|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Richard Dawkins has done us a big favour..."
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
(I've not got a link, you can believe me or not)
And Jesus Christ is the son of God. (I've got plenty of links if you need them by the way).
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Crikey, when I typed the word "nominal" I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
...because our chief weapon is surprise.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The field of mysticism ...
I'd say that mysticism is part of the world of the human imagination, really.
quote:
Yet it is also true that (in my estimate) about half of the population has some talent for contemplation, and that (in my experience) they will typically have some mystical experience within a year or so of none too strenuous contemplative practice.
Do you think that whatever they 'experience' is being put into their brains by some outside force, or something? I think that confirmation bias would be very difficult to avoid.
quote:
The nice thing about specifically Christian mysticism is that it is not gnostic. Mystical knowledge is not necessary for one's salvation, and it does not reveal anything beyond the Divine revelation accessible to all.
'divine revelation' sounds like existing outside of human brains/imagination? How can you differentiate it from the millions of other thoughts of which the brain is capable, I wonder?
quote:
Anyway, it is quite true that no atheist can have mystical experiences...
Whatever experiences atheists have, they will not put them down to an independent 'spiritual', 'mystic' source, but, if inclined to do so, will look for a more logical source I think.
Rather than sitting contemplating - which I did seriously and genuinely I assure you try a few years ago, but found it just doesn't suit me - I think and put the world to rights while I'm out on my long sunday morning walk. Thank you for the interesting info though.
In a previous post, you said:
quote:
See for example this article.
I have read through, but it seems to talk mainly of early AD centuries. I do not have the links to the evidence for the Christian story being one in a series of such stories, but have seen many over the years and they make sense to me! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, if it seems at all attractive to you to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing: do. Say every other day, for at least half an hour, for a year or so. Consider that as an experiment in mysticism. What can half an hour of quiet do, after all? Oh, what can it do...
I should probably advise that you seek skilled counsel in doing this. But then, who would an atheist turn to without compromising their beloved "objectivity"? So, in all fairness, be warned that you may find things in silence that are ... not easy to handle.
I think m'learned friend meant to say, "Don't blame us if things happen that makes you feel like your brain's been in a blender and is now dribbling out of your ear."
Superb post, IngoB.
Who do we blame if nothing happens at all?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Who do we blame if nothing happens at all?
George Entwistle. He's being blamed for everything today.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Can anyone explain how you know that atheists don't spend time in silence and/or that they tried and nothing happened?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Can anyone explain how you know that atheists don't spend time in silence and/or that they tried and nothing happened?
I'd bet good money that the times when nothing happens are vanishingly rare. When a person spends their life being busy, talkative and noisy, and suddenly goes into a long period of silence and inactivity, I'd guess that there are at least physiological adjustments the body has to make due to the change of pace. You often see this on day 2 or 3 of a silent retreat - disturbed sleeping patterns, anxiety, headaches. It's what happens (or doesn't) after that that's the fun part. It's not an accident that, before you take on a 30-day retreat with the Jesuits, you need to tell them about your state of mental health (or you used to, at least in this country).
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd bet good money that the times when nothing happens are vanishingly rare. When a person spends their life being busy, talkative and noisy, and suddenly goes into a long period of silence and inactivity, I'd guess that there are at least physiological adjustments the body has to make due to the change of pace. You often see this on day 2 or 3 of a silent retreat - disturbed sleeping patterns, anxiety, headaches. It's what happens (or doesn't) after that that's the fun part. It's not an accident that, before you take on a 30-day retreat with the Jesuits, you need to tell them about your state of mental health (or you used to, at least in this country).
Yes, I can see that would be highly likely. I suppose I'm referring to IngoB's stance which seems to suggest that something spiritual will happen to anyone who exposes themselves to silence. As if silence inevitably leads to a spiritual experience with a deity.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, it is quite true that no atheist can have mystical experiences. But not because atheism gets in the way of mystical experience, but because mystical experience gets in the way of atheism. (Note that here I'm thinking of the typical materialist Western atheism, not of the kind of spiritual atheism that Buddhism represents.) Contemplation represents a challenge to atheism: it is something that probably about 50% of atheists could get seriously into, yet if they would, they would not remain as they are. Of that I am sure...
It's always nice to hear I don't exist.
