Two years ago Ann departed from what I had taken for a generally secular and modern public persona by coming out with a book entitled “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” which advanced, of all things, a down-with-Darwin line. Apparently I was not the only one a bit surprised by this development (Jillian Becker). Per Wikipedia, Godless includes the following curious statement: “Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” A hostile review in The New Republic is here.
Now she has a new book out entitled “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America”. Do any readers know whether it represents a return to earlier, better form?
“Science has thus inadvertently discovered the strongest possible scientific indication that the physical universe came into being from some reality outside the physical universe, exactly as the Book of Genesis says.”
Exactly like Genesis says? Big Bang theory said that the earth was created in six days???
Given that science has not answered these fundamental questions, and, for all we know, may never do so, and given that the supposition of a non-material intelligent creator is a reasonable and understandable response to these vast unanswered questions,
There is nothing “reasonable” about promoting the evil pimp-god Yahweh/Jahovah/Jesus/Spirit-Ghost as the answer to these unanswered questions. We may never answer them, and the “goddidit” excuse will still remain a non-answer.
my hope is that the proponents of materialism and Darwinism will drop their extreme dogmatism and their Dawkins-like hatred of anyone who questions Darwinism and materialism.
The vacuum that would be created by the obliteration of religion, your own heart’s desire apparently, would in this day and age almost certainly lead to a reductionist, materialist regime of science-based state control (read: tyranny) and it would be attended by impersonal, efficient horrors the world has not yet witnessed. What can stand between us and such a future? Rational thinking?
What, aside from your fears, would lead you to such a conclusion? Why not a future in which humans actually use reason and rationality, and not irrationality such as religion or communism, etc., as a basis for society?
Then the Kat must be at war with all of human history and virtually all human cultures.
The question isn’t whether religion lead to an Aquinas or a preety church or nice painting, but what was lost because it occupied the field. That is where the idea of religion as “a destructive, mind-destroying force” really comes into its own.
Trevor writes:
“As for the mystery of consciousness, there is none. Consciousness is your brain seeing what it sees, hearing what it hears, and knowing what’s stored in its neurons. To say you are aware of something simply means the sensation reached your brain. To say you know something merely means that you can retrieve a memory about it…”
To say you find beauty in a landscape or a melody means what?
To say you experience pain from an injury means what?
“That’s actually a very interesting point. Could God have been conscious prior the creation of a universe to be conscious of? According to the Indian spiritual master Meher Baba, he could not. According to Baba’s book, God Speaks, which describes the evolution of the universe, before the universe came into existence, God existed, but he was in deep sleep, unconscious of himself. He only became gradually conscious—first of the universe, then of himself, as the universe itself gradually evolved out of himself.”
But than what role does the invisible pink unicorn have in the creation of the universe?
“To say you find beauty in a landscape or a melody means what?
To say you experience pain from an injury means what?”
To say pushing a piano key produces a sound means what?
To say flipping a switch turns on a lightbulb means what?
Be honest. You already know what these things mean.
G. Canyon: “What, aside from your fears, would lead you to such a conclusion? Why not a future in which humans actually use reason and rationality, and not irrationality such as religion or communism, etc., as a basis for society?”
Such a future I dreamed of as a boy. Then reality, both experiential and historical, crept in, all of the last several thousand years of it (spotty, representational factoids of it in truth). Do you mean to imply that having some basic grasp of one’s fellow man’s behaviour should not be cause for any fears, personal or otherwise? EIther you are unfamiliar with human nature as it “actually exists” (which I doubt) or you are suggesting that such fear in others is subjective and essentially false, and that you have no such fears yourself.
Perhaps you did not look out the window to notice the changing landscape– we are talking politics, not science or theory. Yet today the two are deeply intertwined. Who is the tail and who is the dog? Science is a flea on the tail of the dog methinks. Or a colony of fleas I suppose. We know that fleas can bring lethal diseases, so there is your fear factor again. They are pretty cool arthropods when you think about it.
I think reason and rationality have always been the foundation for human societies, at least on a daily basis. Otherwise how could it have worked out thus far for all the peoples of the earth? Religion is an important component of human affairs; it is not life itself. And it is not essential to every human life. But science is become religion, that is my fear. And you know how people get with religion– especially when only a few of the followers truly understand the doctrine and its importance. The group will become irrational in its defense. More specifically? How about eugenics, population control, most parsimonious health care, “rational” bureaucracy that the proletariat cannot access. What aspect of practical living could not be improved if suspicious (sorry– fearful), subjective minds would only step aside and let science realize its awesome potential?
According to the Indian spiritual master Meher Baba, he could not. According to Baba’s book, God Speaks, which describes the evolution of the universe, before the universe came into existence, God existed, but he was in deep sleep, unconscious of himself. He only became gradually conscious—first of the universe, then of himself, as the universe itself gradually evolved out of himself.
Interesting.
The way I understand God’s preexistence (if there is a God) is that He (or She or It) exists outside of time/space/matter/energy. So it’s not as though you can go back into an infinite number of moments and God is always there (as would have to be the case if the finite universe always existed). Rather, God’s eternal preexistence transcends time itself.
Again, I’m not sure if I personally believe this, but I keep my mind open.
