, it is a better brand of theism than most (except for the specifically Mormon notion of a God whose body is literal and evolutionarily arrested in a (male) primate form. Way way, implausible!)

Link to comment
Well, it is a better brand of theism than most (except for the specifically Mormon notion of a God whose body is literal and evolutionarily arrested in a (male) primate form. Way way, implausible!)

lol, I don't know about "better".... but more reasonable and logical for me at least.

Just ignore my implausible beliefs... :P

Link to comment
You provide a quote by somebody who doesn't believe in the LDS concept of heaven to prove that I've misunderstood the LDS concept of heaven. Rich.
I wasn't 'proving' anything - I was commenting that the attitude seems similar.

Mr. Lewis was pointing out that a mocking image of interminable boredom in heaven is nothing like the reality spoken of in the Bible, and I fully agree with him. Someone who doesn't find heaven desireable doesn't really understand the concept of heaven.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

There is a third option....to the God/no God question.... Causation up, matter creates mind, or causation down, mind creates matter....It's nothing really new or profound....maybe you guys have already talked about it.... It...God, is a collective.

The universe is an infinite and eternal pattern of energy/consciousness..... and we are a part of it. We are "God" individualized..... We are co-creators. There is no separateness.... everything is one....Like a holographic plate when broken or the DNA in the cell, every piece contains all the information of the whole....

Many physicists believe that matter consists of small packets of light. Light is a wave form energy with no mass. The mind continually transmits a waveform energy/indeed, it may be that mind is itself light.

It appears to me the the only argument that materialists have that there is no external source/causation down....is that there is no objective measurable evidence.

But the thing is...When science delves into the subatomic world....there are more questions than answers....It appears to me that the scientists disagree among themselves as much as theologians do among them selves.

Unifying the Fundamental Forces

Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered. Just as electricity, magnetism, and the weak force were unified into the electroweak interaction, they work to unify all of the fundamental forces.

The current quantum mechanical interpretation of these forces is that the particles do not interact directly, but rather manifest virtual particles that mediate the actual interactions. All of the forces except for gravity have been consolidated into this "Standard Model" of interaction.

The effort to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces is called quantum gravity. It postulates the existence of a virtual particle called the graviton, which would be the mediating element in gravity interactions. To date, gravitons have not been detected and no theories of quantum gravity have been successful or universally adopted.

Science has broken cause and effect down to it's base and comes to a point where it says: we know what these fundamental forces do, but we don't know why...we don't know what caused them....We know how gravity works, but we don't know why....

It just appears to me that the more science delves into what looks to be solid, it proves to be more similar to a hologram.

I am by no means an expert in this field.... My information comes from my study of the book: "The holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot.....

And another....

Mind into Matter by Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D

Link to comment
Many physicists believe that matter consists of small packets of light. Light is a wave form energy with no mass.

This is not true. Light consists of photons but what we normally think of as matter consists of quarks and leptons. These are massive particles which have various charges and spins. The forces that act between these are called gauge bosons (force carriers) and photons are only one type of the latter there being also the W and Z bosons.

The mind continually transmits a waveform energy/indeed, it may be that mind is itself light.

??

The brain emits electromagnetic radiation but only because anything that has within it changing electrical currents does this including toasters and microwave ovens. The idea that mind is light is a nonstarter. Photons are utterly simple whereas mind is the complex information processing decision making activity of brains. It isn't some nonmaterial magical stuff. Mind is what brains do. It is an abstract activity and to hypostatize it is a step back to the middle ages.

It appears to me the the only argument that materialists have that there is no external source/causation down....is that there is no objective measurable evidence.

No objective evidence? Well thats the same reason we don't believe in fairies or magic.

But the thing is...When science delves into the subatomic world....there are more questions than answers

There are more answers than you think! Ever heard of the super successful Standard Model (oh yes you mention it below)? In any case, lack of knowledge about something does not justify one's favorite mystical metaphysics. It does no good to wed mysteries soley on the basis that they are mysteries (see http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html).

Unifying the Fundamental Forces

Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered. Just as electricity, magnetism, and the weak force were unified into the electroweak interaction, they work to unify all of the fundamental forces.

This contradicts what you said about matter being made of bits of light. What does it do for your argument?

The current quantum mechanical interpretation of these forces is that the particles do not interact directly, but rather manifest virtual particles that mediate the actual interactions.

Yes. These are the bosons I mentioned above.