I've had numerous mystical experiences in my life, most recently some shamanic work over Samhain including meeting my totem animal (a spider if anyone cares, which isn't the animal I expected). I also grew up half-Quaker. Mystical experiences are not a foreign thing to me. It is, however, part of what convinces me that the something that there is is what we bring to the party rather than an externally existing God, let alone any of the versions of Christianity (I'm more sympathetic to Paganism or even Wicca* than I am to the basic premises of Christianity).
Contemplation in one tradition represents a challenge to atheism, although not an overwhelming one. Contemplation in more than one represents a vast challenge to monotheism.
* And yes, I know the history.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, if it seems at all attractive to you to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing: do. Say every other day, for at least half an hour, for a year or so. Consider that as an experiment in mysticism. What can half an hour of quiet do, after all? Oh, what can it do...
I should probably advise that you seek skilled counsel in doing this. But then, who would an atheist turn to without compromising their beloved "objectivity"? So, in all fairness, be warned that you may find things in silence that are ... not easy to handle.
I think m'learned friend meant to say, "Don't blame us if things happen that makes you feel like your brain's been in a blender and is now dribbling out of your ear."
Superb post, IngoB.
Who do we blame if nothing happens at all?
Ourselves. Because that's probably where it's coming from anyway.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Yes, I can see that would be highly likely. I suppose I'm referring to IngoB's stance which seems to suggest that something spiritual will happen to anyone who exposes themselves to silence. As if silence inevitably leads to a spiritual experience with a deity.
I don't read IngoB's post quite that way. I think he's merely proposing an experiment - the oldest experiment in the Christian book - "Come and see."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's not an accident that, before you take on a 30-day retreat with the Jesuits, you need to tell them about your state of mental health (or you used to, at least in this country).
Can this not be inferred from the fact that you're considering taking on a 30-day retreat with the Jesuits?
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's not an accident that, before you take on a 30-day retreat with the Jesuits, you need to tell them about your state of mental health (or you used to, at least in this country).
Can this not be inferred from the fact that you're considering taking on a 30-day retreat with the Jesuits?
Are you suggesting that I might undergo a psychotic breakdown after about 15 days of seeing someone celebrate Mass wearing jeans, a chunky sweater and a knitted stole?
'Cos you're right ... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you think that whatever they 'experience' is being put into their brains by some outside force, or something? I think that confirmation bias would be very difficult to avoid.
Confirmation bias of what, precisely? I'm quite happy to let an atheist who has sat in silence and received mystical experiences do the biased confirming of their own preference. And that includes the question where such experiences may come from.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
'divine revelation' sounds like existing outside of human brains/imagination? How can you differentiate it from the millions of other thoughts of which the brain is capable, I wonder?
"Divine revelation" is - in a Christian context - a technical term for the foundational "deposit of faith" completed by Jesus Christ, as perpetuated in scripture and tradition. So my point was simply that Christian mysticism is not about attaining some "special knowledge" that is not accessible by any other means. It is a way of living faith and experiencing God, not an esoteric research programme. This makes Christian mysticism an exception to the rule of mystical practice.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Rather than sitting contemplating - which I did seriously and genuinely I assure you try a few years ago, but found it just doesn't suit me - I think and put the world to rights while I'm out on my long sunday morning walk. Thank you for the interesting info though.
That's fine. As I've said, in my experience contemplation is not for everybody.
Incidentally, being good at vividly imagining things, and enjoying prayer methods that employ this (like "imagine yourself being present in the situation that scripture describes here"), tends to mean that one is not receptive to the kind of "silent" contemplation that I was describing. People who like that are better served by for example Ignatian spirituality. No value judgement implied, it's simply a case of horses for courses.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Who do we blame if nothing happens at all?
Why blame anybody? Try something else then, there are so many ways of drawing closer to God.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I suppose I'm referring to IngoB's stance which seems to suggest that something spiritual will happen to anyone who exposes themselves to silence. As if silence inevitably leads to a spiritual experience with a deity.
Except that I've explicitly mentioned that only part of the population (about half, I would estimate) have talent/preference for "silent" contemplation. (In case anybody wonders, my estimate comes from having been a "beginner's instructor" for Soto Zen meditation...)
The problem is of course one of motivation. The "slow and steady" approach has the problem of keeping people practising until something happens. But at the level of commitment one can expect for this from "normal" people, a year is really about the minimum...
