Thread: Pathways to Heaven? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024621
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
At the very least it will identify those of us who need to preach the Gospel every day - using words if necessary - to hose unfortunates with bits of their brains not working properly.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Does that exclude anybody here who does not need to preach it to themselves?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
It doesn't really tell us anything new, HughWillRidmee - we know we are all different, we all think differently, and some of these differences can be attributed to brain structure. I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would) or an organ which the person needs to think and function, but not the complete person himself.
I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers.
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
Mark Betts is completely right. What we know to date about neurology is very limited indeed, we are just scratching the surface. What is crucial is that neurological pathways are interconnected. We are involved in an immense multitasking operation just to eat an orange.
Plus what we do with these neurological connections is what is significant in normal life. Firstly the overwhelming proportion of our mental processes are learned in some degree of other – 98%? Plus we are in a constant interaction with our environment – physical and social and our own bodies, especially in terms of the chemical balances.
An analogy would be if I know how the muscles of my legs work, therefore I know where I am going to walk today.
Howver, the technique will be of immense value in terms of diagnosing medical issues. Anything more than that, well if you wait a century of so...
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At the very least it will identify those of us who need to preach the Gospel every day - using words if necessary - to hose unfortunates with bits of their brains not working properly. I can assure you that I have no intention of spraying you with your faulty grey matter
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would) An atheist does not believe in a god or gods – not for the first time your habit of inventing additional membership rules for atheists - rules that don’t exist - damages any merit your statements might have.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts: I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers. It means that you’re learning not to take things at face value – keep it up.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Mark Betts is completely right. Not about atheists he ain’t
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
What we know to date about neurology is very limited indeed, we are just scratching the surface. I agree that we almost certainly have a massive amount more to discover.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
....An analogy would be if I know how the muscles of my legs work, therefore I know where I am going to walk today. It would? – can you explain?
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
However, the technique will be of immense value in terms of diagnosing medical issues. But will it help with combating those issues?
“The project could help shed light on why some people are naturally scientific, musical or artistic”. If that light shedding extends to why some people are spiritual/mystical ought we to hope that the technique remains diagnostic and can’t be used to permit modification of that part of the diagnosed’s personality?
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
Reply to HughWillRidmee
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
....An analogy would be if I know how the muscles of my legs work, therefore I know where I am going to walk today. It would? – can you explain?
Reply: Sorry badly expressed. It would have been better expressed as “If I know how the muscles of your legs work, I would still not know where you are going to walk today.” It is the structure versus function argument.
________________________________________
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by poileplume:
However, the technique will be of immense value in terms of diagnosing medical issues. But will it help with combating those issues?
Reply: By early diagnosis, it will allow treatment to be instigated earlier. The broadcast mentions dyslexia. As you can see I am dyslexic myself and have acted as a councillor. It is essential that coping mechanisms for dyslexia are introduced as earlier as possible. This allows the dyslexic to maximise their potential especially during the formative years, plus the secondary consequences e are be avoided.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Mark Betts is completely right. Not about atheists he ain’t
I leave that to Mark Betts to discuss with you. I claim non combatant status.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Mark Betts is completely right.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Not about atheists he ain’t
I leave that to Mark Betts to discuss with you. I claim non combatant status.
Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If that light shedding extends to why some people are spiritual/mystical ought we to hope that the technique remains diagnostic and can’t be used to permit modification of that part of the diagnosed’s personality?
This bothers me too. I have ADHD, which has been shown to be a 'brain difference'.
But my ADHD is me and I would hate to have it taken away as I'd feel that a large part of me had been taken away. My impulsivity, risk taking, experimental, 'living in the moment' nature is (I feel) largely due to the ADD. When I took Ritalin it helped me focus a great deal, but seemed to rob me of the essential me. (Ritalin is a stimulant which stimulates the part of the brain which deals with executive functions and focus).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
/continuing tangent/
I think atheists and people of faith share a common belief that a human person is a sentient organic entity. They simply differ in their beliefs about any supernatural creative "making" of that entity.
So I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mark. Atheists do not believe we are made in the image of God, but that does not of itself prevent them being able to love other people as they love themselves - or at least to see that as a good way to go. Many are up for the second of Jesus' two commandments, even though they are not up for the first.
[ 18. February 2013, 09:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers.
It means that you’re learning not to take things at face value – keep it up.
OK. So far so good.
So where do we go next? Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we HughWillRidmee?
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?
If we could only get to the stage where we can wonder if there just might be more to it all than the naturalistic scientists conclude, we have come a very long way. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
And I didn't use the term "scientism" once, did I? Oops! Sorry, I just did. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
/continuing tangent/
I think atheists and people of faith share a common belief that a human person is a sentient organic entity.
I'm not quite sure I would say that - there is an element of mystery about the human person - made in the image of God, spiritual (in that he can relate to God). It is hard to explain, but I wanted to hear what HughWillRidmee had to say. Certainly I believe that there is more to the person than you describe.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Mark - so you are saying that it's so complex it must have a creator?
Maybe so - but that's nothing to do with the OP.
The OP is asking how much our brain wiring causes us to be 'spiritual' people.
I would also like to ask how much of creativity is in brain structure/composition?
I think quite a lot. Most of the people I know who are very creative are definitely 'differently wired'!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
Don't forget that brain structure also changes over the course of a person's life depending on how they use their brains.
It is hard to say whether the differences are a cause of what a person does, or a result of what they have chosen to do. Both I expect.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
There are people with all sorts of brain diseases, so adding atheism to the long list would not make much of a difference. I would expect that one would see the same sort of spectrum as in other brain diseases. There would be people whose atheism is not or only marginally due to brain disease (but rather due to error on this specific subject, or general cognitive deficits). And then there would be "clinically atheist" people, who suffer from severe imbalances of their neurochemistry, reduced cortical connectivity, or whatever else turns out to be the main cause.
Morally speaking, such "clinical atheists" would be in the same position as kleptomaniac thieves or psychopathic killers. That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. They do deserve our - cautious - pity. And we can of course assume that God will take into account their diseased brains and pass fair judgement on what they did with what they were given. (Just as there appear to be quite a number of functional psychopaths actually using their deficits in a positive manner for society, one can always hope that clinical atheists can in some manner or form be integrated viably into society.)
Practically speaking, DSM-5 is about to be published. So unfortunately it will be some time before atheism can be formally recognized as a mental disorder by the medical profession. That should however not stop us in the meantime from researching drugs or other interventions that may ease the devastating sufferings of atheists.
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
IngoB
That is one of the funnest things I have read for many a day.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
The scientismists on here will love you, IngoB. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So where do we go next? Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we HughWillRidmee?
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?
Exactly how are you measuring "complexity"? That would help me get a handle on the standard by which the brain is "crude and unsophisticated" when compared with, for example, the eye or the vascular system of a tree.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And then there would be "clinically atheist" people, who suffer from severe imbalances of their neurochemistry, reduced cortical connectivity, or whatever else turns out to be the main cause.
Morally speaking, such "clinical atheists" would be in the same position as kleptomaniac thieves or psychopathic killers. That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced.
What I find most interesting about this kind of assertion is the way "society" is exhorted to be much more merciful than God. In short, "society" should be cautious in how it treats those with peculiar quirks of brain chemistry, but God will damn them to eternal torment for it.
[ 18. February 2013, 13:18: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Practically speaking, DSM-5 is about to be published. So unfortunately it will be some time before atheism can be formally recognized as a mental disorder by the medical profession. That should however not stop us in the meantime from researching drugs or other interventions that may ease the devastating sufferings of atheists.
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
And what about the 'clinically religious'?
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers.
It means that you’re learning not to take things at face value – keep it up.
OK. So far so good.
So where do we go next? Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we HughWillRidmee?
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?
If we could only get to the stage where we can wonder if there just might be more to it all than the naturalistic scientists conclude, we have come a very long way. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
And I didn't use the term "scientism" once, did I? Oops! Sorry, I just did.
Natural selection is not random though it is undesigned. The mutations that it can work on are random. For example bacteria that infect humans (and the animals they domestic) mutate randomly but those that develop a mutation that gives them an edge against the antibiotics that are commonly used (and barring drawbacks from the mutation that outweigh this edge) will reproduce and soon those with that mutation will dominate the population.