All of the forces except for gravity have been consolidated into this "Standard Model" of interaction.

The effort to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces is called quantum gravity. It postulates the existence of a virtual particle called the graviton, which would be the mediating element in gravity interactions. To date, gravitons have not been detected and no theories of quantum gravity have been successful or universally adopted.

Yes and?

Science has broken cause and effect down to it's base and comes to a point where it says: we know what these fundamental forces do, but we don't know why...we don't know what caused them....We know how gravity works, but we don't know why....

What has this got to do with "mind" or "God"?

As an antidote to the popular quantum-mind-God befuddlement of Fred Wolf and other quantum quacks, I suggest The Unconscious Quantum By Victor J. Stenger.

Mind into Matter by Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D

I think this Fred Alan Wolf guy is frankly a crackpot and yes I have read his stuff-I read it when I was myself enamored of all the new age stuff and before I learned to think more clearly about these matters. Learning actual physics and talking to mainstream physicists changes one's perspective.

Link to comment
mind is the complex information processing decision making activity of brains. It isn't some nonmaterial magical stuff. Mind is what brains do.

CFR. Also - sources which assert "supervenience" or "emergent properties" will be rejected as begging the question.

No objective evidence? Well thats the same reason we don't believe in fairies or magic.
And that's the same reason supervenience arguments should be rejected.
In any case, lack of knowledge about something does not justify one's favorite mystical metaphysics.
Unless you label your ignorance "supervenience" or "emergent properties," I guess.
Link to comment

If you could provide a path from particles to personhood in principle, then materialism would be true. When the handwaving starts - "supervenience" and "emergent properties" - we see that such a path cannot be described, in principle.

Link to comment
CFR. Also - sources which assert "supervenience" or "emergent properties" will be rejected as appeals to ignorance.

Only by someone who does not understand what is being asserted.

Take a look at the emergent pattern in this picture of so called "patterned ground"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...st_upheaval.jpg

Do you think spirit is behind that?

How about the Belousav-Zhabotinsky (B-Z) reaction? See the emergent patterns in a B-Z reaction below. Evidence of God or mind or just inevitable material patterns that one expects when a system has Avogadro's number of degrees of freedom??? Ever see repeating patterns in clouds? Do tornados need "intelligence" to give tham spin? Temperature is also an emergent property. Read a Statistic Mechanics book for details of this purely physical emergent property. It isn't magic.

hero.jpg

Link to comment

The subject, Tarski, is your substantiation of your claim that "mind is the complex information processing decision making activity of brains. It isn't some nonmaterial magical stuff. Mind is what brains do," without appeal to handwaving such as "supervenience" and "emergent properties."

If you cannot substantiate your claim, then retract it, or rephrase your claim in terms of your personal faith.

Link to comment
The subject, Tarski, is your substantiation of your claim that "mind is the complex information processing decision making activity of brains. It isn't some nonmaterial magical stuff. Mind is what brains do," without appeal to handwaving such as "supervenience" and "emergent properties."

There already exists a vast body of empirical knowledge that robustly substantiates the claim. You must be coming from a position of profound ignorance of neurology and cognitive science. Go to the library:

Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain

Brain & Behavior: An Introduction to Biological Psychology by Bob Garrett

Cognitive Science: An Introduction, by Neil A. Stillings, Steven W. Weisler, Christopher H. Chase, and Mark H. Feinstein

Cognitive Science: The Science of Intelligent Systems by George F. Luger, Peder Johnson, Carl Stern, and Jean E. Newman

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales By Oliver W. Sacks

Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett

The Emotion Machine By Marvin Lee Minsky

Let's take one tiny example.

What makes a person less than responsible? What is the basis of foresight and the lack thereof? Selfishness? Temperament?

OK, now consider the case of Phineas Gage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage.

Did the iron rod damage Mr. Gage's spirit?

This is just one hint, one grain of evidence in a mountain of corroborating evidence for the idea that the brain is where it is at when it comes to intelligence, personality, and mind.

Harlow described the pre-accident Gage as having been hard-working, responsible, and popular with the men in his charge, but the post-accident Gage as

fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage

Link to comment

You mean, in one of these books there exists a path from particles to mind?

Please. What page number? Can you cite it here?

Even the example of Gage is not unambiguous evidence of your claim, as you well know.

I'm going to assert, just to make it easy for you, that you're bluffing, and your sources are bluffing, and such a path from particles to mind does not exist, and cannot be shown to exist, in principle, and is therefore a faith claim on your part; that supervenience arguments are simply begging the question; that you are at least as ignorant of the path from particles to mind as I am.