@Hannon
I certainly see nothing to establish or even suggest that science is becoming a religion. Further, science can only inform political choices, which is why I suggested that reason and rationality be the proper bases for government. The process you describe, where belief science morphs into the ills of religion doesn’t sound reasonable nor rational to me.
@Lawrence Auster
I’m afraid you need a history lesson. To the extent that the Egyptian civilization was great, to the extent that they built their incredible monuments and kept their kingdoms stable, it was because of the people who used their reason to identify the facts of reality, to see how to engineer those great structures, to think about what agricultural practices have the highest yields year after year, to have the foresight to write things down and keep records. No religious revelation ever caused a monument to be built. Only reason can do that. Otherwise it’s all just wishes. The only thing the religious establishment is capable of is seizing and redistributing the creative and productive efforts of others.
The classical civilizations of Greece and Rome were built upon such a foundation as well. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are hardly religious figures, but look at the greatness they brought. The only Christian philosopher I have any respect for, Thomas Aquinas, was good only insofar as he revived Aristotelian logic and thought in the West after all its years of dormancy. You want to give the Catholic church credit for reviving Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire? Give me a break! All that the Church brought was the Dark Ages. Meanwhile, the Middle East thrived, surpassing Europe in things like math and medical technology, and yes they were Muslim but there was a much bigger space in society for secularism than at any point since in the Middle East, certainly much more so than today. And as a result they blossomed.
The Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which may together be the ages most responsible for the advancement of man at any point in human history, had nothing to do with religion and in fact had to constantly battle against its oppressive resistance to reason.
Am I hostile to much of human history? Yes, perhaps I am, insofar as humans to this point have done a poor job of recognizing each others’ rights and consequently failing to sustain the greatly productive periods of history for very long. The good news is I honestly believe things are getting better. Progress is not guaranteed – it requires human thought and effort and reversals are possible (see aforementioned Dark Ages and today’s Middle East), but overall I think that humankind’s lot has improved over the last few thousand years. And I do not write off everything that has gone before. In fact I view myself as another torch-bearer of an intellectual tradition that did begin in Classical Greece, that survived and advanced in the Middle East and then culminated in Europe as the Enlightenment. Da Vinci, Locke, Bacon, Galileo, Jefferson, these are my intellectual fathers. These are the sort of men that a religious outlook seeks to quash. Why search for answers when we have divine “revelation” and a stern priest to give us all the answers? So what if those answers actively conflict with reality and are hostile to the pursuit of happiness and life on this earth, the only life we have?
I don’t really care how many masses you want to throw in my face and say that I’m hostile to them. I hate to say it but the truth is that the many usually impede progress, rather than nurture it. I’m elitist, I suppose, in the sense that I believe history is driven by the efforts and choices of a few great people, for better or for worse, than by mindless masses who drift wherever the wind takes them. But on the other hand, I don’t believe there is any sure way to predict where these people will come from; any family, any race, any class, any geographic area in the world is a potential source of human ingenuity. There is no real accounting for human choice and autonomy. The common thread that all these people had and will have is the willingness to use their reason and the courage to stick to their own judgments when they know they conform to reality, regardless of who or how many stand against them. To the extent that these people may be religious, it will hold them back rather than drive them on.
I hate to cut this short for now but I have things to do, so I will just address your last point quickly: this account of God’s “awakening” is easier to swallow than a scientific explanation of the universe? You’ve lost me. Oh, and one more thing, not that it’s very important. I’m female, so if you want to refer to me in the third person “she” might make more sense.
G. Canyon: It is not a difficult concept I am trying to put across, the question is the veracity of it. I think there’s veracity a-plenty. If we agree that humankind has always looked to higher realms– something to believe in communally– as far back as we know, and attending all ethnicities and geography, then H. sapiens clearly has a need (or tendency if you like) for a transcendent faith of some kind. It is a true generality, whether or not we pick apart each individual religion or ‘faith module’.
In the modern period religion has been declining in some quarters, particularly Christianity, especially in its place of historical preeminence. Science has not developed in its place exactly, but to the extent it is true that the main run of humanity feels lost without something greater than everyday existence to believe in, then science is the new place holder. Why does this idea seem strange or irrational to you? It is about *people’s perception* of a discipline that bestows upon them miracles every day (plasma screen TVs, etc.), is mysterious in its workings and is considered nearly all-powerful by many. It is not about science per se. It is how people respond to it, and about the synergistic relationship between the two parties. Society and science are inexorably linked. Do you not see the power of science over millions of average minds? And the possibilities for mischief and much worse– power corrupts and all that?
The more often people get the message that science has all the *valid* answers, along with showy demonstrations of that dominion, the more it looks omnipotent. Which brings me to an important correction: it is not science that becomes God-like, but man himself, the source of all answers and earthly authority. And that is as fearsome a spectacle as I can think of for the ordering of mankind.
This piece by Mark Richardson touches on some of the above cautionary thoughts regarding science:
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/06/humanist-as-mad-scientist.html
I disagree that there is a need for transcendent faith, and that science will take the place of religion. Rather, I believe that humans have a need for answers and a desire to explore and discover. In ancient times, in the childhood of humanity, the tools to find these answers did not exist, so humanity made up stories and pretended they were real. The problem is that it was accompanied by some real nasty, evil stuff, that resulted in centuries of human potential squashed, broken and crushed. We are just now coming out of our childhood and need to put the childish things away.