The human brain is perhaps an unusual result (maybe a bit like the elephant's trunk) but is on an continuum. The other apes (e.g., chimpanzees) with which we share a common ancestor less than 10 million years ago also have highly developed brains compared to most other animals and it does not differ in major ways from ours except in degree. Further development presumably gave us an advantage that outweighed its disadvantages (huge energy consumer, higher maternal mortality).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. (italics added now)
In short, "society" should be cautious in how it treats those with peculiar quirks of brain chemistry, but God will damn them to eternal torment for it.
Do you generally find it difficult to follow long sentences to their end? Do people often say that you fail to come to the most natural conclusion? Or does all that just happen whenever you try to talk about religion and God?
Merely trying my hand at a bit of differential diagnosis of atheism here. Let's see, ... here's another question.
Are you often surprised when people tell you that they have been taking the piss out of you?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. (italics added now)
In short, "society" should be cautious in how it treats those with peculiar quirks of brain chemistry, but God will damn them to eternal torment for it.
Do you generally find it difficult to follow long sentences to their end? Do people often say that you fail to come to the most natural conclusion? Or does all that just happen whenever you try to talk about religion and God?
Not at all. Isn't damnation the ultimate in personal culpability?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Are you often surprised when people tell you that they have been taking the piss out of you?
Nope. I've always found Christian notions of an all loving God who intends to torture me for eternity to be hilariious! Most Christians don't seem regard it as a joke though. Congratulations on your insight.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
On atheism as a disease, Simon Baron-Cohen seemed to get close to this, with his suggestion of a spectrum from autistic people to empathetic people, with autistic people being unsympathetic to religion.
You can see the headlines: 'Atheists are autistic'.
However, it seems to be contradicted by the existence of quite a few autistic and Asperger's people who are religious. In fact, I've heard of church services in the US specially for them.
Still, the discussion of the 'theory of mind' and its prevalence amongst autistic, versus empathetic, people, is interesting.
I would guess research on this is in its infancy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Oh no, that wasn't an argument about irreducible complexity, in relation to the brain, was it? And I thought the government had banned such arguments.
It's really the argument from incredulity - I can't believe that the brain could evolve.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
IngoB:
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On atheism as a disease, Simon Baron-Cohen seemed to get close to this, with his suggestion of a spectrum from autistic people to empathetic people, with autistic people being unsympathetic to religion.
You can see the headlines: 'Atheists are autistic'.
However, it seems to be contradicted by the existence of quite a few autistic and Asperger's people who are religious. In fact, I've heard of church services in the US specially for them.
Still, the discussion of the 'theory of mind' and its prevalence amongst autistic, versus empathetic, people, is interesting.
I would guess research on this is in its infancy.
http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html
For example. This is in no way contradicted by the existence of autistic believers; it's simply that an autistic person, all else being equal, is considerably less likely to believe in God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think the usual caution about correlation and causation must be applied here. It doesn't mean that 'autism causes atheism'.
It does seem to show some correlations between autism and non-religion, but I still think this is early days, as these areas of research are often prone to big changes, as more and more teams start to get involved, and begin to investigate more variables.
I suppose the cliche is the guy who loves analyzing stuff, doesn't relate well to people, is clumsy, finds women very puzzling - hey, that's me down to a T!
Bt i iz no adeistical.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh no, that wasn't an argument about irreducible complexity, in relation to the brain, was it? And I thought the government had banned such arguments.
It's really the argument from incredulity - I can't believe that the brain could evolve.
Oh dear, I'd forgotten scientismists like yourself get upset about things like that. An Anglican scientismist I notice, so maybe not the worst kind.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh no, that wasn't an argument about irreducible complexity, in relation to the brain, was it? And I thought the government had banned such arguments.
It's really the argument from incredulity - I can't believe that the brain could evolve.
Oh dear, I'd forgotten scientismists like yourself get upset about things like that. An Anglican scientismist I notice, so maybe not the worst kind.
Not upset at all. I guess you haven't noticed me criticizing scientism fiercely, which I tend to do. For one thing, it is not a scientific claim, so immediately refutes itself!
No, these arguments from incredulity just seem a bit feeble today - surely, creationists are not still muttering, 'I don't see how the eye/brain/whale could have evolved in millions of years', are they?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...surely, creationists are not still muttering, 'I don't see how the eye/brain/whale could have evolved in millions of years', are they?
Well, they've been waiting more than 100 years for a good answer from naturalists - I expect they will be muttering about why they haven't seen it, yet keep being told "It's been proved, it's been proved!"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, no, nothing is proved in science, only in maths and logic.
But I have yet to meet a creationist who had actually read stuff about evolution, and actually seemed to understand it. They tend to have a very naive idea about it.
There is a ton of stuff out there, which can be read, and is approachable. I was reading an article yesterday about the evolution of whales, and it seemed straightforward to me, although I am not a biologist.
[ 18. February 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
I suppose you could reconcile it with five point Calvinism? Since no-one is able to seek God, or to even want to be with God, the autistic or Asperger's person is not really disadvantaged, and could also be redeemed by grace.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
I read the earlier link, and it seems to suggest that christianity is all about a person's mental processes - ie cerebral christianity.
Maybe it doesn't have to be so mind-based - that's why we use icons, candles, incense, sacraments - instead of just relying on brain function.
With the greatest of respect, perhaps people with autism might find a "higher" form of christianity easier for them, rather than being stuck with intellectuals on an Alpha course.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, that might be true.
I'm just making the point that in 5 point Calvinism, nobody has the ability to want to be with God, so the autistic person is not under a disadvantage at all, if you accept the argument about autism and atheism.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
There are people with all sorts of brain diseases, so adding atheism to the long list would not make much of a difference. I would expect that one would see the same sort of spectrum as in other brain diseases. There would be people whose atheism is not or only marginally due to brain disease (but rather due to error on this specific subject, or general cognitive deficits). And then there would be "clinically atheist" people, who suffer from severe imbalances of their neurochemistry, reduced cortical connectivity, or whatever else turns out to be the main cause.
Morally speaking, such "clinical atheists" would be in the same position as kleptomaniac thieves or psychopathic killers. That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. They do deserve our - cautious - pity. And we can of course assume that God will take into account their diseased brains and pass fair judgement on what they did with what they were given. (Just as there appear to be quite a number of functional psychopaths actually using their deficits in a positive manner for society, one can always hope that clinical atheists can in some manner or form be integrated viably into society.)
Practically speaking, DSM-5 is about to be published. So unfortunately it will be some time before atheism can be formally recognized as a mental disorder by the medical profession. That should however not stop us in the meantime from researching drugs or other interventions that may ease the devastating sufferings of atheists.
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
Brilliant!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that might be true.
I'm just making the point that in 5 point Calvinism, nobody has the ability to want to be with God, so the autistic person is not under a disadvantage at all, if you accept the argument about autism and atheism.
Yes, but seeing as I can't handle five-point Calvinism myself, I'm hardly in a position to recommend it to anyone else!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Brilliant!
Yes, I normally moan when people repost reams and reams of previous quotes, but in this case it's a good thing! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I wonder how you'd be judged by your projected criteria IngoB ?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html
For example. This is in no way contradicted by the existence of autistic believers; it's simply that an autistic person, all else being equal, is considerably less likely to believe in God.
I'm not sure the results would extend beyond a fairly evangelical "personal relationship with God" approach to belief. It also excludes the ability of people with autism to reason their way past a lack of empathic skills. As a Christian with mild Asperger's I have some insight here I think.
In any case, there are lots of factors affecting ones likelihood to believe in God - whether you grew up in a religious family, for example. I don't think this one factor is any more concerning than another.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
/continuing tangent/
I think atheists and people of faith share a common belief that a human person is a sentient organic entity.
I'm not quite sure I would say that - there is an element of mystery about the human person - made in the image of God, spiritual (in that he can relate to God). It is hard to explain, but I wanted to hear what HughWillRidmee had to say. Certainly I believe that there is more to the person than you describe.
Sure, but not less! And that was my point.
Just my generally co-operative instincts at work really; pointing out what we are likely to agree about seems more useful than speculating mysteriously about things we probably don't agree on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that might be true.