Note that I also did not guarantee a "spiritual experience with a deity". I merely said that it would be very hard to remain a typical Western materialist atheist. It's a "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." moment that I predict, not more, not less.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I've had numerous mystical experiences in my life, most recently some shamanic work over Samhain including meeting my totem animal (a spider if anyone cares, which isn't the animal I expected). I also grew up half-Quaker. Mystical experiences are not a foreign thing to me.
To repeat what I said in the original post: "(Note that here I'm thinking of the typical materialist Western atheism, not of the kind of spiritual atheism that Buddhism represents.)" A shamanic half-Quaker atheist qualifies as "spiritual", as far as I am concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Contemplation in one tradition represents a challenge to atheism, although not an overwhelming one. Contemplation in more than one represents a vast challenge to monotheism.
No more and no less than observing morality in non-Christians. A simple limitation to all exclusivity claims is the necessity of faith, which is a dogma to most Christians (including yours truly). If only Christians could "experience God", then the correct religion could be proven empirically, and faith would be replaced by knowledge. Therefore, non-Christians must be able to "experience God", indeed to the point where it is essentially impossible to prove Christianity to be the only true religion from such experiences.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In a previous post, you said:
[QUOTE]See for example this article.
I have read through, but it seems to talk mainly of early AD centuries. I do not have the links to the evidence for the Christian story being one in a series of such stories, but have seen many over the years and they make sense to me!
He is however correct that there is a large amount of bad speculation in this area on the non-Christian/atheistic side. I would suggest reading Bart Ehrman (an agnostic to atheist New Testament scholar) for his take down on some of the bad scholarship. This doesn't mean the resurrection or the virgin birth happened (I don't think they did or that Jesus was god, etc.) but rather the creation of the stories isn't as simple as some would like.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I've had numerous mystical experiences in my life, most recently some shamanic work over Samhain including meeting my totem animal (a spider if anyone cares, which isn't the animal I expected). I also grew up half-Quaker. Mystical experiences are not a foreign thing to me. It is, however, part of what convinces me that the something that there is is what we bring to the party rather than an externally existing God, let alone any of the versions of Christianity (I'm more sympathetic to Paganism or even Wicca* than I am to the basic premises of Christianity).
* And yes, I know the history.
So picking up Suzie Doris's point, how do you this "something" isn't just something in your imagination?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, it is quite true that no atheist can have mystical experiences. But not because atheism gets in the way of mystical experience, but because mystical experience gets in the way of atheism. (Note that here I'm thinking of the typical materialist Western atheism, not of the kind of spiritual atheism that Buddhism represents.) Contemplation represents a challenge to atheism: it is something that probably about 50% of atheists could get seriously into, yet if they would, they would not remain as they are. Of that I am sure...
It's always nice to hear I don't exist.
I've had numerous mystical experiences in my life, most recently some shamanic work over Samhain including meeting my totem animal (a spider if anyone cares, which isn't the animal I expected). I also grew up half-Quaker. Mystical experiences are not a foreign thing to me. It is, however, part of what convinces me that the something that there is is what we bring to the party rather than an externally existing God, let alone any of the versions of Christianity (I'm more sympathetic to Paganism or even Wicca* than I am to the basic premises of Christianity).
Contemplation in one tradition represents a challenge to atheism, although not an overwhelming one. Contemplation in more than one represents a vast challenge to monotheism.
* And yes, I know the history.
The term 'externally existing God' is a bit of a can of worms, as some mystics would in any case argue against this, since a non-dualist experience collapses the internal and external into one, or One, if you want to be fussy about it.
I guess you can argue from here on in, that Christianity has rejected such a non-dualism, but on the other hand, some of the Christian mystics seem to have embraced it.
It seems to demarcate Western and Eastern religion, but then there is some overlap here, I think.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Thank you for your interesting post, which I have listened carefully through several times.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What is important is simply that contingent entities require an (explanatory) cause.
Things may 'require' an explanatory cause, but if that cause is not yet known, it has to remain an unknown, not be given a goddidit or any other similar response.
Yes, I accept that any philosophical stance I might take can be attacked, but if a better understanding of philosophy is required, then I'll do my best to answer or 'pass'.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you for your interesting post, which I have listened carefully through several times.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What is important is simply that contingent entities require an (explanatory) cause.