Link to comment
You mean, in one of these books there exists a path from particles to mind?

Please. What page number? Can you cite it here?

That you think such a path could be put on one page is telling. No wonder you can't see it.

As everyone knows, there is a path from particles (microphysics) to thermodynamics (macrophysics) which could also not fit on a page. Do you only believe in things that can be put in one sentence? Does it help if the sentence is short but nearly meaningless like so many of the sentences that feature "eternal pre-existent intelligence"?

Even the example of Gage is not unambiguous evidence of your claim, as you well know.

It's one piece of a giant array of corroborating evidence.

I'm going to assert, just to make it easy for you, that you're bluffing, and your sources are bluffing,.

Ya right. All of neuroscience and cognitive science is a bluff. LOL

I'm not bluffing and you have a hankering for shiny magic.

and such a path from particles to mind does not exist, and cannot be shown to exist, in principle, and is therefore a faith claim on your part; that supervenience arguments are simply begging the question; that you are at least as ignorant of the path from particles to mind as I am

I say you are bluffing. Indeed, you can't even give a clear definition of intelligence as a nonmaterial thing that could exist disembodied and independent of any computational or information processing activity. You can't even get started.

What is it???

Link to comment

Just to be clear - in order to prove your case, you need to either build, or provide someone else's work which builds, a path from particles to mind. That's the claim you made, and that's what you need to substantiate.

I predict any attempt on your part will be bluffing, or begging the question, or irrelevant, as it has heretofore been.

Link to comment
So, you can't respond to my CFR. Your bluffing, while entertaining, is still bluffing.

I gave you references already. Have you finished them already? The path you ask for exists but it is a long one. You had better get started.

By the way, the path from particles to computation is much shorter but quite long, you can't put that on a post card either! So, do you deny that laptops are made of matter too?

Let's add a short one to soften up the stubborn intuition.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth03.html

Link to comment
This is not true. Light consists of photons but what we normally think of as matter consists of quarks and leptons. These are massive particles which have various charges and spins. The forces that act between these are called gauge bosons (force carriers) and photons are only one type of the latter there being also the W and Z bosons.

??

The brain emits electromagnetic radiation but only because anything that has within it changing electrical currents does this including toasters and microwave ovens. The idea that mind is light is a nonstarter. Photons are utterly simple whereas mind is the complex information processing decision making activity of brains. It isn't some nonmaterial magical stuff. Mind is what brains do. It is an abstract activity and to hypostatize it is a step back to the middle ages.

No objective evidence? Well that's the same reason we don't believe in fairies or magic.

There are more answers than you think! Ever heard of the super successful Standard Model (oh yes you mention it below)? In any case, lack of knowledge about something does not justify one's favorite mystical metaphysics. It does no good to wed mysteries soley on the basis that they are mysteries (see http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html).

This contradicts what you said about matter being made of bits of light. What does it do for your argument?

Yes. These are the bosons I mentioned above.

Yes and?

What has this got to do with "mind" or "God"?

As an antidote to the popular quantum-mind-God befuddlement of Fred Wolf and other quantum quacks, I suggest The Unconscious Quantum By Victor J. Stenger.

I think this Fred Alan Wolf guy is frankly a crackpot and yes I have read his stuff-I read it when I was myself enamored of all the new age stuff and before I learned to think more clearly about these matters. Learning actual physics and talking to mainstream physicists changes one's perspective.

Hey Tarski.

Well you do a good job of picking apart my post, but I think that you maybe missed the overall theme...message....

As I said in my post I am not an expert in the field of quantum physics, and what I do know is, as you assumed taken from "metaphysical" works. Anyway, the points that I am trying to make is not to debate quantum theory but to point out that as far as I am aware, the scientific community disagrees among itself quite regularly....There are still many questions science has no answer for....and, when you break matter down to it's fundamental properties...when you get to the start of cause "cause and effect"... science doesn't know what causes cause....They understand what gravity does, but not what it is and what causes it..... There appears to be no proof, for or against, The original "cause" to not be external, consciousness related.

And since there are some physicists that believe that the observer can influence the observed and that quantum objects once they interact and become correlated are able to influence one another instantly after being separated....and since in the end all measurable objective information is subject to subjective interpretation by the observer....I'm going to attempt to keep an open mind to possibilities.

Curt

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...