The Appeal Of Atheism?

[Jason]

I agree with Log. Neurologists and cognitive scientists have yet to prove that there is a workable path between particles and consciousness, and they certainly have not proven that there is nothing else involved.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

I agree with Log. Neurologists and cognitive scientists have yet to prove that there is a workable path between particles and consciousness, and they certainly have not proven that there is nothing else involved.

I think twinkle sprinkly starry moon dust is involved. I'm waiting for the scientists to prove me wrong.

[Log]

I think twinkle sprinkly starry moon dust is involved. I'm waiting for the scientists to prove me wrong.

Yep, that's about what I expect out of materialists - except they use words like "supervenience" and "emergent properties" for BOM's sarcastic "twinkle sprinkly starry moon dust." I don't know why they cannot just admit materialism is a faith claim.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

Yep, that's about what I expect out of materialists - except they use words like "supervenience" and "emergent properties" for BOM's sarcastic "twinkle sprinkly starry moon dust." I don't know why they cannot just admit materialism is a faith claim.

How is materialism a faith claim? Is there evidence for spirit stuff? Is there evidence that when the brain is poked, prodded, or destroyed that this affects the mind? Faith is belief in something lacking evidence.

[Jason]

Materialism is a faith claim as long as it cannot be proven to really work. It cannot be proven to really work at this point, therefore it is a faith claim.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

Materialism is a faith claim as long as it cannot be proven to really work. It cannot be proven to really work at this point, therefore it is a faith claim.

Huh? You're saying that the notion that the brain is responsible for the mind is a faith claim when there is evidence to support this? It doesn't matter if it can be proven or not -- if there is evidence to support this belief then it can not in any way shape or form be faith! Where is the evidence that there is special magical spirit stuff?

What is faith, Jason? It's belief in something lacking evidence. As usual, this term is abused to win points and assign religious terminology on to science. Why? Is faith not a virtue? Why not embrace it and stop assigning it to things that it does not pertain to.

[Jason]

What is faith, Jason? It's belief in something lacking evidence.

That's not correct. I have faith in the LDS church despite a great deal of evidence that it is exactly what it says it is.

That evidence, however, is not to the extent that it is irrefutable (that is, that it would convince everyone without exception).

Faith is belief in something that doesn't have irrefutable evidence. You can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because it might not, after all - at least not for you.

Once you understand basic math you can no longer exercise faith that 2+2=4 - you have sure knowledge that it is.

As usual, this term is abused to win points and assign religious terminology on to science. Why? Is faith not a virtue? Why not embrace it and stop assigning it to things that it does not pertain to.

To materialism faith is not a virtue. Materialism is in effect the antithesis of faith. Therefore a materialist is being inconsistent if they have to resort to a faith claim to believe in materialism.

[tana]

I would think that until science can prove that the way the fundamental forces behave isn't attributable to a certain amount of "pixie dust".....Then materialists take it on "faith" that it isn't......

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

That's not correct. I have faith in the LDS church despite a great deal of evidence that it is exactly what it says it is.

Well. if you have evidence to support your belief in something then you are not relying on faith. Go look up the definition. This entire discussion gets so old. Faith has a specific meaning and the way you're using it does not fit.

That evidence, however, is not to the extent that it is irrefutable (that is, that it would convince everyone without exception).Faith is belief in something that doesn't have irrefutable evidence. You can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because it might not, after all - at least not for you. Once you understand basic math you can no longer exercise faith that 2+2=4 - you have sure knowledge that it is.

Haha. There is evidence to support the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. There's no faith there!

To materialism faith is not a virtue. Materialism is in effect the antithesis of faith. Therefore a materialist is being inconsistent if they have to resort to a faith claim to believe in materialism.

There was no faith claim made!

I would think that until science can prove that the way the fundamental forces behave isn't attributable to a certain amount of "pixie dust".....Then materialists take it on "faith" that it isn't......

Right, like I take it on faith that there's no pot filled with gold at the end of rainbows....

[Log]

How is materialism a faith claim?

Because the causal closure of the physical domain is, in principle, undemonstrable, yet you believe it.

Is there evidence for spirit stuff?

Yes, there is. The Book of Mormon, for one. Each living witness of the Son of God, for another.

Is there evidence that when the brain is poked, prodded, or destroyed that this affects the mind?

It all depends on the definition of "mind." Certainly it is the case that when the brain is poked, prodded, or destroyed that this affects behavior.

Faith is belief in something lacking evidence.

It is in precisely that pejorative sense I use the word "faith" when speaking of materialism. Glad to see we understand one another.

[Tarski]

I agree with Log. Neurologists and cognitive scientists have yet to prove that there is a workable path between particles and consciousness, and they certainly have not proven that there is nothing else involved.

Neither have they proven that fairies don't move the earth.

However, they do have extemely detailed and coherent explanations based on laws, systems, subsystems, mathematics, chemistry, etc etc.

What do you think a brain does? Cool the blood? (think about Phineas Gage)

By the way, there is a mountain of detailed literature on how the brain does what it does, what intelligence is, how chemistry and physics fit in and how computational and information theory play their part. It fills libraries and is very enlightening.

