|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What makes atheists doubt their atheism?
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
kankucho, please forgive me, but I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about. The brain is made of stuff we find elsewhere in the universe. So the hell what? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
[spelt your name wrong- apologies. What does it mean, btw?]
So the hell... consciousness is a quality exhibited and experienced by base inorganic elements when arranged in a particular complex way.
Hence, as Sagan succinctly put it, "We are the way in which the cosmos can know itself".
Even if a fully formed and fully functioning Yorick were the sole conscious product of an eternity of bumping, grinding and exploding machinations of an otherwise entirely non-conscious and inorganic universe, you, Yorick, would be the consciousness of the universe. And the universe as a whole would be a manifestly conscious entity.
Kankucho = 1) a bird from oriental mythology; 2) an expression of the effect my internet activity has on the rest of my life
[edit: quote added due to page turn]
[ 19. July 2012, 16:35: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That sounds like the fallacy of composition.
The universe produces cancer. Therefore the universe as a whole is a cancerous entity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this an argument that the universe has produced consciousness, therefore ... errrm, well, it's, kind of, I mean to say, errm.
Well, it's capable of being conscious, I suppose.
But so what? The universe has produced cancer, so it is obviously capable of being cancerous. Does this mean that the universe itself is cancerous?
Semantically we could go down that route, I suppose. How would we answer that question when applied to an individual..?
- John has cancer.
- Is the cancer all over him?
- No, it's just in his lungs.
- Oh. So John, as a whole, doesn't have cancer.
- Do you want to try telling him that?
quote:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.
Incorrect.
I'm not sure who's arguing what there but it's sounding like a 'god of the gaps' claim.
I think there's a QED on science not being able to pin down the intricacies of consciousness, although I look forward to further developments in neuroscience, which is just beginning to stab at it. But I suspect we're never going to detect latent consciousness lurking within inert matter by conventional scientific means. That particular cartesian idea went out with the trash a long time ago.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ramarius
I'd just like to say thank you for such an interesting topic question which has brought a satisfying collection of atheists/non-believers into one thread
Thank you, Susan, for taking the trouble to post that.
Regards,
Remarius
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.
When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?
If we accept in general terms there are questions that can't be answered by the scientific method, what sorts of questions would say science can't answer? And what other discipline would you say is better suited to answer those 'other' questions?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I started following this thread, all ready to make my contribution, when it got all shouty so I haven't read it all. Sorry if I repeat some things others have said.
It is difficult to answer the original question because, like many atheists I'd guess, I don't see it as a conviction. My world view or philosophy or whatever is composed of lots of things: political, cultural, friendships, ethics and so on. It just happens not to include believing in God. My nearest analogy would be be in terms of another omission from my character: a lack of interest in modern classical music.
I hear people swooning over what to me is an odd collection of discordant sounds. Some, I suspect, really like it much less than they pretend but they can talk the talk. I guess I could learn to do that and, to be polite, sometimes try to. Others seem to really get it. Their appreciation is 'bred in the bone', 'flesh of my flesh' and all that. I'm happy for them and I can see it enlarges their life wonderfully but it doesn't do it for me. I listen, as patiently as I can, but nothing happens. I'm happy to accept that others have a real experience but that doesn't make it real for me. And I feel the same about belief in God.
In my early twenties, I felt I was being unfair. I should, in some way, try Christianity. Just reading books about something isn't knowing it. A friendly vicar talked with me and gave me stuff to read. I also had the use of his library. Though I can't remember any of it now beyond the first few apocalyptic pages, Karl Barth's commentary on the Epistle to the Romans really 'blew me away' which is pretty much what Barth said about the disciples. I got confirmed, attended church, prayed, did some churchy things but never found anything which seemed to me different from my atheistical life.
By that I meant, and this continues to be my feeling, how does believing in God make a difference to my life? I could be a Deist. Despite some rather rude earlier contributions it seems to me to have content. I think the Unitarians were too polite to respond. But in what way would my life be different? An extra belief, new concepts to struggle with. Being a theist is the same really unless you add some religion specific trappings and get a Christian, Jewish, Islamic or whatever Theity (is that a word?).