Things may 'require' an explanatory cause, but if that cause is not yet known, it has to remain an unknown, not be given a goddidit or any other similar response.
So whatever the explanation is, it can't be - and never can be - God. You have decided God doesn't exist, so any argument to the contrary, however logical or convincing, must be rejected. That's a statement of faith if ever there was one.
[ 14. November 2012, 21:38: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Things may 'require' an explanatory cause, but if that cause is not yet known, it has to remain an unknown, not be given a goddidit or any other similar response.
So whatever the explanation is, it can't be - and never can be - God.
For me, for many years now, yes. I could of course always include that of course there is always the possibility that God is, and is involved, but so far conclusive evidence remains unavailable, so until such time as it does, I'll take the non-god view. The word 'know' is shorter.
quote:
You have decided God doesn't exist, so any argument to the contrary, however logical or convincing, must be rejected.
Certainly not; as soon as there is a logical argument, then atheists will be convinced of God's existence. And, somewhat at a tangent, I wonder what you make of all the other gods that are worshipped by other religions?
quote:
That's a statement of faith if ever there was one.
Yes, I suppose you could say that, but everything I have faith in, there is evidence for, or remains in the 'we don't know' category. As always though, I really do enjoy reading the topics here.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Why is it always a logical argument that atheists want? Would you want a logical argument that love exists, for example? I would think that many things in life are not discovered via logical argument, but through experience, and learning, and wisdom. I don't think God is arrived at via argument, but through love, and an open heart. How do you get that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If God is just a concept, like love or justice, then that's fine. If he's some kind of objective reality, who was before the universe, then "what logical reason have you for supposing that this being is an objective reality and not merely a concept?" seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable question.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Karl
But do you think that people are actually drawn towards God via logical argument?
Perhaps that is true. I have a fantasy of crowds storming churches, shouting, 'kalam, kalam!'
It just sounds arid to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl
But do you think that people are actually drawn towards God via logical argument?
Perhaps that is true. I have a fantasy of crowds storming churches, shouting, 'kalam, kalam!'
It just sounds arid to me.
No, but I don't think they're going to bother looking for him if they have no good reason to suppose he's there at all to be drawn to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Believing in God is much more logical than not believing in God.
Is this argument by assertion or are you going to expand on this one?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Believing there is a cause and a purpose and a meaning and and endpoint to creation makes much, much, more sense than none of that.
Atheism is highly irrational.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Believing there is a cause and a purpose and a meaning and and endpoint to creation makes much, much, more sense than none of that.
No it doesn't. See, we can both assert.
quote:
Atheism is highly irrational.
Do you do much erecting of strawmen or is it just atheism you misrepresent for effect?
Were this the best the theist side could manage it'd be no bloody surprise that so many rationalists are atheists.
[ 15. November 2012, 11:56: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Believing there is a cause and a purpose and a meaning and and endpoint to creation makes much, much, more sense than none of that.
No it doesn't. See, we can both assert.
Good argument. Highly logical.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Believing there is a cause and a purpose and a meaning and and endpoint to creation makes much, much, more sense than none of that.
No it doesn't. See, we can both assert.
Good argument. Highly logical.
It's a reflection of yours. Something does not become logical and make sense just because you say it does or want it to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Believing in God is much more logical than not believing in God.
Is this argument by assertion or are you going to expand on this one?
I agree with Evensong. Certainly the validity of reason itself only makes sense if it has its source in an unchanging (and therefore truly objective) rationality, rather than in changeable, mindless matter.
In his book Mind and Cosmos, Thomas Nagel (an atheist) states:
quote:
“Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.”
Alvin Platinga goes into more detail:
quote:
“…neurology causes adaptive behavior and also causes or determines belief content [according to naturalism]: but there is no reason to suppose that the belief content thus determined is true. All that’s required for survival and fitness is that the neurology cause adaptive behavior; this neurology also determines belief content, but whether or not that content is true makes no difference to fitness. Certain NP [neuro-physiological] properties are selected for, because they contribute to fitness. These NP properties also cause or determine belief content; they associate a content or proposition with each belief. The NP properties are selected, however, not because they cause the content they do, but because they cause adaptive behavior. If the content, the proposition determined by the neurology (the NP properties of the belief) is true, fine. But if it is false, that’s no problem as far as fitness goes.”