“Which brings me to an important correction: it is not science that becomes God-like, but man himself, the source of all answers and earthly authority. And that is as fearsome a spectacle as I can think of for the ordering of mankind.”
Man, himself, is always the source of all answers and earthly authority. The question is: do we want shamans and priests pretending to be speaking for a god as they impose their own fully human will and usurp the very human authority to which they have no rightful claim, or do we want to grow up, look ourselves in the mirror and take responsibility for ourselves?
@Hannon
I am not a biologist or anything similar, rather a computer scientist, so I don’t understand your biological terminology. However, I am not aware of _anything_ that indicates there is a limit to the types of functionality selective pressures can cause in evolved computer programs. Any such limitation would seem to be quite arbitrary. We can model artificial organisms that grow new limbs, learn to walk, etc., all without any human knowing how they work, or actually programming them to do so.
What would make you think that there is some arbitrary limit to the complexity of changes that can be generated by selective pressure? The definition of ‘species’ is basically an arbitrary human means of dividing a continuous spectrum of features in populations. Why should evolutionary changes stop at semantic boundaries defined only by humans for categorization purposes?
@The Kat
Kudos for this piece!
G. Canyon– It is funny that you don’t feel that man has a need for transcendent belief, an assertion that goes against the living practices of the vast majority of the planet’s population, while I do not share your view that “humans have a need for answers and a desire to explore and discover.” I find that “most people” just want to get on with their lives and have no great intellectual itch for truth and understanding. I am not equipped to give a good dissertation on the subject of “who’s in charge”. To my thinking it involves a conscious recognition of both awe and humility that bridges us to a force of organization that man himself can never master because he is a component, or a subset, of it. This idea does not hinder in the least the scientific process but puts it into perspective for everyman.
Trevor– I don’t think there is “some arbitrary limit to the complexity of changes that can be generated by selective pressure”. I don’t think I said anything to suggest that I do. “The definition of ’species’ is basically an arbitrary human means of dividing”– I will agree with you that far. But it is by no means a continuous spectrum, even considering extinct ancestors. The species concept is sometimes difficult in practice but is necessary for us to have a handle on things. Arguably more difficult is the more essential “What is a population?” If you would not accept its natural limitations and challenges, how would you propose we get around the categorization problem?
Daniel Dare,
I asserted that mathematics was not defined into existence, but has a form of existence that is independent of any mind (subjective or otherwise.) In response, you point to non-Euclidian geometries: Apparently, then mathematics COULD be something other than what it is defined to be, and my argument (apparently) collapses.
In fact, the word “objective” means (at least in this context) “independent of person,” not “independent of circumstances.” Euclidian geometry could not be other than what is and still be faithful to non-astronomical reality. And the various non-Euclidian geometries have their own structural integrities, some of which faithfully reflect reality on astronomical scales of distance.
Furthermore, ALL of mathematics would have to be redefinable in order to invalidate my point. If there remains even one part of mathematics that could not be anything other than what it is, then my point is sustained: something nonphysical and objective exists, i.e., something independent of the material world, and that man does not define.
The relevance of this observation for theism, I discuss below in my response to Kevembuangga.
Also, regarding my argument that consciousness is impossible under Darwinism, both you and Bill of MD apparently missed the essential point: You said, “I categorically do not accept that consciousness is non-physical.” But consciousness is non-physical BY DEFINITION. That is, its being, what it is, is non-physical. You may think that it has non-physical causes, but the cause of something is not identical to that thing’s being, its nature. The only way out of this dilemma for a materialist is to deny that consciousness per se has any being, and to affirm that consciousness simply is some sort of matter in motion. But this is absurd: my subjective consciousness exists, and I presume yours does too.
And please note that this is not just one of those unfinished details of an otherwise-successful Darwinian theory. Since it is impossible for consciousness to occur if Darwinism is true, Darwinism is false, at least as a comprehensive explanation. (It may still be able to explain some things.)
Trevor,
You said
“As for the mystery of consciousness, there is none. Consciousness is your brain seeing what it sees, hearing what it hears, and knowing what’s stored in its neurons. To say you are aware of something simply means the sensation reached your brain. To say you know something merely means that you can retrieve a memory about it…”
This is obviously false. Your consciousness has a subjective aspect to it that is obviously not just “your brain seeing what it sees.” No, YOU see what you see.
Since materialistic atheism leads one to reject the blindingly obvious, it must be false. The only reason one would prefer the absurd is if it is the best defense against something one hates. But this is to think emotionally, not rationally.
Kevembuangga,
I’ll make you a deal. If you stop calling me a “delusional,” and all other ad-hominem terms, then I will refrain from calling you a self-deluded godless fool, and all other ad hominem terms.
You say that mathematics is nothing but a formal system; a set of rules. But where do the rules come from? Logically, there are three possible answers:
1) The rules are purely arbitrary. We can make them to be whatever our whims desire, subject only to the restriction that they not be self-contradictory (and maybe not even subject to that restriction.)
2) The rules are not purely arbitrary, that is, we cannot choose them to be whatever our whims desire, but there is no reason why they are the way they are. They just are, for reason.
3) They are not arbitrary, and some entity or cause other than man makes them to be what they are.