The God of the Gaps has never appealed to me. It seems like idolatry to think "I can't explain this so God must exist to make it so and I will worship him". Every day things happen which I can't explain. Maybe no one can, maybe humans aren't bright enough to explain. Maybe there is no explanation. So they stay unexplained in my mind.
Since my first degree was in Physics I'm not a believer in scientism. We have a few crude approximations which give us some rough ideas about a few things. Some are pretty (in an odd mathematical way). The belief that science can explain everything seems much more common in the life sciences.
I've always belonged to groups who seek, in some way, a better world. I think that if we oppose war, house the homeless, protect the widows and orphans, feed the hungry, and generally improve the bottom of the social heap we'll have a better world. Would believing in God make a difference? He seems to be waiting for us to sort it out.
There are people who make me feel a faith could be a good thing. A friend, a Somali asylum seeker, tried to convert me to Islam. I said that would seem odd in a Christian country. Ok he said, so be a Christian, Allah accepts Christians into Heaven. I said No. "Allah also accepts Jews", he tried again. I said "Sorry, but no". We continued our walk. Eventually Mahmood said: "I think Allah will do a deal with anyone who has tried to do good. He'll let them in as well". A lesson from a truck driver who just wanted to save his family from a crazy war.
If believers were all like Mahmood I might give it a try. Many of the Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and so on that I meet seem to be admirable. But a lot of others seem too interested in how to build/reform/preserve the institution they belong to rather than making the world a better place. I know that's unfair. All faiths do a great deal of good but they can do it without me.
Oops, sorry it's so long.
[ 19. July 2012, 20:13: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.
When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?
Sorry, but I don't get it - my analogy seems to be precisely what scientismists arrogantly seem to claim. And just because they claim to be "scientists" doesn't mean that they don't follow scientism.
quote:
If we accept in general terms there are questions that can't be answered by the scientific method, what sorts of questions would say science can't answer? And what other discipline would you say is better suited to answer those 'other' questions?
How about "the meaning of life"? Scientismists would say this is a nonsensical question and don't try to answer it. Philosophers and theologians take such a question seriously, but our celebrity-scientismists will just patronise and debunk them in the same way as they do the question itself.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Evening Mark - 'twas a question for George rather than your good self.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
I've lurked here for a while and I thought an answer to the OP would be an appropriate first post.
Like some others up thread, a miracle would certainly give me pause, as would some good evidence for the effectiveness of intercessory prayer or faith healing.
Other than that, I can't think of anything. Most religious claims are behind firewalls of antiquity or subjective experience. Philosophical arguments for God, while fun, settle nothing.
On the question as to why atheists don't seem to be very good at doubting, in my case I was brought up to be religious - I attended Sunday School, went to church and dutifully prayed - and my doubts were worked through over many years as I went through weakening belief to none. My atheism is of the negative kind - weak, soft, agnostic-atheist, whatever - I've had enough of those pointless definition arguments to last a lifetime. Strangely, though, I don't think I have met - in the real world or online - the other kind, an atheist who asserts that there is definitely no God.
One more thing, I should imagine that in the not too distant future, someone on here will accuse me of scientism.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
..One more thing, I should imagine that in the not too distant future, someone on here will accuse me of scientism.
You called? I'm only joking, I'll back off from that for a while - enjoy the thread! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
..One more thing, I should imagine that in the not too distant future, someone on here will accuse me of scientism.
You called? I'm only joking, I'll back off from that for a while - enjoy the thread!
My impression, mentioned above, is that scientism affects biologists, psychologists, neuro-scientists etc much more than it does physicists, chemists etc. OK physicists may think an explanation of creation doesn't require God but in other areas the experimental/mathematical disciplines of their subject may force them to consider a sharper focus. In the life sciences there are so many variables and unquantifiable factors that practitioners sometime simplify everything to get a sort of silly certainty.