(From Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism).
Natural selection operates in a utilitarian way, and therefore, according to naturalism, ideas must have arisen for this purpose, which, of course, tells us nothing about their truth status.
Therefore naturalism is epistemologically self-defeating, along with any view of reality dependent on it, such as atheism.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl
But do you think that people are actually drawn towards God via logical argument?
Perhaps that is true. I have a fantasy of crowds storming churches, shouting, 'kalam, kalam!'
It just sounds arid to me.
No, but I don't think they're going to bother looking for him if they have no good reason to suppose he's there at all to be drawn to.
I suppose so. I would say that looking is a big obstacle to finding! But maybe that is an idiosyncratic view, I'm not sure. I just think that looking sets up a dualistic system of subject/object, in which the divine can't get a look in. This means that letting go is the key, including letting go of concepts about God. Perhaps this is not very Christian!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Natural selection operates in a utilitarian way ...
What evidence do you have for this? Utilitarianism is usually defined as being about the greatest good (or least harm) for the greatest number. I see no evidence that any 20th believer in evolution holds a view that somehow it has produced the greatest good. Evolution has followed one of many possible pathways and we've ended up here. If it hadn't SoF might well be populated by slug or dolphin descendants for all anyone knows. Who claims this evolutionary is outcome better than others, and for whom?
according to naturalism, ideas must have arisen for this purpose, which, of course, tells us nothing about their truth status.
So walking in front of a fast moving vehicle may, in truth, be a good thing but we don't do it for the silly evolutionary reason that it tends to reduce our survival chances.
Therefore naturalism is epistemologically self-defeating
I don't see why. Epistemology is about ideas, not how ideas come into existence. I could create new ideas using a random proposition generator and, as you say, their truth would be quite independent of their method of production. Deciding which are true doesn't depend on their genesis.
Could you clarify?
[ 15. November 2012, 12:52: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, natural selection is not about any particular good. It has no direction or purpose.
So to call it utilitarian seems very odd.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Certainly the validity of reason itself only makes sense if it has its source in an unchanging (and therefore truly objective) rationality, rather than in changeable, mindless matter.
This is why the scientific method uses reason but compares the validity of the ideas reason gives you with the external world. Aristotle had good rational grounds to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. But this notion did not survive very long when confronted with experiment. The reason it took so long to get beyond the ideas of Aristotle in many scientific fields was that people used to reason like you do.
Some world views have not changed since Parmenides.
[ 15. November 2012, 13:37: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a reflection of yours. Something does not become logical and make sense just because you say it does or want it to.
This is one of those really disturbing moments when I find myself agreeing with Evensong. However you are completely right that she made no argument for her position, only an assertion.
EtymologicalEvangelical provided a good argument which is the fact that strict naturalism is self-contradictory in the sense that it has to be built on a premise which is at odds with itself. That doesn't necessarily make it untrue however.
Similarly many atheists are believers in the Multi-verse or Steady-state universe in some form. Which again is entirely reasonable but problematic if you believe 'scientific-truth' is the only kind of real truth.
Of course, ANYONE who disagrees with me is being irrational... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You can of course argue that science does not aim for truth or the nature of reality. I suppose 'truth' is ambiguous here, since there is intra-theoretic truth, as opposed to 'it is true that atoms really exist' type truth.
I have always assumed that the latter is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical one, but this seems to arouse great anger in some people, and I have had photos of atoms thrust under my nose, with the injunction, look, that's real. Hmm.
Science makes observations about appearances, but if you want to argue that those appearances are reality, you can do, but that is not a scientific argument ...
Oh, noes, not this one again. (Sound of loud shot off-stage, and crash of falling body).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Similarly many atheists are believers in the Multi-verse or Steady-state universe in some form. Which again is entirely reasonable but problematic if you believe 'scientific-truth' is the only kind of real truth.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I provided a logical argument.
You just said it wasn't and provided no logical argument in return.
No you didn't. You just said "it makes more sense" with zero justification for why "it makes more sense". It was pure assertion.
Oh, and posted a link to a definition of atheism that no atheist would own.
Personally I cannot see any particular logical reason for coming to either conclusion.