Option 1 means that mathematics is essentially nonexistent, because something that could be anything is not actually anything, that is, it is nothing. And # 2 exists as a bare possibility, but this is not the way thinking proceeds on non-ultimate questions. It is far more reasonable to assume that there is some sort of cause. That leaves # 3 as the best explanation.
At this point, atheists typically respond, “Then what is the cause of God?” Well, all systems of thought must accept something as the ultimate reality that is not caused. That’s why you atheists take the physical cosmos and the concepts in human minds as the ultimate givens, requiring no cause. The buck has to stop somewhere.
So there are essentially two competing views of ultimate reality: The (mono-)theistic view, in which God is the ultimately unifying Factor of reality, or the atheistic view, in which reality contains many unconnected (juxtaposed, but not connected) and purely ad hoc givens: consciousness, matter and its properties, logic, morality, beauty, possibly many universes, etc.
Despite what some say, there is no logical impossibility in the concept of God. (If the concept is formulated correctly, that is), so we cannot rule it out on logical grounds. Atheists famously say “there is no evidence for God,” but that is because they (usually unknowingly) interpret all evidence with a presupposition of materialism. Viewing life through atheist-colored glasses, they see theism nowhere. They are reasoning in a circle.
I think that God is an objective reality, because if you interpret reality according to the correct worldview, you do see good evidence for God: much of it objective, some of it subjective. But since man is not an entirely rational animal, this is also an esthetic issue: You atheists find the idea of God to be repulsive, and so you prefer your atheistic worldview.
Don’t get me wrong: good answers do exist to all atheistic objections. But life is short, and if you hate the idea of God, you can always generate both real and pseudo objections. My main goal here has been to show that we theists can defend ourselves, and to influence any readers who are not 100% committed to atheism.
One more point: If consciousness is physical, what is its mass? What is its chemical composition? Etc. The conclusion is inescapable: consciousness is not physical.
Alan,
something nonphysical and objective exists, i.e., something independent of the material world, and that man does not define.
Alan. You forget that our brains were evolved by the world. Natural selection created the genetic code that manufactured our brains.
Why does it surprise you that mathematics, which now exists in our brains, is an accurate map of so much of the natural world? That is why we evolved brains in the first place – to produce realistic representations of the world.
Poetically, the reason logic works, is because Nature is logical; and we are her children. Our mental worlds are made in the image of Nature. It took hundreds of millions of years for nature to perfect the design.
And why is nature logical? Because physical systems built according to the “laws” of classical mechanics, posesses a logical lattice that defines its objective structure. As Josef Jauch puts it:
Where L is the set of all propositions, (yes-no experiments) a,b,. . . . of a physical system:
The propositions of a classical physical system are a σ(sigma)-complete atomic Boolean lattice.
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1968 Adison Wesley)(page 74,80)
That is why you can build computers out of electronic circuits (as discovered by Claude Shannon).
That is why you can build computers out of billiard balls.
That is why you can build computers out of gears.
That is why you can build computers out of fluidic or hydraulic logic.
That is why you can build computers out of electromechanical relays.
That is why you can build computers out of arrays of living cells interacting electrochemically.
Our brains can do logic, because classical physical systems can be built that function as computers or Turing machines. We build them. And in us, nature has built them.
Alan Roebuck writes: “Also, regarding my argument that consciousness is impossible under Darwinism, both you and Bill of MD apparently missed the essential point: You said, “I categorically do not accept that consciousness is non-physical.” But consciousness is non-physical BY DEFINITION.”
I did not express an opinion about the physicality or otherwise of consciousness; I pointed out that, contrary to what you apparently believe (“A physical mechanism cannot, even in principle, account for something non-physical”), the non-physical *can* be instantiated in a physical system, and gave examples.
QUOTE
An algorithm is a non-physical entity, but it can be implemented and executed in an entirely physical computer. Computers can be programmed to generate their own algorithms using an process analogous to evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm). Computers can find (entirely non-physical) proofs to (entirely non-physical) mathematical theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving).
END QUOTE
What I was trying to induce you to do is to make the elementary distinction between the non-physical as a way in which matter is organized (eg in an implemented algorithm) and non-physical in the sense of not consisting of matter. The problems for your position in the former understanding of non-physical should be obvious. Those familiar with the eternal nature-of-consciousness debate will immediately recognize the problem with the latter: consciousness is non-physical in the sense of being immaterial; but obviously it interacts with matter and matter interacts with it. But anything that interacts with matter is material, by definition.
So which is it?
If motion is physical, what is its mass or chemical composition? Motion is something that matter does.
Alan Roebuck wrote: “If consciousness is physical, what is its mass? What is its chemical composition? Etc. The conclusion is inescapable: consciousness is not physical.”
If insect instinctive behavior is physical, what is its mass? What is its chemical composition? Etc. The conclusion is inescapable: insect instinctive behavior is not physical.
Asking what consciousness is is like asking what a running computer program is. It’s not entirely defined by the silicon, and it’s not entirely defined by moving electrons. It’s a combination of all of it which works together to become a running program. Similarly, your brain has neurons and interconnections, as well as electric pulses and neurotransmitters between them. The entire combination of everything that goes into a working brain is what creates consciousness.