Now what have you "pre-existent intelligence" guys got? Where are the details? Where are the precise definitions and statements?

How and where in this "spirit" or "intelligence" is information moved and how? How does it remember? How does it decide? How does it visualize (without a cortex)? What the heck is this twinkly wonder stuff? Does it have parts? Does it evolve in time and have states? How does it work?

Feel free to come up with a theory different than that offered by science but lets have more than a couple cryptic sentences featuring undefined terms and bare appeals to intuition. Go ahead and fill the libraries and convince the greatest minds if you can.

From where I stand it is no contest. We have whole fields of sciences on the one hand, and a few sentences of fuzzy nonsense on the other (it's "pure intelligence" I tells ya!).

[Log]

By the way, there is a mountain of detailed literature on how the brain does what it does, what intelligence is, how chemistry and physics fit in and how computational and information theory play their part. It fills libraries and is very enlightening.

Detailed from atoms to intellect? That was your claim, for documentation of which we wait, and shall continue to wait, in vain. If you had it, Sam Harris wouldn't be manning the MRI at UCLA.

[Tarski]

Detailed from atoms to intellect? That was your claim, for documentation of which we wait, and shall continue to wait, in vain. If you had it, Sam Harris wouldn't be manning the MRI at UCLA.

Nonsense. That's like claiming that since people still study weather it must be that we have no details on how we can explain it in terms of the motion of atoms and molecules in the atmosphere. Is there pixie dust in the weather too?

[Log]

Nonsense. That's like claiming that since people still study weather it must be that we have no details on how we can explain it in terms of the motion of atoms and molecules in the atmosphere.

My claim is more like "Nobody but you seems to have this mythical map to the leprechaun's gold, since everyone else in the field is still looking for it; since you clearly ain't rich and ain't showing us the map, you are probably lying."

Is there pixie dust in the weather too?

Why, yes, you have used "emergent properties" (materialistic "pixie dust") in this thread when discussing it.

[Tarski]

My claim is more like "Nobody but you seems to have this mythical map to the leprechaun's gold, since everyone else in the field is still looking for it; since you clearly ain't rich and ain't showing us the map, you are probably lying."

Why, yes, you have used "emergent properties" (materialistic "pixie dust") in this thread when discussing it.

Except that we have success in explaining emergent properties in terms of the lower level. That's what statistical mechanics is for example. Why do you refuse to remember that?

[Log]

Except that we have success in explaining emergent properties in terms of the lower level.

How much success? Success to the point where the words "emergent properties" can be replaced by a complete, detailed chain of material causes?

[Jason]

Well. if you have evidence to support your belief in something then you are not relying on faith.

I disagree. To believe in something with no evidence at all is blind faith. That's not the type of faith that the Church views as a virtue.

Go look up the definition. This entire discussion gets so old. Faith has a specific meaning and the way you're using it does not fit.

I never argue semantics, mostly because there is no "right" or "wrong" meaning of any word. If necessary I explain my usage of a term. If you disagree with my usage it doesn't mean that I'm "wrong" and you're "right" - it merely means that you want to score points in the argument.

I take the view that if we both seem to be understanding each other than there's no problem with non-standard usage of words.

Haha. There is evidence to support the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. There's no faith there!

But you don't have sure knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. There are things that might prevent it. If the son went nova over night you would never know it - the Earth would effectively be destroyed before the sun rose again. If you died during the night then yes, the sun would rise, but you wouldn't be there to see it. Therefore believing that the sun will rise tomorrow and that you will be there is an act of faith. A small act, as it seems very likely the sun will rise, but an act of faith nevertheless.

There was no faith claim made!

Materialism postulates that all human behaviors have a cause grounded strictly in the physical. That claim cannot at this time be demonstrated to be factually correct, so to believe it is correct is a faith claim.

[Tarski]

How much success? Success to the point where the words "emergent properties" can be replaced by a detailed chain of material causes?

Yes. That is unless you are being unreasonable in the following way: I assume you agree that circuit theory can be explained in terms of electrons, Maxwell's equations and solid state quantum physics. But, it would be unreasonable to demand "oh yeah? Well tell me what every electron and every atom is doing in this circuit in total detail!"

This seems to be your rhetorical tactic. It is grotesquely disingenuous since you could not meet the analogous demand regarding even the operation of a thermostat.

Can you draw a detailed line from particles to weather?

[consiglieri]

Faith is belief in something lacking evidence.

This is precisely the point that I brought up yesterday in Sunday school!

I was recounting how myopic I had been about 15-years ago when I came to the point in my Church membership when I told God, "Look, if you want me to keep producing, I want all my questions answered first."

It took me some time to realize that if I had all my questions answered first, it wasn't really faith. It was knowledge.

I then told the class that, as far as I can tell from the scriptures, we are not saved by knowledge; we are saved by faith.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Tarski]

Materialism postulates that all human behaviors have a cause grounded strictly in the physical. That claim cannot at this time be demonstrated to be factually correct, so to believe it is correct is a faith claim.