[ 15. November 2012, 14:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
My last posting was probably my most profound to date. And now I've forgotten what I was going to say.
Sorry.
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I see it as a bit like girls - which one turns you on? Go with her.
That was about which conclusion to come to, otherwise, rather cryptic.
[ 15. November 2012, 14:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see it as a bit like girls - which one turns you on? Go with her.
What when she'd rather stick her legs in a blender though? Aye, there's the rub.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see it as a bit like girls - which one turns you on? Go with her.
What when she'd rather stick her legs in a blender though? Aye, there's the rub.
Interesting point. Yes, you could be attracted to a religion or a way of life or a woman or man who is very bad for you.
I did that when I was in my 20s and 30s, and I guess I learned from it, and realized I could choose a religion and a way of life and a woman who is good for me.
In fact, in my 20s, I was a atheist, and that was effing boring, but then I found God, and she was very sexy. Well, that's the story as I tell it. Who knows if it has been subject to a renarrativization?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see it as a bit like girls - which one turns you on? Go with her.
What when she'd rather stick her legs in a blender though? Aye, there's the rub.
Interesting point. Yes, you could be attracted to a religion or a way of life or a woman or man who is very bad for you.
I did that when I was in my 20s and 30s, and I guess I learned from it, and realized I could choose a religion and a way of life and a woman who is good for me.
In fact, in my 20s, I was a atheist, and that was effing boring, but then I found God, and she was very sexy. Well, that's the story as I tell it. Who knows if it has been subject to a renarrativization?
I've known plenty of girls who I thought and still think would have been perfectly good for me, but they'd rather have stuck their legs in a blender. But enough of youthful angst; where'd poetry be without blokes mooning over women who don't want 'em?
How did we get to this from the OP?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was making a comparison between girls and worldviews. Pick the one which resonates with you. In my case, I fell into a Catholic church at the age of 17, fresh from a totally atheistic upbringing, and thought, what, who, why, and so on. Well, I mean that it resonated with me, and still does. Or if you want to be simplistic, I like it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Natural selection operates in a utilitarian way ...
What evidence do you have for this? Utilitarianism is usually defined as being about the greatest good (or least harm) for the greatest number. I see no evidence that any 20th believer in evolution holds a view that somehow it has produced the greatest good. Evolution has followed one of many possible pathways and we've ended up here. If it hadn't SoF might well be populated by slug or dolphin descendants for all anyone knows. Who claims this evolutionary is outcome better than others, and for whom?
I am using the term 'utilitarian' (not 'utilitarianism', which you implied I had used) in the more general sense of 'useful', which, of course, implies seeking the greatest good (at least for oneself). There are two definitions of the word 'utilitarianism' in my dictionary (Collins), as follows:
1. The doctrine that the morally correct course of action consists in the greatest good for the greatest number, that is, in maximizing the total benefit resulting, without regard to the distribution of benefits and burdens.
2. The theory that the criterion of virtue is utility.
Now 'utility' is defined as:
1. The quality of practical use; usefulness; serviceability.
2. Something useful.
3. A public service.
4. The ability of a commodity to satisfy human wants and the amount of such satisfaction.
5. A measure of the total benefit or disadvantage attaching to each of a set of alternative courses of action.
The adjective 'utilitarian' (the word I actually used) can mean:
1. Of or relating to utilitarianism (which, as mentioned, relates to 'utility')
2. Designed for use rather than beauty.
So I think it is not quite fair to attempt to refute my argument by only referring to one particular meaning of this term. Clearly it denotes 'usefulness'.
Natural selection is, by definition, a mechanism by which certain traits are selected for. I assume you agree with that? And what is it about these particular traits that makes them more likely to be selected? Well the answer is that they are more useful for the survival of the organism. Therefore natural selection is a utilitarian process - using the word in the more general sense. Or perhaps I should say that it is a 'usefulness process', which is clearer, but not such good English.
Now naturalism argues that mind is the result of brain. And brain is the result of natural selection. Therefore, simple logic tells us that, according to naturalism, mind is the result of natural selection. Thus mind - and all the content of mind - is the result of this "usefulness process".
It follows logically that this philosophy requires that ideas emerge for reasons of usefulness, and not for reasons of truth. Certainly some ideas can be both true and useful, but it is also the case that untruths can, in some circumstances, be extremely useful.