As for consciousness being ‘subjective’, that just is a question of whose brain it is. Your consciousness is running in your brain. That’s why you think it is you. Basically, the subjective ‘I’ is what is happening in your brain. When you look at yourself in the mirror and are conscious of who you are, all that’s happening is that your brain is taking in the image, processing it, recognizing it as you from a memory, and perusing over the information associated with that memory in combination with your other present thoughts. There’s no need to postulate anything strange there.
The main problem with a non-physical theory of the basis of consciousness has apparently not yet been touched upon (pardon me if it has, this has become a very long thread): if consciousness is non-physical, how is it that consciousness can be profoundly affected by, for example, chemicals in the bloodstream, e.g. drugs and alcohol? Or by neurotransmitter imbalances? Or by physical insults to the brain, or disease or stroke?
Obviously memory is stored in the physical brain, since injury or disease can eradicate memory. This means that immaterial consciousness has no memory. Which means that in the afterlife we know nothing of the trials an tribulations of our Earthly existence. Perhaps that is what is meant by Heaven.
I would say that the reason consciousness has no weight is because it only exists in brain-cyberspace.
It is an information-space construct.
You might as well ask, what is the weight of a large lump of rock in your video game?
A. Roebuck writes “But life is short, and if you hate the idea of God…” My guess is that we underestimate the importance of this emotion on rational thinking in the subject at hand. This hatred is, in my experience of others, often the key emotion leading to a negative take on religion. It cripples any ability to consider spirituality (God), even apart from any formal religion. I think atheism requires “consideration” just as theism does but always there are obstacles and diversions over one’s life.
I agree with Alan that there is no logical reason to deny the possibility of some transcendent, guiding divinity in our midst. To toss around this idea in one’s consciousness (or brain, whichever you choose) in good faith and then reject it for “atheistic reasoning” I can respect to a degree. But to initially train one’s attention on the *requirement* of rejecting and often denigrating something that satisfies a human requirement for an accessible understanding of some unifying purpose seems irrational. I wonder how many who are atheists ever held the notion of God in their hearts for a moment and reflected on the idea of a truth beyond, and encompassing, the starkness (and volatility) of materialism alone.
I wonder how many who are atheists ever held the notion of God in their hearts for a moment and reflected on the idea of a truth beyond,
Spent decades thinking about it on and off. Decided pure reason was the only defensible answer.
the starkness (and volatility) of materialism alone.
I would say, religion has a memetic structure, as Dawkins says. One of the ways it works is to threaten you with the consequences if you give it up. You will go to hell. You will suffer bad fortune. You will have to face the meaninglessness of life.
I find that it is nowhere near as bad as you think. I would not give up my nature-centered ‘wisdom’ even if you offered me immortality on a stick – with frequent flyer points. Being part of the cosmic dance is what makes existence meaningful. Part of that is reality-at-any-price.
If death is real then give me death. I fear death, but I don’t fear that I fear death. And certainly I don’t fear it enough to wrap myself in delusions and fantasies to head off the fear. That would not be real living at all. It’s just not worth the price.
D. Dare– Thank you for your response. I think throughout this thread there has been conflation of religion and spiritual belief and assumptions thereon; doubtless I have contributed to this at times. For the record I do not have any special trepidation for the afterlife, nor for most of the anthropocentric attributes of the God of the Bible. Obviously this leaves a huge metaphysical playing field for “play”. So please do not make assumptions in my own case.
I agree with you about the cosmic dance, but with regard to your finally opting for reason, pray tell what or who do you feel the need to defend against?
Hannon, you’ll note will you not, that atheists do not generally spend their time on religious blogs trying to argue with the believers.
Mostly it is the other way around? Honestly, why is that do you think?
Part of that is witnessing I suppose. But surely part of it is that, in your own mind, you cannot really be certain. Talking to us is one way you toy with the idea of non-belief in your own mind, I suspect.
So I don’t think it is “defending against”; more like – I gave up smoking, so can you.
Part of being a fully-mature human being, is living in reality and knowing it. Entering into it without reservation. When you go swimming in a pool, do you hold onto the side, or do you let go and really swim?
I am in the world and of the world. There is no part of reality that is alien to me really.
Alan Roebuck
I’ll make you a deal. If you stop calling me a “delusional,” and all other ad-hominem terms, then I will refrain from calling you a self-deluded godless fool, and all other ad hominem terms.
No deal.
You ARE delusional, “feeling a presence” is not proof of a presence but only proof of neurochemistry at work.
And you are a moron, since don’t know what an explanation is.
An explanation is about a “how” question, not a “why” question.
As long as you cannot answer a “how” it is DELUSIONAL to ask about the “why” for the same topic, asking for “reasons” for something you don’t know batshit about doesn’t make ANY SENSE, it is the genuine case of “not knowing what you are talking about”.
As for “reasons” in general, the Principle of Sufficient Reason has been proven wrong by Gregory Chaitin.
I can dramatically alter your subjective consciousness by giving you drugs that affect your neural chemistry. Your personality and memories can be altered by physical damage to your neural tissue. I can watch you making a decision with an fMRI scanner and read the result before “you” are aware you’ve made the choice. I can cause you to experience a religious epiphany by electrically stimulating a specific region of your brain. If consciousness were non-physical, what would explain any of these well-documented observations?