I'm just making the point that in 5 point Calvinism, nobody has the ability to want to be with God, so the autistic person is not under a disadvantage at all, if you accept the argument about autism and atheism.
Yes, but seeing as I can't handle five-point Calvinism myself, I'm hardly in a position to recommend it to anyone else!
I'm not actually recommending it. I'm just following an as-if argument, and it struck me how cleverly total depravity deals with any group of people, who for whatever reason, could not have the experience of wanting to be with God. Total depravity seems to argue that nobody can want to be with God.
Well, I find that very satisfying in a sort of logical way. It also feels partly intuitively correct, that I cannot will myself to love someone.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
It's only a problem to be reconciled if you assume that being religious is a prerequisite to receiving benefits from the creator.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It's only a problem to be reconciled if you assume that being religious is a prerequisite to receiving benefits from the creator.
. . . or avoiding punishment by the creator.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
That option makes so little sense to me that I keep forgetting about it.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
Don't forget that brain structure also changes over the course of a person's life depending on how they use their brains.
It is hard to say whether the differences are a cause of what a person does, or a result of what they have chosen to do. Both I expect.
Yes, assuming there are differences identified, it will then become important to know whether they are a cause or a result. As I understand it, musician's brains are very obviously different compared to non-musicians (e.g. more gray matter), but that these obvious differences are a result of being a musician rather than a cause, which would mean that they cannot be used to help determine how likely an individual is to become a musician in the future.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
It's only a problem to be reconciled if you assume that being religious is a prerequisite to receiving benefits from the creator.
Yes, being religious is no help at all, since we all hate God, and we are all equally unable to approach him.
Since I'm not a Calvinist, I'm not sure how it then proceeds. We know that some sinners receive irresistible grace, and some do not. Thus, there is no merit to be rewarded; all deserve damnation.
I just like the logical puzzle of it.
Oh Lord, if I may contend with thee, why do sinners' ways prosper? Wert thou my enemy, O thou my friend ...
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I wonder how you'd be judged by your projected criteria IngoB?
To ring the bell, a clapper strikes its inside rim, making the whole body resonate. So it ought to be for bell curves.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Interesting to note the following phraseology from the article (found at 1.23-1.37 mins).
Interviewer: So, what do you hope to learn from these incredible images?
Scientist Bod: We have a number of purposes. On the one hand we want to understand better how the brain is designed, how it works. On the other hand we have biomedical objectives.
This exchange is very telling. It tells us that scientists want to know more about the brain. It tells us that the language of creation is harder to expunge from scientific dialogue than people will care to admit. It tells us that scientific endeavour to as much about curiosity and the spirit of exploration as it is about pragmatism and rationality.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
“The project could help shed light on why some people are naturally scientific, musical or artistic”.
Well, no, it won't do that will it? Not even it its successful beyond its funder's wildest dreams. It can't show why people think about science or music or art - or God, or religion. or anything else. It shows how they do it, not why. We know we think with our brains. We know our brains work by electrochemistry. Finding our the details of how it works doesn't answer "why" questions but "how" ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe it doesn't have to be so mind-based - that's why we use icons, candles, incense, sacraments - instead of just relying on brain function.
But no-one can "use icons, candles, incense, sacraments" without involving their brain function. You do all those things with your mind. And you do your mind with your body.
We don't want a sort of "soul of the gaps" theory. As if humanity or consciousness or personality could only reside in the unexplained, and as soon as we understand how something works it ceases to be really "us" and becomes mere mechanism. As if our bodies are not really ourselves, but just machines we operate, like driving a car. And any behaviour or thought that could be explained by the way the car works must be part of the car, not the driver. That leads to nonsense like "it wasn't my fault it was my hormones" or "it wasn't my fault it was the drink" or "its not my fault its just the way my brain works" as if my hormones, or my behaviour when drunk, or the structure of my brain isn't really "me" but just some faulty meat machine I've been lumbered with.
[ 19. February 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would)
An atheist does not believe in a god or gods – not for the first time your habit of inventing additional membership rules for atheists - rules that don’t exist - damages any merit your statements might have.
Yes, but not believing in God has implications, because 'God' is not a trivial concept. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to draw inferences from belief / non-belief in God. Mark Betts was entirely justified in doing so.
It is a common fallacy for atheists to claim that "atheism is merely non-belief in God, with absolutely nothing else to say about it" (as if 'God' is as trivial as Russell's Teapot). If this really were the case, then it would be possible for someone to claim to be a proper atheist while believing in the existence of a personal, intelligent creator of the whole universe, as long as this creator is not called 'God'. Clearly such a being is rightly called 'God', and therefore if 'God' is not believed in, then neither is creation believed in and every idea that is associated with creation.
You can't ditch 'God' without ditching a whole load of other concepts that depend on His existence and activity.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But an atheist could believe in ghosts or the afterlife or pixies, couldn't he? There is no requirement for atheists to be naturalists or materialists.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But an atheist could believe in ghosts or the afterlife or pixies, couldn't he?
Many Buddhists would fit that description. Atheist supernaturalists.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But an atheist could believe in ghosts or the afterlife or pixies, couldn't he? There is no requirement for atheists to be naturalists or materialists.
I do find it rather annoying when certain atheists criticise theism, and then hide behind the claim that atheism is merely non-belief in God, because it's possible to be a "supernatural atheist". It may be true that one could concoct an atheistic supernaturalistic world view, but such an exercise undermines any argument that theistic supernaturalism per se is a bad thing.
ISTM that some atheists want the luxury of criticising 'religion' in the strongest possible terms, while avoiding any investigation of their own claims, "because, of course, we don't claim anything anyway!"
If theistic claims are considered unfalsifiable - and therefore a matter of (what is mistakenly termed) faith - then the same applies to the claims of atheistic supernaturalism. So such 'atheists' can hardly claim to be in the same epistemic boat as the naturalistic atheists who (in my view, fallaciously) believe their position to be firmly grounded in reason and evidence!
"Have cake and eat it" comes to mind...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html
For example. This is in no way contradicted by the existence of autistic believers; it's simply that an autistic person, all else being equal, is considerably less likely to believe in God.
I'm not sure the results would extend beyond a fairly evangelical "personal relationship with God" approach to belief. It also excludes the ability of people with autism to reason their way past a lack of empathic skills. As a Christian with mild Asperger's I have some insight here I think.
In any case, there are lots of factors affecting ones likelihood to believe in God - whether you grew up in a religious family, for example. I don't think this one factor is any more concerning than another.
Well, the explanation offered points that way, but the raw data itself is purely the likelihood of a belief in God. I'm in a similar boat to you, and I do wonder if there's some explanation here into why I don't tend to have "spiritual experiences", and find people's talk of their "relationship with God" quite baffling.
[ 20. February 2013, 10:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But an atheist could believe in ghosts or the afterlife or pixies, couldn't he? There is no requirement for atheists to be naturalists or materialists.
I do find it rather annoying when certain atheists criticise theism, and then hide behind the claim that atheism is merely non-belief in God, because it's possible to be a "supernatural atheist". It may be true that one could concoct an atheistic supernaturalistic world view, but such an exercise undermines any argument that theistic supernaturalism per se is a bad thing.
ISTM that some atheists want the luxury of criticising 'religion' in the strongest possible terms, while avoiding any investigation of their own claims, "because, of course, we don't claim anything anyway!"
If theistic claims are considered unfalsifiable - and therefore a matter of (what is mistakenly termed) faith - then the same applies to the claims of atheistic supernaturalism. So such 'atheists' can hardly claim to be in the same epistemic boat as the naturalistic atheists who (in my view, fallaciously) believe their position to be firmly grounded in reason and evidence!
"Have cake and eat it" comes to mind...
I'm not sure that theism is considered to be a bad thing, simply non-evidenced. Well, OK, I guess some atheists argue that having non-evidenced beliefs is a bad thing!
But for that matter atheistic supernaturalism is also non-evidenced, I would think, and my experience is that naturalistic atheists do tend to criticize it quite strongly, for example, various Buddhist ideas.
The basic point I was making is that atheism does not entail naturalism or materialism; this is not particularly contentious or surprising.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I'm not sure that theism is considered to be a bad thing, simply non-evidenced. Well, OK, I guess some atheists argue that having non-evidenced beliefs is a bad thing!