E O Wilson's "Consilience" is one of the silliest works of scientism IMHO. One example is his claim that there may be 'scientific' evidence for all novels following one of nine plot lines. So reading "Pride and Prejudice" is really no different from reading any Mills and Boon story, nore indeed is one Mills and Boon offering different "in real scientific terms" from any other. 'Baby' and 'bath water' spring to mind.
The link between this and doubt, atheist or otherwise, is that some people can cope better with uncertainty than others. Doubt is anathema to some which gives scientism on one side and religious dogmatism and/or God of the gaps on the other.
And us doubters make a similar idolatory of doubting. It's a good way of avoiding making decisions, just as certainty is a good way of avoiding thought.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
kankucho: So the hell... consciousness is a quality exhibited and experienced by base inorganic elements when arranged in a particular complex way.
You're still missing the important part.
Of course we don't have the final answer about what conscience is or what causes it. But no matter how you look at it, an important aspect of it is that some base elements are arranged in a particular way and interact with eachother.
For our brains to have consciousness, it's not enough for them to be made of a lot of complicated stuff, and with everything in the right place. You actually need the synapses firing electro-chemical signals between them. A brain without this exchange of information between its parts isn't conscious.
It's this second part that I don't see when it comes to the universe. Paraphrasing Yorick here, I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula. There's nothing between them that compares with the interaction between the neurons in our brain.
Of course, you could conjecture some very esoterical physics that would account for such interactions. But it would be no more than that: a conjecture.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this an argument that the universe has produced consciousness, therefore ... errrm, well, it's, kind of, I mean to say, errm.
Well, it's capable of being conscious, I suppose.
But so what? The universe has produced cancer, so it is obviously capable of being cancerous. Does this mean that the universe itself is cancerous?
Semantically we could go down that route, I suppose. How would we answer that question when applied to an individual..?
- John has cancer.
- Is the cancer all over him?
- No, it's just in his lungs.
- Oh. So John, as a whole, doesn't have cancer.
- Do you want to try telling him that?
quote:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.
Incorrect.
I'm not sure who's arguing what there but it's sounding like a 'god of the gaps' claim.
You are doing a nifty bit of goalpost moving there. The fallacy of composition applies to identity relations, expressed by verbs such as 'be', but not to relations of containment, expressed by 'have'.
Thus, the sentence, 'hair contains keratin, therefore the body contains keratin', sounds OK to me.
But 'hair is brittle, therefore the body is brittle', does not sound OK.
You have tried to pull a fast one, with 'part of the universe is conscious, therefore the universe as a whole is a conscious entity'. Doesn't work.
The reason for this is fairly clear; the notion of containing something is logically transitive, thus if a part of something contains X, then the whole of it contains X. However, identity is not transitive: thus, if my hair is red, it doesn't mean that I am red.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[qb] Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.
When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?
quote:
Sorry, but I don't get it - my analogy seems to be precisely what scientismists arrogantly seem to claim. And just because they claim to be "scientists" doesn't mean that they don't follow scientism.
I have never heard a scientist say, "We have the answers to all questions". Not once. What I have often heard them say is "We don't know".
Now just a second while I look up what scientism means............
[ 20. July 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think scientists spend a lot of time saying what is false, and what is not known.
Can anyone actually cite someone claiming that 'science describes everything', or the like. I can't think of anybody. Does Dennett?
In any case, science is a method not a philosophical outlook.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]If we accept in general terms there are questions that can't be answered by the scientific method, what sorts of questions would say science can't answer? And what other discipline would you say is better suited to answer those 'other' questions?
That's a really good question. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher so I doubt I can give a good answer but for what it's worth....I guess science can answer questions about things that are testable and or observable. But as I say I'm not a scientist so I could be wrong.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
An obvious example of non-scientific knowledge, is the history of science. This is surely a very valuable contribution to our understanding of humanity, but it cannot be termed scientific.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... if my hair is red, it doesn't mean that I am red.
It does, however, mean that you are a person with red hair. Your red hair is an aspect of you as a whole.
quote:
You have tried to pull a fast one, with 'part of the universe is conscious, therefore the universe as a whole is a conscious entity'. Doesn't work.