“You” and “I” give every appearance of being software programs running on 10^11 cell protein computers. Our hardware can be hacked in many ways that alter the behavior of the program, and the program also contains a number of known software bugs (think optical illusions). I don’t see why that would lead me to conclude that consciousness doesn’t exist – it’s as real as the (also buggy and hackable) copy of FireFox in which I’m typing these words.
I understand (1) to be the correct answer. The requirement of self-consistency packs a lot more punch than you’re giving it credit for. It also would be fair to say that a lot of potential rule sets are uninteresting because they are too simple to deduce non-obvious conclusions.
I do not understand how this would lead you to the belief that mathematics does not exist.
Are mind and body two separate entities? If so, how are they held together in the living organism? How do they get in touch in the beginning, how do they fly asunder at the end, and what becomes of the mind after the breakdown of the body? How do the two entities manage to function synchronically: what does it mean to say that mental states have neural correlates? Do these entities interact, and if so how? And which if any has the upper hand? If, on the other hand, mind and body are not different entities, is the mind corporeal? Or is it the other way around, namely is the body a form of the mind? Or is each a manifestation of a single (neutral) underlying inaccessible substance? In either case: what is mind? A thing, a collection of states of a thing, a set of events in the thing-or nothing at all? And whatever it is, is it just physical or is it something more? And in the latter case — i.e. if mind is emergent relative to the physical level can it be explained in a scientific manner or can it be described only in ordinary language?
The mind-body problem is notoriously a hard nut to crack — surely even more so than the problem of matter — so much so that some scientists and philosophers despair of it being soluble at all. We submit that the problem, though tough, is soluble, and shall outline a solution to it in this work. But before doing so we shall have to do some philosophical scouting and conceptual cleansing, because part of the problem is that it is usually formulated in inadequate terms — namely in those of ordinary language. These are inadequate not only because ordinary language is imprecise and poor but also because the European languages are loaded with a preconceived solution to the problem, namely psychophysical dualism, or the doctrine that mind and body are separate entities. – BUNGE, MARIO. The mind-body problem. A psychobiological approach,(pp. XIII-XIV).
Hannon said: “I do not have any special trepidation (…) for most of the anthropocentric attributes of the God of the Bible.”
—–
No book, not even the most atheistic one, will ever be able to demonstrate as the Bible does, that it was not God who created man in his own image but man who created a God similar to himself:
…a braggart and liar: I Sam. 9:15-16; II Sam. 7:16; Ex. 32:10; Numbers 34:2-12.
…an illogical and superficial God: Ex. 32:9-14; Gen. 4:4-8.
…a pitiless and violent God: Deut. 2:30; Deut. 3:6; Deut. 7:16; Deut. 13:6-15; I Sam. 15:3; Joshua 10:8-11; II Sam. 6:1-7.
…an insecure God who always needs tests: Gen. 22:2; Gen. 22:9-12.
…a vengeful God: Numbers 31:2; Numbers 31:7-10.
…a God who ignores the future: II Samuel 24:16.
…an ambitious, vain God and lover of adulation and luxury: Ex. 26:1; Ex. 26:2-4; Ex. 26:12; Ex. 26:18; Lev. 1:14-17; Lev. 22:19-20; Lev. 22:22-24.
…a blackmailer: Exodus 7:3-5.
…a slaver: Ex. 21:2-6; Ex. 21:7-19; Lev. 27:8-13.
…an angry and criminal God: Ex. 22:24; Num. 25:3-13; Deut. 28:15-28.
…Inconsistent and contradictory: Leviticus 20:11-12 Leviticus 20:27; Leviticus 20:14; Leviticus 20:17; Gen. 4:1-2; Gen. 4:15; Gen. 4:25; Gen. 5:4; Gen. 9:1; Ex. 7:9; Numbers 36:6-9; Numbers 11:4-33; Numbers 21:6-9; Deut. 20:10-14.
…a God who consoles sterile woman: Gen. 21:1-3; Gen. 25:21; Gen. 25:24-26; Judg. 13:2-3.
…a disappointed and frustrated God: Gen. 16:2-15; Judg. 2:12-13; II Sam. 7:5-7.
@Alan Roebuck
I asserted that mathematics was not defined into existence, but has a form of existence that is independent of any mind (subjective or otherwise.)
And that assertion is wrong. Math is a concept (a group of concepts, actually) that exist solely in the mind. Absent the mind, the mathematics does not exist.
But consciousness is non-physical BY DEFINITION. That is, its being, what it is, is non-physical. You may think that it has non-physical causes, but the cause of something is not identical to that thing’s being, its nature.
Nonsense. Consciousness is wholly physical. It is not material, however. That is your error; you are conflating the two. But they are not identical. For example, electricity is physical but not material (i.e., electricity is energy, so it is physical, but is not made of matter, so it is non-material.)
I think that God is an objective reality, because if you interpret reality according to the correct worldview, you do see good evidence for God[,] much of it objective, some of it subjective.
“[I]nterpret[ing] reality” according to a “worldview” is the essence of subjectivity. What you are really saying is that if one accepts the theistic postulates, then he will consider, as evidence of the existence of God, things that one who does not accept that postulate does not consider evidence of the extistence of God. All you are really saying, at its essence, is that if you believe in God, you’ll find evidence to affirm your belief.