But for that matter atheistic supernaturalism is also non-evidenced, I would think, and my experience is that naturalistic atheists do tend to criticize it quite strongly, for example, various Buddhist ideas.
Obviously I disagree with your view that theism is non-evidenced. That presupposes a certain view of 'evidence' that sounds unjustifiably limited to me.
But while there may indeed be 'supernaturalistic atheists', they hardly have a position from which they could launch any critique of religion. But what I have found is that there is a certain kind of atheist, who feels justified in attacking what he terms 'religion', while, at the same time, arguing that there is no burden of proof on him to defend his position, because he doesn't have a position, other than merely not believing in God, which is on a par with not believing in Russell's Teapot or the invisible pink unicorn. So he manoeuvres himself into the luxurious position of being able to attack others without ever needing to give an account of his own viewpoint. Part of this shifting of the burden of proof involves the argument that there are supernaturalistic atheists, even though he is critical of their supernaturalism!
I suppose we should just accept that the term 'atheism' is effectively meaningless. After all, according to Dawkins, I, as a Christian, am an 'atheist', because I don't believe in Zeus. If this is how the term is to be viewed, then there can be no rational critique of theism, since the contrary position is meaningless. The same could, of course, be said for 'anti-theism', because I could also, as a Christian, be antagonistic towards non-Christian views of God.
(And if the argument is used that, because atheism is meaningless, therefore theism should also be regarded as meaningless, then we are into a philosophical discussion about meaning, which involves a burden of proof on all participants. Which is fine by me!)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I didn't say that it was my view that theism is unevidenced. That was my attempt to report the views of atheists, of which I am not one.
Well, the term 'atheist' could be considered to be rather vague or indeterminate. I don't think this is really a problem, since in discussion with someone, they can begin to unpack their particular views. I suppose animists are atheists, but one would have to look more closely into an animist's particular beliefs than that.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Obviously I disagree with your view that theism is non-evidenced. That presupposes a certain view of 'evidence' that sounds unjustifiably limited to me.
Only because it rules out all the "I can't actually demonstrate this to you in any way, so you'll just have to take my word for it, but it was totally real, honest" types of evidence.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Only because it rules out all the "I can't actually demonstrate this to you in any way, so you'll just have to take my word for it, but it was totally real, honest" types of evidence.
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinion.
All opinions are welcome, even those devoid of any logical merit and any connection with reality.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
We've currently got a 5-page thread about evidence on which you agree that, while your personal experience may be sufficient evidence for your own purposes, it cannot be used to convince anyone else.
For theism to be evidenced in any meaningful way, that evidence has to be accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs. You cannot simply say "I believe it, isn't that evidence enough for you?", because it should be blindingly obvious that it's not evidence enough in any way.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But an atheist could believe in ghosts or the afterlife or pixies, couldn't he? There is no requirement for atheists to be naturalists or materialists.
Surveys into the religious beliefs of people in Western countries seem to throw up interesting combinations, such as atheists who believe in heaven and Christians who believe in reincarnation, etc. Perhaps this is an example of how modern people seek personal meaning and self-made answers to existential questions and don't restrict themselves to the answers given by conventional religions, or even by conventional rationalism.
Orthodox Christianity in particular serves as a kind of scrap yard where we can go along, have a quick browse without necessarily understanding much of what we see, and take home a few bits and pieces that we like the look of for our own DIY motoring project.
I think that orthodox Christianity still needs to exist in some way for such picking and mixing to go on. To change the metaphors again, it's a body of thought and practice that post-Christian society still wants to feed off.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All opinions are welcome, even those devoid of any logical merit and any connection with reality.
This looks an awful lot like a personal attack, which is not allowed in Purgatory. Take it to Hell if you must.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
For theism to be evidenced in any meaningful way, that evidence has to be accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs. You cannot simply say "I believe it, isn't that evidence enough for you?", because it should be blindingly obvious that it's not evidence enough in any way.
And there is evidence (overwhelming evidence) and it is accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs.
There is, of course, the small matter of whether everyone wants to accept that evidence.
You can only lead a horse to water...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Clune
This looks an awful lot like a personal attack, which is not allowed in Purgatory. Take it to Hell if you must.
I apologise for the way my comment was worded, but I did think that Marvin's view about what I wrote was illogical and unjustifiable. I will try to phrase comments in a more measured way in future.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
G. K. Chesterton told the following story.
He was the only Christian in a group of atheists. The topic of lucky charms or mascots came up. It turned out that he was the only one in the room who didn't have one. Everyone else produced one.
Moo
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And there is evidence (overwhelming evidence) and it is accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs.
I find it odd, then, that in five pages of the other thread nobody has been able to provide it...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
For theism to be evidenced in any meaningful way, that evidence has to be accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs. You cannot simply say "I believe it, isn't that evidence enough for you?", because it should be blindingly obvious that it's not evidence enough in any way.
And there is evidence (overwhelming evidence) and it is accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs.
There is, of course, the small matter of whether everyone wants to accept that evidence.
You can only lead a horse to water...
And yet... and yet... here's me, desperate for really strong evidence, and yet I can't recall you posting anything that seemed at all like it. You can hardly put that down to me not wanting to accept it - as I've said, I'd really, really love good evidence that what I hope is true actually is.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Surveys into the religious beliefs of people in Western countries seem to throw up interesting combinations, such as atheists who believe in heaven and Christians who believe in reincarnation, etc. Perhaps this is an example of how modern people seek personal meaning and self-made answers to existential questions and don't restrict themselves to the answers given by conventional religions, or even by conventional rationalism.
Orthodox Christianity in particular serves as a kind of scrap yard where we can go along, have a quick browse without necessarily understanding much of what we see, and take home a few bits and pieces that we like the look of for our own DIY motoring project.
I think that orthodox Christianity still needs to exist in some way for such picking and mixing to go on. To change the metaphors again, it's a body of thought and practice that post-Christian society still wants to feed off.
I had never thought about any of this, but I think you are right. I remember some years ago hearing William Roache (Ken Barlow in Coronation Street) talking about his christian beliefs, and his frustration that he couldn't find anyone else who believed in reincarnation.
Never heard of any atheists who believe in heaven - maybe Buddhists? But I never thought of them as atheists.
You talk about using orthodox christianity as a template, but what exactly is this? (outside of Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
For theism to be evidenced in any meaningful way, that evidence has to be accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs. You cannot simply say "I believe it, isn't that evidence enough for you?", because it should be blindingly obvious that it's not evidence enough in any way.
And there is evidence (overwhelming evidence) and it is accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs.
There is, of course, the small matter of whether everyone wants to accept that evidence.
You can only lead a horse to water...
And yet... and yet... here's me, desperate for really strong evidence, and yet I can't recall you posting anything that seemed at all like it. You can hardly put that down to me not wanting to accept it - as I've said, I'd really, really love good evidence that what I hope is true actually is.
But surely the whole point of Christianity is that you can't rely on peer-reviewed, scientifically quantifiable 'evidence'. Why else would faith be required?
My faith is weak, but all else considered I don't see that atheism makes more or less 'sense'. It's just one more option among many. So I just keep on keeping on, with a constant cry of 'Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.'
I've heard it said that the uncomfortable yearning for more of God is itself a sign that God is with us. Maybe that's something that Christians who've missed out on 'exciting' spiritual experiences can hold on to.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
And yet... and yet... here's me, desperate for really strong evidence, and yet I can't recall you posting anything that seemed at all like it. You can hardly put that down to me not wanting to accept it - as I've said, I'd really, really love good evidence that what I hope is true actually is.
Over the last few years, I (and others) have posted many comments on a whole variety of subjects relating to Christian and theistic apologetics, on the topics of:
1. The nature and origin of reason
2. Free will
3. Complexity
4. Morality
5. Consciousness
6. First cause
7. Epistemology
And then there is also an abundance of historical evidence, which admittedly I haven't really commented on.
Perhaps it's because you just don't agree with my reasoning? I can only argue for my point of view, but it does seem rather unfair to suggest that I haven't posted anything at all that could be viewed as convincing evidence.