I can't find the phrase you have put in inverted commas anywhere in what I've written. If I have anywhere said that the universe IS manifestly conscious, then I have done so in error, and I apologise. What I think I have been arguing that matter (in and of the universe) HAS the potential to manifest consciousness when composed in certain biologically complex patterns - ie, as living matter. It IS conscious when that potential is made manifest by circumstance.
To say that the universe has consciousness does not require evidence of rocks pondering the meaning of their existence. Rocks are not 'a way for the cosmos to know itself' but, since they are not manifestly conscious, that fact probably doesn't bother them much.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
kankucho
The rubbish software on this forum doesn't seem to have post numbers, but at the top of this page (I think), you said this:
Even if a fully formed and fully functioning Yorick were the sole conscious product of an eternity of bumping, grinding and exploding machinations of an otherwise entirely non-conscious and inorganic universe, you, Yorick, would be the consciousness of the universe. And the universe as a whole would be a manifestly conscious entity.
I think that illustrates the fallacy of composition.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For our brains to have consciousness, it's not enough for them to be made of a lot of complicated stuff, and with everything in the right place. You actually need the synapses firing electro-chemical signals between them. A brain without this exchange of information between its parts isn't conscious.
No problem there. You've just added a bit of detail about what the appropriate circumstances are. Energy is interacting with matter throughout the universe. When it does so in the way you describe, it manifests consciousness.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's this second part that I don't see when it comes to the universe. Paraphrasing Yorick here, I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula. There's nothing between them that compares with the interaction between the neurons in our brain.
I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula either (although, in truth, I haven't been paying much attention to them lately; have you?). I don't get why you and Yorick are so hung up on this. As I just stated to quetzalcoatl: rocks are not a way for the cosmos to know itself. However, when formed into planets, or parts thereof, they can provide an excellent environment to support consciousness-manifesting carboniferous forms, and with which those forms can interact thereby fuelling the conscious processes.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I can't see the force of these arguments. Matter, in certain arrangements, produces consciousness.
Err, what now?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
kankucho
The rubbish software on this forum doesn't seem to have post numbers, but at the top of this page (I think), you said this:
Even if a fully formed and fully functioning Yorick were the sole conscious product of an eternity of bumping, grinding and exploding machinations of an otherwise entirely non-conscious and inorganic universe, you, Yorick, would be the consciousness of the universe. And the universe as a whole would be a manifestly conscious entity.
It's a fair cop, guv. However, I hope I've qualified what I meant with subsequent posts: not every part of an entity need manifest consciousness in order for that (whole) entity to qualify as conscious.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't see the force of these arguments. Matter, in certain arrangements, produces consciousness.
Err, what now?
Some way back, we were discussing what might cause an atheist to doubt his/her position and I came in to help the atheists out by showing how consciousness (and, actually, life) might be innate, and not require the input of a supernatural agency.
I wonder sometimes if Yorick knows which side his bread is buttered. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't see the force of these arguments. Matter, in certain arrangements, produces consciousness.
Err, what now?
Some way back, we were discussing what might cause an atheist to doubt his/her position and I came in to help the atheists out by showing how consciousness (and, actually, life) might be innate, and not require the input of a supernatural agency.
I wonder sometimes if Yorick knows which side his bread is buttered.
The argument, consciousness, therefore God, is a very tough one to make. I think Swinburne attempts it.
I suppose it might go, mind cannot come from matter, and God is Mind, which is Locke's argument somewhere, isn't it? Too lazy to check.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Let me throw into this boiling pot of pottage the thought that, perhaps, consciousness arises from the evolution of life forms that exhibit a means of reproduction and an ability to take in nourishment. These two rudimentary drives have inevitably brought about the higher and higher abilities to reproduce and take in food through movement, sensory mechanisms and physical enhancements (feet, hands etc).
I would propose that consciousness was one of the facets necessary for further life form evolution. The harder question behind this is where or why did the desire/drive to maintain "life" come from?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
kankucho: I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula either (although, in truth, I haven't been paying much attention to them lately; have you?).