D. Dare– Well, the believers must get some reward from this peculiar, one-sided behavior. But it is not really one-sided, is it, since “you guys” are so often willing to engage a reasonable bull session. I find these conversations occasionally, by accident. So what is your motivation in suppressing an apparent impulse to ignore that which you find superstitious and dull? It sounds– from your words rather than your actions– as though you would prefer two parallel societies, both online and off. Why not then use a forum that is open to registered members only– surely you did not expect to attract only those who think like you do?
As to motivation, I suspect in either case it has to do with the continuous exchange of thought that has given rise to civilization itself. And yes, I mean religious philosophers talking between themselves and with naturalists and rationalists and everything in between. It is a lively conversation. It is the religious types who find no appeal in the challenge of dialogue, or proffer only dogma you should worry about. They are not in short supply.
Why does the craving for absolute certainty seem to be a driving atheist theme? Maybe that is your central theme. I think you want that certitude more than anything; the conception of or belief in God is immaterial (no pun intended). Then is your personal belief in materialism-rationalism the highest realm of human realization or achievement in your view? In light of the changing nature of what we understand as physics alone, never mind religion or metaphysics, this would seem a dreary, if not wobbly outlook. But you seem happy with it and that is good. Maybe I am not so satisfied in my thinking on these things but rest assured I am not spending time writing here to convert anyone to… what exactly?
Alan Roebuck said:”I think that God is an objective reality, because if you interpret reality according to the correct worldview, you do see good evidence for God[,] much of it objective, some of it subjective.”
—–
“It is remarkably significant that not a single scientific discovery has falsified naturalism in the sense of making supernaturalism more likely to be true than not when we can imagine several discoveries that would do so. While there are and will certainly continue to be uncontroversial anomalies in our scientific account of the world, none of them have anything to do with supernatural agencies.”
A Defense of Naturalism by Keith Augustine – http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html#ockham
Hannon,
It sounds– from your words rather than your actions– as though you would prefer two parallel societies, both online and off. Why not then use a forum that is open to registered members only– surely you did not expect to attract only those who think like you do?
I suppose because I am one of a tiny minority that thinks that. So it would be a very small discussion group. But this is not my website. And it is not for me to criticise the creators and owners. I speak only to draw your attention to the fact that it is believers who (repeatedly) pursue us.
Also you are right to note that when challenged I will defend. There is a reason for that. I, together with some of the other more-experienced rationalists, attempt to expose the weakness of the arguments of the believers, because there are some of ours who might be fooled. They need to know that it is possible to defend pure reason. They need to be shown how.
If we stayed silent, then only the believers’ voice would be heard, right here on this Secular Right website. Numerically, they could easily drown us out. Look at what happened on Heather’s Please Explain thread.
Why does the craving for absolute certainty seem to be a driving atheist theme? Maybe that is your central theme.
Nonsense. It is precisely the unbeliever who is willing to accept a world where hosts of mysteries are as-yet unexplained, but where future science might well explain them. It is the believer who fills his head with myths, to fill the desperate need for certainty.
Then is your personal belief in materialism-rationalism the highest realm of human realization or achievement in your view?
At this moment yes. In the future who can say?
I am a monist in our current state of knowledge. I believe that we have strong reasons to believe there is one and only reality. And that science is the one and only path to truth, in that one and only reality.
Maybe I should have placed “truth” in quotes, because I recognise that probablistic empirical truth is not as strong a construct as binary logical truth. But it is the only version of truth that is applicable to the world we find ourselves living in.
Nice post, Daniel.
Alan Roebuck said:
“2) The rules are not purely arbitrary, that is, we cannot choose them to be whatever our whims desire, but there is no reason why they are the way they are. They just are, for reason.”
The rules are not arbitrary because they are a reflection of the physical world. Integers , the foundation of maths , are based on discrete physical objects that man encountered and counted. Maths is a consequence of man’s interaction with the physical world. So could mathematics be defined in any way other than the way it has been defined? No , because when you add 2 sheep and 3 sheep you get 5 sheep. A wheel is circular , it has a diameter which is expressed as an approximation usually to a couple of deciaml points , which when times by PI gives and approximation of the wheels circumferance. Is the wheel a circle , no it is an approximation of a circle. Circles exist as abstractions. Mathematics was defined into existence by man , who sort an abstract deductive model of numbers , quantity, arrangements , space , time etc which is consistent with the physical world. So therefore mathematics has a form of existence that is dependent on the physical MATERIAL world.
@Daniel Dare
FYI: Hannon has taken to sniping from the ideological safety of Auster’s VFR blog; apparently “our kind” got a bit too much for him:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012543.html
QUOTE
On the spiritual condition of the atheist ideologues
Hannon writes:
While posting at the Secular Right thread, I detect a consistent undercurrent of depressing negativity from the people there that is subtle yet pernicious. As though they were operating out of some dark, cold cave on Mt. Truth–but they know every bit of data about that cave! I sense a real unhappiness among them, in spite of their “rightness.” It seems likely that religion will hold on, if for no other reason than fellowship and kindness and all the related benefits. Atheism? It provides justification for suicide or living, but who cares? Among their kind, ultimately, WHO CARES?
Of course one can pick up a decent moral code and exhibit mercy as an atheist, but how long would that hold up–and how would it hold up–if they were in the majority (or the minority) and running things? Rationality, reductionism, and efficiency would take charge, and that is I think my whole point through all my posts on that thread.