'Evidence' is not defined by whether you happen to agree with it. In any criminal trial, both the defence and prosecution sides present evidence. Some of that evidence secures a verdict. Does that mean that the material offered by the losing side does not count as 'evidence'? I am not suggesting that I think that I am on the losing side (far from it!), but rather that you cannot claim that theists do not produce evidence, just because you happen to disagree with it or because you regard it as 'weak'.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Maybe it is your reasoning that I don't agree with. But if the convincingness or otherwise of your evidence depends also upon agreeing with your particular line of reasoning, then it's not the evidence itself but your particular interpretation of it.
Which is fine, but I do think it means you can hardly describe the evidence as "convincing". Were it so, surely it'd convince people like me who'd actually quite like to be convinced?
I have never claimed that theists do not provide evidence. What I struggle to see is evidence for which an alternative explanation than then the theist God is actually perverse - or even apparently less likely.
[ 20. February 2013, 13:20: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
For theism to be evidenced in any meaningful way, that evidence has to be accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs. You cannot simply say "I believe it, isn't that evidence enough for you?", because it should be blindingly obvious that it's not evidence enough in any way.
And there is evidence (overwhelming evidence) and it is accessible to anyone and everyone regardless of their actual beliefs.
There is, of course, the small matter of whether everyone wants to accept that evidence.
You can only lead a horse to water...
And yet... and yet... here's me, desperate for really strong evidence, and yet I can't recall you posting anything that seemed at all like it. You can hardly put that down to me not wanting to accept it - as I've said, I'd really, really love good evidence that what I hope is true actually is.
But surely the whole point of Christianity is that you can't rely on peer-reviewed, scientifically quantifiable 'evidence'. Why else would faith be required?
My faith is weak, but all else considered I don't see that atheism makes more or less 'sense'. It's just one more option among many. So I just keep on keeping on, with a constant cry of 'Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.'
I've heard it said that the uncomfortable yearning for more of God is itself a sign that God is with us. Maybe that's something that Christians who've missed out on 'exciting' spiritual experiences can hold on to.
You could also argue that there's lot of stuff for which there is no strong evidence - for example, free will, the existence of the present moment, the existence of persons, the past, the future, zero, etc.
I suppose we just accept these things as if, and historically, they didn't really excite much comment, although I suppose philosophers got aereated about them!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Maybe it is your reasoning that I don't agree with. But if the convincingness or otherwise of your evidence depends also upon agreeing with your particular line of reasoning, then it's not the evidence itself but your particular interpretation of it.
Quite so. Apologetics are not the same thing as evidence.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could also argue that there's lot of stuff for which there is no strong evidence - for example, free will, the existence of the present moment, the existence of persons, the past, the future, zero, etc.
No strong evidence for those things? Since when?
Free will - we can choose to write our posts.
The present moment - well, here we are in it.
Persons - there are quite a few of them right here.
The past - we were there (at least for some of it!).
The future - no evidence, but only because it hasn't happened yet.
Zero - the number of sandwiches I currently have (having just finished my lunch).
How is that not strong evidence?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Apologetics are not the same thing as evidence.
If so, then that is true also of the 'evidence' of philosophical naturalism.
Funny how you and Karl complain that theists do not produce any evidence, and then when pushed you reveal that actually it's the case that you don't happen to agree with the evidence presented. So it's really your interpretation (and therefore your brand of apologetics) that is driving your complaint.
I'm sorely tempted to write something more colourful, but must remember the rules of Purg...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could also argue that there's lot of stuff for which there is no strong evidence - for example, free will, the existence of the present moment, the existence of persons, the past, the future, zero, etc.
No strong evidence for those things? Since when?
Free will - we can choose to write our posts.
The present moment - well, here we are in it.
Persons - there are quite a few of them right here.
The past - we were there (at least for some of it!).
The future - no evidence, but only because it hasn't happened yet.
Zero - the number of sandwiches I currently have (having just finished my lunch).
How is that not strong evidence?
They just seem circular to me. The present moment exists, because we are in it? Eh?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I have never claimed you offer no evidence - just that you do not offer empirical, convincing evidence.
And you didn't have to "push" me; that's been my line all along.
[ 20. February 2013, 13:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Never heard of any atheists who believe in heaven - maybe Buddhists? But I never thought of them as atheists.
I read recently that in popular Western culture, heaven has become detached from Christianity and has taken on a life of its own, so to speak. One example given of this is in the recent book/film 'The Lovely Bones'. I don't know the story, but apparently there's a little girl who dies and goes to heaven, but she still wants to interact with her family on earth. It sounds like a vaguely 'Christian' idea, but there's not much actual Christianity in the characters' lives, so I understand.
In real life we hear of non-religious parents asserting that their departed little children are now in heaven with the angels (and angels have also been detached from Christianity - it's almost as if the angels have set up their own little business on the side, affiliated with the Judeo-Christian God, but operating independently of him!). This isn't the atheism of the New Atheists (although I was surprised to read that Hitchens read the Bible at his father's funeral), but of ordinary folk who just work things out as they go along, not trying to stick to any institutional or rational script.
quote:
You talk about using orthodox christianity as a template, but what exactly is this? (outside of Eastern Orthodoxy)
(Obviously, I was referring to orthodox Christianity with a little 'o'. )
I'm thinking of the cultural weight behind a vague notion of 'traditional' Christian beliefs. So, for example, even though mainstream churchgoing Christians today dislike the idea of 'hell', popular culture still gains some comfort from an old-fashioned belief in divine eternal punishment for certain categories of 'evildoers' such as paedophiles and the murderers of children (but not, of course, for people who just happen to be 'normally' irreligious,etc.).
Marriage, for good or ill, is still impregnated with notions of spiritual significance. The white dress apparently once served as a symbol of virginity, yet despite the general distaste for virginity after late adolescence, white is as popular as ever for wedding dresses.
So I suppose my point is, while the liberal, tolerant church may see little or no relevance in orthodox/traditional ideas such a 'hell' or of pre-marital chastity, those are aspects that, if only symbolically, retain some appeal in the wider, pick and mix culture, and therefore they still need to be on the Christian table, so to speak, if the church is to have points of reference with the culture. It's not always a matter of getting rid of stuff to be relevant, but also of keeping stuff. There are probably plenty of other examples we could come up with.
These are my sketchy thoughts, anyway.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Apologetics are not the same thing as evidence.
If so, then that is true also of the 'evidence' of philosophical naturalism.
Of the interpretations it provides for the evidence with which it is presented, perhaps. You and quetzalcoatl both seem to be confusing the explanation of the evidence for the evidence itself.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem circular to me. The present moment exists, because we are in it? Eh?
What more evidence (note: not explanation) do you need for the present moment than the observation that you are here?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Free will - we can choose to write our posts.
Therefore we are not determined by material reactions.
quote:
The present moment - well, here we are in it.
How can we be 'materially' IN an infinitesimally small period of time?
How long is "the present moment" by your calculation?
quote:
Persons - there are quite a few of them right here.
Please provide direct empirical (therefore naturalistic) evidence of my consciousness.
quote:
The past - we were there (at least for some of it!).
How do you know that? I mean, empirically speaking. Can you directly observe yourself in the past right now? Can you replicate that experience of being in the past?
quote:
The future - no evidence, but only because it hasn't happened yet.
Fair enough.
quote:
Zero - the number of sandwiches I currently have (having just finished my lunch).
Is zero a number?
The last two items are fairly uncontroversial (at least for the purposes of this discussion). As for the others: naturalism does not provide a decent explanation.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the others: naturalism does not provide a decent explanation.
For you to agree that there's something to explain in the first place, you must perforce accept the evidence of its existence. It follows that said evidence must exist. QED.
If you ask me to provide evidence for the existence of cows I do not have to go into a lengthy discussion of evolution, nor do I have to recite the creation accounts in Genesis. I merely have to show you a cow. That is what I mean by evidence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem circular to me. The present moment exists, because we are in it? Eh?
What more evidence (note: not explanation) do you need for the present moment than the observation that you are here?
How does the observation that I am here, lead to the idea that I am now?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How does the observation that I am here, lead to the idea that I am now?