As a matter of fact, I have. I read about most of the newest discoveries made by Cassini and the Hubble Telescope.
quote:
kankucho: As I just stated to quetzalcoatl: rocks are not a way for the cosmos to know itself. However, when formed into planets, or parts thereof, they can provide an excellent environment to support consciousness-manifesting carboniferous forms, and with which those forms can interact thereby fuelling the conscious processes.
The conscious processes of what?
If you want to think spiritually about a conscious cosmos that manifests itself in the conscious beings that inhabit it, I have no problem with that. It's only when you try to make a 'scientific' case of this on the basis of the complexity of the universe that I have a problem.
Based on the ideas of Hofstadter, complex systems with complex interactions between its parts can generate consciousness. Some people believe that this is all that's needed, other people believe that there is something more. Since there is no proof for either case, the debate continues.
FWIW, although I appreciate Hofstadter's work, I'm in the second camp.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
I wonder if the factor that most causes atheists to question their beliefs, is the practical experiences of those beliefs. Whilst atheism has certainly been on the rise in Western Europe, between 1998 and 2008 atheism has lost ground to theism in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Most remarkably of all is Russia. In 1998 around one in five people described themselves as atheists. In 2008 the figure had dropped to around 6%. It seems that despite decades of militant scientific atheism that most basic of beliefs - that we are far, far more than accidental lumps of matter on an obscure world in a vast an inhospitable universe, resolutely refuses to be extinguished.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I wonder if the factor that most causes atheists to question their beliefs, is the practical experiences of those beliefs. Whilst atheism has certainly been on the rise in Western Europe, between 1998 and 2008 atheism has lost ground to theism in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Most remarkably of all is Russia. In 1998 around one in five people described themselves as atheists. In 2008 the figure had dropped to around 6%. It seems that despite decades of militant scientific atheism that most basic of beliefs - that we are far, far more than accidental lumps of matter on an obscure world in a vast an inhospitable universe, resolutely refuses to be extinguished.
Russia is a special case. People were punished for being non-atheistic in the Soviet Union and rewarded for being atheists. That has changed. About all you can conclude is that people will tell people coming around what they know they're supposed to say and there's a large number of people who toe the party line.
Similarly there are a lot of atheists in the US who are under-reported because they are afraid of censure from their neighbors.
There is a certainly a rise in religious belief in the United States and the other countries. Waves of religious fervor sweep certain areas periodically; see the Burnt Over Region in Upstate New York. But there's also been a oncreasing coalescing of people who are willing to acknowledge their non-belief.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I wonder if the factor that most causes atheists to question their beliefs, is the practical experiences of those beliefs. Whilst atheism has certainly been on the rise in Western Europe, between 1998 and 2008 atheism has lost ground to theism in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Most remarkably of all is Russia. In 1998 around one in five people described themselves as atheists. In 2008 the figure had dropped to around 6%. It seems that despite decades of militant scientific atheism that most basic of beliefs - that we are far, far more than accidental lumps of matter on an obscure world in a vast an inhospitable universe, resolutely refuses to be extinguished.
I would be interested in cites. One problem is there is a difference between non-religious, atheist, and lack of belief in god(s) (a Pew forum survey of the US a few years ago found that some self-described atheists believed in a personal god and that quite a few disbelievers in god were Christian) so the questions asked are important.
For the US I have seen no evidence that atheism has lost ground between 1998 and the present. The Gallup poll shows that 'nones' in 1998 were 6% and in 2011, 13%. However 'nones' can include a multitude. The Pew US Religious Landscape survey of 2007 showed that 'nones' were 16.1% but of that only 1.6% were atheist and 2.4% agnostic (however 8% didn't believe in god either personal or impersonal [this included 3% of those who were Catholic]).
The NORC meta-survey "Belief about God across Time and Countries" (April 2012) might be what you are using though the numbers don't quite work out right. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/Beliefs%20about%20God%20Report.docx
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