Therefore there is no basis in naturalism by which we can trust the ideas in our minds. We can only trust them on the basis of a leap of faith. We cannot trust the idea of naturalism, for example, and for this reason naturalism is self-refuting.
quote:
quote:
according to naturalism, ideas must have arisen for this purpose, which, of course, tells us nothing about their truth status.
So walking in front of a fast moving vehicle may, in truth, be a good thing but we don't do it for the silly evolutionary reason that it tends to reduce our survival chances.
Not a clue what you're talking about here with this example.
Allow me to provide a proper example:
At one point in my childhood I was led to believe, by a well-meaning teetotaller, that when you got drunk you died. Drunkenness was always fatal. This was obviously a lie, but I can well imagine that such a lie was useful in preventing me from drinking alcohol as a child.
Now I know that someone may retort that a bit of simple testing can prove that such an idea is false, and that that is how we discover what is true. Therefore truth can exist within naturalism. I agree. But there's a problem. This only applies to ideas that can be empirically tested. Unfortunately not all ideas can be, and it is no good then saying that ideas that cannot be empirically tested should be ignored, or regarded as false or irrelevant. The reason for this is that the idea that "ideas should be empirically tested" cannot itself be empirically tested. So if that idea has to be discarded, then so should the method of empirical testing!
Also, empirical testing needs to be defined (without recourse to any ideas which cannot be empirically tested - an impossibility, btw). Billions of people throughout history have claimed that the "God idea" works. If usefulness and empirical testing are the only criteria for judging the truth of a proposition, then the "God idea" possesses validity - at least for those multitudes for whom it has worked. The philosophy of naturalism cannot then turn round and say "Ah, but this idea is different. It doesn't fulfill certain strict criteria according to a particular understanding of the empirical method, and therefore we cannot accept it as truth". If that is so, then the "idea of naturalism" falls on its own sword, because it also would fail its own test!!
quote:
quote:
Therefore naturalism is epistemologically self-defeating
I don't see why. Epistemology is about ideas, not how ideas come into existence. I could create new ideas using a random proposition generator and, as you say, their truth would be quite independent of their method of production. Deciding which are true doesn't depend on their genesis.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, which includes all aspects of knowledge, belief, justification and truth. The origin of something has a fundamental bearing on its nature, and therefore its validity (validity being a key concept of epistemology). We look at the nature of what we have now and make inferences about its origin. If you are saying that we cannot do that, then logically science and philosophy have nothing to say about the origins of anything at all - including any aspect of life.
As for your random proposition generator, all you are doing is creating information and then comparing it with information that already exists. Therefore you are not generating the ideas themselves, but merely copies, which are judged to be copies by means of intelligent comparison. So your analogy is utterly irrelevant to the argument. I am talking about the origin of mind, and the entire content thereof, which is an entirely different matter.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why is it always a logical argument that atheists want? Would you want a logical argument that love exists, for example?
But love does 'exist' in the sense that it is a word chosen to name an emotion caused by various chemical reactions in the brain and producing certain physical effects. And just because this can be explained does not in any way lower its value. We don't have to thank anyone for the fact that we have evolved this way, it's quite wonderful enough as it is.
quote:
I would think that many things in life are not discovered via logical argument, but through experience, and learning, and wisdom.
Okay, but when someone has named and experienced them, they can be studied and their source (probably logical!) found.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am using the term 'utilitarian' (not 'utilitarianism', which you implied I had used) in the more general sense of 'useful', which, of course, implies seeking the greatest good (at least for oneself).
It was very kind of you of to type out the definitions but, as you say:
The adjective 'utilitarian' (the word I actually used) can mean:
1. Of or relating to utilitarianism (which, as mentioned, relates to 'utility')
which was the way I, and I think quetzalcoatl, thought you were using it.
So I think it is not quite fair to attempt to refute my argument by only referring to one particular meaning of this term. Clearly it denotes 'usefulness'.
Unfortunately philosophy makes a great deal of use of everyday words. I assumed the wrong meaning and asked for clarification. My apologies.
For the rest, you may well be right but quetzalcoatl's theory probably has better survival value.
--------------------
"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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Believing in God is much more logical than not believing in God.
Why do you think this?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Evensong
Please ignore my last question - I see that it has been discussed.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