That phraseology reveals a very three-dimensional approach to the concept of "here"! Try thinking in four dimensions (the fourth, of course, being time) and it should become clearer!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How does the observation that I am here, lead to the idea that I am now?
That phraseology reveals a very three-dimensional approach to the concept of "here"! Try thinking in four dimensions (the fourth, of course, being time) and it should become clearer!
It still seems circular to me. You seem to be saying I am now, because I observe that I am now. Well, OK, that sounds a bit like theism to me.
Obviously, you can relate 'now' to a reference point in time, just as you can relate 'I' to a point of view (the first person), but that still leaves the question hanging, is there such a thing?
I would say that the I itself seems problematic, but that is opening a can of worms, no danger. These are just the ways in which we define our position in reality, of course, but then that just seems like an axiom in a deductive system.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It still seems circular to me. You seem to be saying I am now, because I observe that I am now. Well, OK, that sounds a bit like theism to me.
If you don't trust your own senses and want independent confirmation that you are now, simply ask the person next to you.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It still seems circular to me. You seem to be saying I am now, because I observe that I am now. Well, OK, that sounds a bit like theism to me.
If you don't trust your own senses and want independent confirmation that you are now, simply ask the person next to you.
Yes, I did, and she said, don't be bloody silly, obviously there is no now - can you measure it? I think she's a Buddhist, but then, they don't really think there is anything, so what can you do?
Well, a bit later, she did amplify a bit, and stated that according to her experience, there is only now, therefore there is no now. I don't know whether to be impressed or not.
But then some Sufis say that there is only God, so I suppose there is none.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Yeah, but she answered you. Isn't that evidence enough that you're here?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, but she answered you. Isn't that evidence enough that you're here?
Nice moving of the goalposts there. It's quite entertaining anyway.
It seems to me to rest on some kind of mathematical structure going on, whereby 'I' can position myself within a system. But the system is deductive, not empirical.
But then I suppose both maths and theology are deductive systems! What am I saying? Quelle horreur!
Anyway, I don't think we are going to find common ground at this rate.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you don't trust your own senses and want independent confirmation that you are now, simply ask the person next to you.
Yes, I did, and she said, don't be bloody silly, obviously there is no now - can you measure it? I think she's a Buddhist, but then, they don't really think there is anything, so what can you do?
Well, a bit later, she did amplify a bit, and stated that according to her experience, there is only now, therefore there is no now. I don't know whether to be impressed or not.
But then some Sufis say that there is only God, so I suppose there is none.
With the greatest of respect, wasn't there someone else you could have asked? ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anyway, I don't think we are going to find common ground at this rate.
Not so long as you're trying to claim that the evidence for the existence of God is exactly the same as the evidence for the existence of yourself.
Even though we've only ever interacted through this bulletin board, all the evidence I have seen suggests that you're a lot more real than God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anyway, I don't think we are going to find common ground at this rate.
Not so long as you're trying to claim that the evidence for the existence of God is exactly the same as the evidence for the existence of yourself.
Even though we've only ever interacted through this bulletin board, all the evidence I have seen suggests that you're a lot more real than God.
Come on, buddy, I am God. Well, so are you.
Are you confusing me with someone else? Where have I said that the evidence for God is the same blah blah blah? I thought I was saying that there isn't evidence for either!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Come on, buddy, I am God. Well, so are you.
I know I'm not God. The evidence is the ongoing existence of people I don't like.
quote:
Are you confusing me with someone else? Where have I said that the evidence for God is the same blah blah blah? I thought I was saying that there isn't evidence for either!
I may be confusing you with someone else then. But it does annoy me when the people arguing for evidence for God suddenly start up the "well if we can't say that our personal experience is evidence that our theology is correct then you can't say that anything is evidence for anything ever" shit.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Never heard of any atheists who believe in heaven - maybe Buddhists? But I never thought of them as atheists.
Lots of surveys repeatedly shoe people tick one box to say they do NOT believe in God and then another to say they DO believe in heaven.
Folk religion is never very consistent.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Marvin the Martian
Well, on the empirical evidence thread, I was challenging those people who were trying to say that their own experience is evidence, as this leads to total chaos, since everyone's experience is then evidence.
This is quite a different view of 'evidence' from the scientific one, which is to do with repeatable, non-subjective, stuff. Hence, science used to be defined as 'public knowledge', not private knowledge.
So I don't see any mileage in this 'evidence for God' line.
All of this started off when I said that I didn't think there was evidence for loads of things, which we accept. Anyway, rinse and repeat, no, I mean, don't rise and repeat. Time for telly.
[ 20. February 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
As for the others: naturalism does not provide a decent explanation.
For you to agree that there's something to explain in the first place, you must perforce accept the evidence of its existence. It follows that said evidence must exist. QED.
If you ask me to provide evidence for the existence of cows I do not have to go into a lengthy discussion of evolution, nor do I have to recite the creation accounts in Genesis. I merely have to show you a cow. That is what I mean by evidence.
According to this definition of evidence, we cannot construct any view of reality, because explanations apparently do not count. Therefore there is no evidence for the Big Bang or indeed for the grand theory of evolution (beyond the small adaptive changes we can observe, which not even the most die hard YECist denies).
In fact, it's even questionable whether you could even present a cow as evidence for the existence of cows, because we can only make sense of the experience of perceiving a cow if we already have some structure of ideas in our minds by which to interpret the sense perception involved. If I did not have these ideas already implanted in my mind, and you show me a cow, all I would 'see' would be a mass of colours (and probably not even that, because I would not even know what 'colour' was).
Furthermore, according to your understanding of evidence, very few people could ever be convicted of a crime. Detecting the cause of a crime involves inference and explanation. How many murders are actually directly witnessed?
Concerning evidence for God: you seem to give the impression that the only acceptable evidence for the existence of God is direct empirical evidence, such that God would have to be presented to people as a material being (hence your 'cow' example). This, of course, is ludicrous, because it would mean that the creator of the universe would need to be a specific object within the universe. This is an example of extreme empiricism (which, by the way, is self-refuting, since the idea of empiricism is not established by its own rule), and it a priori rules out any view of reality which includes dimensions above those three dimensions (plus time) which we associate with the material universe. Science moved on from that a long time ago.
Your and Karl's claim that I have not presented any evidence presupposes a certain highly limited view of the concept of 'evidence' - a view not shared by any decent scientist, philosopher, barrister, judge or detective. All of these professionals seek explanations, and apply logic to observed and experienced phenomena to work out what makes reality tick. I have been looking at various aspects of reality - such as reason, free will, consciousness, morality etc - in exactly the same way.
If you and Karl reject this method of processing evidence, then that is your decision. But it's a decision completely out of step with reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
And yet... and yet... here's me, desperate for really strong evidence, and yet I can't recall you posting anything that seemed at all like it. You can hardly put that down to me not wanting to accept it - as I've said, I'd really, really love good evidence that what I hope is true actually is.
Funny that, because I seem to remember this and the following post. You were not at all willing to discuss evidence. Hardly the attitude of someone 'desperate' to discover anything!
[ 21. February 2013, 08:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I remember it EE. And I really don't know where you are going with it, seeing as as I said at the time, you wittering on about proteins in RNAworld is irrelevant because the whole damned hypothesis of RNAworld can replicate by itself and does not need nor use proteins.
The problem is that there, as here, you keep repeating the same things as if repetition will make idiots like me agree with you. For example, you AGAIN accuse me of saying you offer no evidence, when I have repeatedly pointed out that what you have not provided is convincing empirical evidence.
Faced with that constant misrepresentation, not to mention your apparent anger issues when people fail to realise how amazingly clever you are, are you surprised that from time to time I shrug my shoulders and give up.
As on RNA world, as on God the genocidal maniac, and for exactly the same reasons, I've again had enough of this thread. Bye.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
According to this definition of evidence, we cannot construct any view of reality, because explanations apparently do not count.
Of course explanations don't count as evidence. They count as explanations of the evidence. If there is no evidence, there is nothing to explain.
quote:
Therefore there is no evidence for the Big Bang or indeed for the grand theory of evolution (beyond the small adaptive changes we can observe, which not even the most die hard YECist denies).