Do you have an alternative theory that can achieve even a bit of success in terms of prediction, explanatory power, and well defined theoretical terms?

Every time is at first seemed that some aspect of biology could not be explained in material terms it was eventually found to be material after all. Remember "

[Log]

[W]e have success in explaining emergent properties in terms of the lower level.

How much success? Success to the point where the words "emergent properties" can be replaced by a detailed chain of material causes?

Yes.

We do not appeal to "emergent properties" nor "supervenience" to explain circuitry, because we have a complete description of it.

I want to know how it can be known, in principle, that the path from particles to mind exists, and then I want to see the path from particles to mind which does not appeal to "emergent properties" nor "supervenience," which you assert exists, which nobody else seems to be aware of - they are still investigating as though they didn't have the complete, detailed, and causally sufficient description of the path from particles to mind.

[ruski_canuk]

How much success? Success to the point where the words "emergent properties" can be replaced by a detailed chain of material causes?

Yes. We do not appeal to "emergent properties" nor "supervenience" to explain circuitry, because we have a complete description of it.

I want to know how it can be known, in principle, that the path from particles to mind exists, and then I want to see the path from particles to mind which does not appeal to "emergent properties" nor "supervenience," which you assert exists, which nobody else seems to be aware of - they are still investigating as though they didn't have the complete, detailed, and causally sufficient description of the path from particles to mind.

What, pray tell, is that "complete explanation" ? Would it be such satisfactory explanations as "intelligences" ?

This whole discussion seems to revolve around how one treats mystery. There certainly are phenomenon which are not, to our satisfaction, described by science in a reliable fashion. How one deals with the remaining mystery determines what side of this discussion you are on.

I, for one, see that through history people have continuously posited supernatural explanations for phenomenon which were eventually explained naturally. What is certain, and not a mystery, is that we love to play God of the gaps.

[Tarski]

How much success? Success to the point where the words "emergent properties" can be replaced by a detailed chain of material causes?

Yes. We do not appeal to "emergent properties" nor "supervenience" to explain circuitry, because we have a complete description of it.

Look. You just don't even know what you are talking about. Apparently you just learned these words from me. Emergent properties are not "fairy dust" since in each case we can say more about how the structures emerge in terms of the lower level (like statistical mechanics). I have repeated this and you ignore it, preferring to pretend that emergence is an appeal to some fuzzy concept for which we do not give and mechanisms. But we do!

(Now promptly ignore this as usual)

In many cases the science is so exact it has become mathematics!

Here are some emergent properties: viscosity, elasticity, tensile strength, heat, resistance, phonons in solid state physics, convection (e.g. B

[wenglund]

I am not sure why some of our atheist friends are having such a difficult time grasping Log's simple point.

1) Until a proposition is empirically confirmed, it remains theoretical, and thus a belief/faith.

2) There are aspects of materialism that have yet to be empirically confirmed.

3) Therefore, to the extent that materialism is yet to be empiriaclly confirmed, it is theoretical, and thus a belief/faith.

4) Beliefs/faiths have unreasonably and pejoritively been reduced to being called "fairy dust"

5) Since aspects of materialism are beliefs/faiths, those aspects then are as vulnerable as other beliefs/faiths to being unreasonably and pejoritively reduced to being called "fairy dust".

So, given the Golden Rule (including any secular version thereof), if one does not wish to have one's belief/faith in materialism reduced to being called "fairy dust" or "magic", then don't reduce other beliefs/faith in the same way.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

I am not sure why some of our atheist friends are having such a difficult time grasping Log's simple point.

1) Until a proposition is empirically confirmed, it remains theoretical, and thus a belief/faith.

2) There are aspects of materialism that have yet to be empirically confirmed.

3) Therefore, to the extent that materialism is yet to be empiriaclly confirmed, it is theoretical, and thus a belief/faith.

4) Beliefs/faiths have unreasonably and pejoritively been reduced to being called "fairy dust"

5) Since aspects of materialism are beliefs/faiths, those aspects then are as vulnerable as other beliefs/faiths to being unreasonably and pejoritively reduced to being called "fairy dust".

So, given the Golden Rule (including any secular version thereof), if one does not wish to have one's belief/faith in materialism reduced to being called "fairy dust" or "magic", then don't reduce other beliefs/faith in the same way.

I hope this helps.

Well no it doesn't help.

(1) above conflates hypothesis with theory and seems to suggest that something can be empirically proven once and for all. It also imports the unnecessary notion of faith.

(2) foists a loaded notion of "materialism" on us. We are merely talking about explaining intelligence, human behavior and so in terms of natural science.

(4) "Beliefs/faiths have unreasonably and pejoritively been reduced to being called "fairy dust""

No! The unmotivated introduction of ill defined entities such as pre-existent intelligence and spirit which do not figure in any theoretical structure are what we are talking about. These entities stay at the level of mere words and have no explanitory power. These entities are what we are calling fairy dust. Not the beliefs.

What entities does "materialism" posit that you think have no explanitory power, are ill defined or have no empirical support?

By the way, what propostitions are you referring to in (1)?