Both of those things are explanations of the observable evidence (which includes stuff like the red shift of distant galaxies and the fossil record).
quote:
In fact, it's even questionable whether you could even present a cow as evidence for the existence of cows, because we can only make sense of the experience of perceiving a cow if we already have some structure of ideas in our minds by which to interpret the sense perception involved. If I did not have these ideas already implanted in my mind, and you show me a cow, all I would 'see' would be a mass of colours (and probably not even that, because I would not even know what 'colour' was).
What are you talking about? Fuck all this theory of mind bullshit - would you see a cow or not?
quote:
Furthermore, according to your understanding of evidence, very few people could ever be convicted of a crime. Detecting the cause of a crime involves inference and explanation. How many murders are actually directly witnessed?
It involves inference and explanation based on the evidence. If there's insufficient (or insufficiently reliable) evidence, then nobody will be convicted. If there's no evidence at all, then nobody will even know a crime took place.
quote:
Concerning evidence for God: you seem to give the impression that the only acceptable evidence for the existence of God is direct empirical evidence, such that God would have to be presented to people as a material being (hence your 'cow' example). This, of course, is ludicrous, because it would mean that the creator of the universe would need to be a specific object within the universe.
Then empirical evidence for the existence of God is impossible. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.
quote:
Your and Karl's claim that I have not presented any evidence presupposes a certain highly limited view of the concept of 'evidence' - a view not shared by any decent scientist, philosopher, barrister, judge or detective. All of these professionals seek explanations, and apply logic to observed and experienced phenomena to work out what makes reality tick. I have been looking at various aspects of reality - such as reason, free will, consciousness, morality etc - in exactly the same way.
Not exactly the same way. You're looking at those things to see if you can use them to prove that your beliefs are true, rather than taking them for what they are and seeing where that examination takes you.
quote:
If you and Karl reject this method of processing evidence, then that is your decision. But it's a decision completely out of step with reality.
I reject any "logic" that has decided what the conclusion will be before it examines the evidence.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
What are you talking about? Fuck all this theory of mind bullshit - would you see a cow or not?
Errmm, no, not "theory of mind bullshit". The subject is epistemology.
I suggest you go and read up about it, and then come back and have a sensible discussion about 'evidence', because your comments clearly reveal a total misunderstanding of the subject.
quote:
It involves inference and explanation based on the evidence.
Exactly. So we agree.
What exactly was I doing that did not involve inference and explanation based on the evidence?
We have the evidence of various phenomena: reason, consciousness, free will, morality, complexity, etc, and we can make inferences based on that evidence.
But I suspect that, because you don't personally like my conclusions, you then attempt to claim that I am not reasoning on the basis of valid evidence. Really, if you want to fool me, you need to be a bit more subtle than that.
quote:
Then empirical evidence for the existence of God is impossible. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.
If you really insist that God has to be a blob of matter floating around somewhere in the universe, and no other evidence is admissible, then it is impossible for you to believe in God. Of course, your limited view of evidence is about as absurd as one can imagine. Furthermore, according to this definition of evidence, you are not a conscious being, because there is no empirical evidence for consciousness. There is only empirical evidence for the effect of consciousness, just as there is empirical evidence for the effect of God.
quote:
You're looking at those things to see if you can use them to prove that your beliefs are true, rather than taking them for what they are and seeing where that examination takes you.
If you say so. I can't stop you choosing to believe a delusion, if that is what you really want. By the way, do you have any evidence - even empirical evidence - for your mind-reading claims?
quote:
I reject any "logic" that has decided what the conclusion will be before it examines the evidence.
So do I. That is why I am not a philosophical naturalist.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...your comments clearly reveal a total misunderstanding of the subject.
...So we agree.
These two comments seem to be at odds. Unless you are also betraying a total misunderstanding of the subject... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
What exactly was I doing that did not involve inference and explanation based on the evidence?
Assuming that your explanation is the only one that can possibly be true or valid.
quote:
We have the evidence of various phenomena: reason, consciousness, free will, morality, complexity, etc, and we can make inferences based on that evidence.
Sure. You have yours, I have mine. That's why we're having this argument, rather than just agreeing with each other all the time.
quote:
But I suspect that, because you don't personally like my conclusions, you then attempt to claim that I am not reasoning on the basis of valid evidence.
It's your reasoning that I most often find to be faulty. Not least the part of it where you assume that your ability to reason is so perfect that if I disagree with your conclusions it must be because I disagree with the evidence you started with.
quote:
If you really insist that God has to be a blob of matter floating around somewhere in the universe, and no other evidence is admissible, then it is impossible for you to believe in God.
I've said twice now that evidence for God exists, but it's not empirical evidence. How many more times do I have to say that before you'll stop interpreting it as "no evidence for God exists"?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Can I remind the assembled company to dial down the heat, thank you so very much.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
No I won’t – you are wrong because you choose to create extensions to definitions just because it suits your purpose to redefine something very simple that you apparently can’t understand.
Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we?
Yet another inaccurate redefinition – evolution is the process by which random variations are selected by the effect they produce on the organism’s ability to reproduce. If you wish to think of it as so – the selection of random mutations by reproductive success or failure is a form of design, but it’s like saying that nature designs ponds – just as water will successfully adapt to fill the space available for it so organisms successfully adapt to fill a niche within nature.
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?The first mammals appeared in the early Mesozoic era (say 220 million years ago). The modern mammalian orders arose in the Cenozoic era (some 60 million years ago).
If we could only get to the stage where we can wonder if there just might be more to it all than the naturalistic scientists conclude, we have come a very long way. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath. Why not, plenty of people wonder about it – it’s just that the evidence doesn’t permit alternative interpretations.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
IngoB
That is one of the funniest things I have read for many a day. I’m assuming IngoB is attempting humour – if not it’s profoundly silly
Reading further comments it appears that the consensus is humour – an alternative to self-flagellation perhaps? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Scientist Bod: We have a number of purposes. On the one hand we want to understand better how the brain is designed, how it works. On the other hand we have biomedical objectives.
This exchange is very telling. It tells us that scientists want to know more about the brain. It tells us that the language of creation is harder to expunge from scientific dialogue than people will care to admit. It tells us that scientific endeavour to as much about curiosity and the spirit of exploration as it is about pragmatism and rationality. Yup – but the use of “designed” by those who accept evolution includes the concept that natural selection is a passive designer. Hopefully scientists utilise pragmatism and rationality to explore the objects of their curiosity
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes, but not believing in God has implications, because 'God' is not a trivial concept. clearly not – though perhaps it should be
You can't ditch 'God' without ditching a whole load of other concepts that depend on His existence and activity. seems good to me – though we might disagree on which concepts depend on the existence of a god or gods
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
G. K. Chesterton told the following story.
He was the only Christian in a group of atheists. The topic of lucky charms or mascots came up. It turned out that he was the only one in the room who didn't have one. Everyone else produced one.
Moo
I quite enjoyed many Father Brown stories when I was young – doesn’t mean I believed every word was true – and I have never had a good luck charm
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, but she answered you. Isn't that evidence enough that you're here? Not certainly, but I rejected my simplistic version of solipcism within five minutes of imagining it at age fourteen – I suspect it was the product of a religious upbringing and late 50’s SF (Univac etc.) – on the grounds that I couldn’t disprove it therefore I would unbelieve it.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We have the evidence of various phenomena: reason, consciousness, free will, morality, complexity, etc, and we can make inferences based on that evidence. Sorry to butt in and all that – but you are on decidedly dodgy ground with free will – we have evidence that we think we have free will but experimental results are such that many specialists in that area apparently think that free will (as in decisions made by our conscious mind) is demonstrably unlikely and totally unsupported by worthwhile evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It can't show why people think about science or music or art - or God, or religion. or anything else. It shows how they do it, not why. We know we think with our brains. We know our brains work by electrochemistry. Finding our the details of how it works doesn't answer "why" questions but "how" ones. There is evidence to show that religious belief can be related to brain activity http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm (NOTE: I’m NOT saying all religious people have temporal lobe epilepsy). We also have strong evidence that damaged/underdeveloped/non-existent areas of, or connections within, the brain have consequent effects on behaviour. We also know we can vary the brain's structure by learning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16086233 . Whilst this technique cannot show what people think about matters it may, by showing development/connections enable similarities to be observed in people with currently unexplained interests – such as science, music, art and religion. Such similarities may explain “why” insofar as “because we can” (or “because we can’t”) is an answer. If we had the techniques could we drill down to why Lennon but not Tallis/why Asimov but not Dickens? – theoretically it may be possible at some time – I’m pretty sure that if it can be done we will do it – though I doubt I’ll know of it.
The question is should we use that knowledge (if we ever get it) to produce changes, and if so
Who decides the norm (if for example we were talking religious belief should the norm be atheism, Christianity (and if so which variety), Islam (ditto), etc. etc.?
What effect on future humanity might such engineering lead to?
We don't want a sort of "soul of the gaps" theory. As if humanity or consciousness or personality could only reside in the unexplained, and as soon as we understand how something works it ceases to be really "us" and becomes mere mechanism. As if our bodies are not really ourselves, but just machines we operate, like driving a car. And any behaviour or thought that could be explained by the way the car works must be part of the car, not the driver. That leads to nonsense like "it wasn't my fault it was my hormones" or "it wasn't my fault it was the drink" or "its not my fault its just the way my brain works" as if my hormones, or my behaviour when drunk, or the structure of my brain isn't really "me" but just some faulty meat machine I've been lumbered with.
Which “We” are you initially speaking for? Are you equating “soul” with “personality”?
Our bodies ARE machines (I’d prefer amazing, complex, inefficient and fatally flawed but still to be marvelled at rather than ”mere” - would you describe the Bible as a mere collection of words?) These machines are unique and have both physical and mental elements. These elements are part genetic inheritance and part experience(learning). Sorting out those who can learn right (socially acceptable) from wrong (socially unacceptable)* and those who can’t so learn could lead to a major re-evaluation of society and the responsibilities of the members of that society. Sticking with cars - putting the best petrol in a diesel engine does not produce the enhanced driving experience that modifying the diesel engine can.
I don’t know the answers – I suspect that, sooner or later, humanity may have to face the questions.
*In a theocracy that might be based on religious teaching – but which brand would it be - would tolerant atheism be better than militant religion?
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[qb]Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
No I won’t – you are wrong because you choose to create extensions to definitions just because it suits your purpose to redefine something very simple that you apparently can’t understand. [qb]
Shouldn't be hard to explain then sunshine.
We're waiting.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
No I won’t – you are wrong because you choose to create extensions to definitions just because it suits your purpose to redefine something very simple that you apparently can’t understand.
Shouldn't be hard to explain then sunshine.
We're waiting.
Actually, I must apologise for us not being intellectual enough to discuss things with such elite pro-Dawkins academics, as we see on this board. We cannot expect such wise people to condescend to our lowly level and just answer a simple question, can we?
Let's put it differently, HughWillRidmee:
If I am redefining the definition of "person", then what did it mean originally?
(NB. to others of lower intellectual mentality, like myself, defining "personhood" is quite a controversial topic in the fields of philosophy and ethics. But we won't worry about that for now, let's just wait to be enlightened by the Ship's intelligentsia.)
Sarcastic? me....?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
G. K. Chesterton told the following story.
He was the only Christian in a group of atheists. The topic of lucky charms or mascots came up. It turned out that he was the only one in the room who didn't have one. Everyone else produced one.
Moo
I quite enjoyed many Father Brown stories when I was young – doesn’t mean I believed every word was true – and I have never had a good luck charm
Do you think that people who write fiction are likely to make false statements in their non-fiction? This is an interesting idea; I have never heard it before.
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It seems unlikely though; I don't know anyone with such a thing, atheist or not.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
No I won’t – you are wrong because you choose to create extensions to definitions just because it suits your purpose to redefine something very simple that you apparently can’t understand. Shouldn't be hard to explain then sunshine.
We're waiting.
Butch doesn’t do it for me.
Atheism has no writ – no rules of membership – my views will leave you none the wiser about any other atheist’s views.
FWIW - Off the top of my head “a person is the sum of the individual human’s physical and mental being”. But give me a good reason to change it and I will.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Actually, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
No I won’t – you are wrong because you choose to create extensions to definitions just because it suits your purpose to redefine something very simple that you apparently can’t understand.
Shouldn't be hard to explain then sunshine.
We're waiting.
Actually, I must apologise for us not being intellectual enough to discuss things with such elite pro-Dawkins academics, as we see on this board. We cannot expect such wise people to condescend to our lowly level and just answer a simple question, can we?
Even when they are asked the wrong question?
Let's put it differently,
If I am redefining the definition of "person", then what did it mean originally?
Perhaps I assumed too much – your repeated attempts to redefine “atheist” were the point at issue.
I quote: I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would). The phrase I have emboldened is a clear attempt to define "atheist" in a way which is wrong.
There is no dogma attached to atheism. I appreciate that we all(?) tend to assume that we are normal and that everyone else is like us but your contentment with membership of a lifestyle which obliges you to adopt certain positions as defining events is not universal. You repeatedly create (knowingly or not) strawman arguments by making incorrect assumptions about atheists and presenting them, and/or extrapolating from them, as though they were fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Do you think that people who write fiction are likely to make false statements in their non-fiction? This is an interesting idea; I have never heard it before.
Moo
I don’t doubt that it is possible. Actors sometimes have difficulty shedding their stage persona, I've known many (forty years selling) who may not write fictional novels but write, and speak, untruths with no apparent concern, I’ve listened to an “evangelist” who was decidedly “economical with the truth” and Lying for Jesus has a long and distinguished history.
Of course it may have happened. However it’s a story (true or false, accurately remembered or not) that doesn’t have any bearing on today either way does it? Even if true it doesn’t mean that any other atheist, anywhere, ever, has carried a lucky charm – anymore than it means no christian has ever carried a mascot.
Unfortunately many people are inclined to react to such stories as though the alleged speaker's reputation gives the implied message an authority and a relevance it doesn't have.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Hugh
Would you like to have another go at that post? When you include several quotes, it's important to use post preview to make sure they are properly nested.
I think I could edit it, given the time, which I don't have currently. So I'll give you the opportunity. I'll delete the messed up post in due course.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
Sorry about that and thanks for the forebearance - is this better?
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself. No I won’t – you are wrong because you choose to create extensions to definitions just because it suits your purpose to redefine something very simple that you apparently can’t understand.
Shouldn't be hard to explain then sunshine.
We're waiting.
Butch doesn’t do it for me.
Atheism has no writ – no rules of membership – my views will leave you none the wiser about any other atheist’s views.
FWIW - Off the top of my head “a person is the sum of the individual human’s physical and mental being”. But give me a good reason to change it and I will.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Actually, I must apologise for us not being intellectual enough to discuss things with such elite pro-Dawkins academics, as we see on this board. We cannot expect such wise people to condescend to our lowly level and just answer a simple question, can we?
Even when they are asked the wrong question?
Let's put it differently,
If I am redefining the definition of "person", then what did it mean originally?
Perhaps I assumed too much – your repeated attempts to redefine “atheist” were the point at issue.
I quote: I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would). The phrase I have emboldened is a clear attempt to define "atheist" in a way which is wrong.
There is no dogma attached to atheism. I appreciate that we all(?) tend to assume that we are normal and that everyone else is like us but your contentment with membership of a lifestyle which obliges you to adopt certain positions as defining events is not universal. You repeatedly create (knowingly or not) strawman arguments by making incorrect assumptions about atheists and presenting them, and/or extrapolating from them, as though they were fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Do you think that people who write fiction are likely to make false statements in their non-fiction? This is an interesting idea; I have never heard it before.
Moo
I don’t doubt that it is possible. Actors sometimes have difficulty shedding their stage persona, I've known many (forty years selling) who may not write fictional novels but write, and speak, untruths with no apparent concern, I’ve listened to an “evangelist” who was decidedly “economical with the truth” and Lying for Jesus has a long and distinguished history.
Of course it may have happened. However it’s a story (true or false, accurately remembered or not) that doesn’t have any bearing on today either way does it? Even if true it doesn’t mean that any other atheist, anywhere, ever, has carried a lucky charm – anymore than it means no christian has ever carried a mascot.
Unfortunately many people are inclined to react to such stories as though the alleged speaker's reputation gives the implied message an authority and a relevance it doesn't have.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0