So, with my last post on that thread, Daniel Dare writes:
“Also you are right to note that when challenged I will defend. There is a reason for that. I, together with some of the other more-experienced rationalists, attempt to expose the weakness of the arguments of the believers, because there are some of ours who might be fooled. They need to know that it is possible to defend pure reason. They need to be shown how.” [emphasis mine]
Who is “ours”? “Fooled” because their rationalism would fold at some point? Doesn’t that just sound creepy? Like they are the Brights and Common Purpose rolled into one.
END QUOTE
D. Dare- “I, together with some of the other more-experienced rationalists, attempt to expose the weakness of the arguments of the believers, because there are some of ours who might be fooled.”
This makes it sound like you do not trust others to think for themselves, to make their own mistakes or leaps in knowledge, whatever direction that might take. For you there is only one direction. And that is precisely what I have been saying all along: with self-proclaimed rational thinkers at the helm of society, religion finally vanquished, we will have a state-controlled society managed by the very best thinkers who rely solely on reason and materialist belief. A majority of citizens would be at their mercy.
To reiterate: this may be your vision of an ideal or greatly improved society but it is not mine. People whose highest faith is in their own subjective ability to think rationally pose just as great a danger to themselves and those around them as fanatical religionists.
Bill of MD,
Actually I expected this. It doesn’t surprise me at all.
Hannon,
It is not a question of thinking for themselves. It is a question of being informed.
When people are using deep, apparently-sophistical arguments, based on medieval philosophy – that hardly anyone today, apart from theologians, knows anything about – we have to worry about the “blinded with B.S.” syndrome.
They must think for themselves, but isn’t it better if it is an informed decision?
with self-proclaimed rational thinkers at the helm of society, religion finally vanquished, we will have a state-controlled society managed by the very best thinkers who rely solely on reason and materialist belief. A majority of citizens would be at their mercy.
Hannon, you sound paranoid. Where do you see at the helm? Certainly not in the USA. Again and again I write: My policy towards prerationals is non-interference.
In my ideal world, the rationals would leave the Earth to the believers, and head off into Space. You would never find us again. There we could explore the cosmos in peace never to be bothered by religions again.
I believe in the long run, the only way we can fully pursue our path is in Space. Above all since the path includes transhumanism. Which I think many religious people will find very troubling.
In the end I suspect, the people committed to pure reason will have to go their way, and leave the religious to go theirs. It is a big universe, there is room for all kinds. Diversity is part of the strength of Mankind. That is why I do not wish to undermine it.
D. Dare, you say: “Hannon, you sound paranoid. Where do you see at the helm?” You left out, unintentionally obviously, the key word between “see” and “at”. Would you care to fill in that blank?
Paranoid? Sorry it sounds that way but a superb and non-trivial example comes to mind immediately and it is the EU. It is representative in many ways of the worst that secularism has to offer: it is anti-ethnic, anti-nationalistic, and anti-human in a host of ways– unanswerable bureaucracy and all that. Run by very intelligent people, no doubt. And they are TAKING AWAY THE RIGHTS of EUROPEANS AS WE SPEAK. Latest I heard was they will have to deploy some type of transnational paramilitary force. But I’m sounding paranoid again.
“My policy towards prerationals is non-interference.” If that is your personal policy then fine. But the society you say you want– and is presumably desired by others, too– will require massive interference, violent or otherwise. Or do you imagine you will pick up the pieces after the believers have blown themselves to bits? Maybe so, but I would not want to inherit that legacy. Better to work together, differences and all. Come to think of it, that is what we are doing.
I must confess your separationism idea is interesting. It is similar to my feelings about Islam. Out of curiosity, who do you suppose will be on hand to help develop and fund that space exploration? All atheists? I don’t know what to make of someone who thinks the best solution for the atheism/theism issue is separation on a literally cosmic scale. Sounds like you are trying to fill some very deep need there.
Dare, we need not strain ourselves to convince the other camp [I think there are at least several camps myself] of anything. For all of the bellyaching that you do or I do, don’t you think on average things aren’t so bad in American society? Is our Constitution good enough for you? Or do you see this land as being overrun by religious hegemony? I would consider *that* notion to be borderline paranoid.
Hannon, I am not an American, I am an Australian.
I should have written:
Where do you see, “at the helm”?
I mean, no way could rationalists ever be “at the helm” in USA.
Also what you are saying about the rights of Europeans is a consequence of statism and socialism. USA has just voted in a socialist government. We are Secular Right. About this we agree.
Out of curiosity, who do you suppose will be on hand to help develop and fund that space exploration? All atheists?
Well lessee, USA is 4% of world population. China is ?
I think there will be some atheists developing spaceflight in this century. Perhaps Americans will see fit to compete?
Did you hear Gary North’s wonderful Joke? It is deeply cautionary. I will retell it in my own words:
The USA plans to go back to the Moon in the mid 2020s with the Constellation program.
At least this time you won’t need to take any food with you.
Because by the time you get back there, you will be able to eat at a Chinese Restaurant.
Dare, if China moves ahead as you suggest it will be because of all the technology they have a) stolen from us [and others] or b) that we have been foolish enough to share so freely. Of course we would compete. It would almost certainly be a good thing. If any group can secure a future off-planet it might defuse the whole global conquering psychological issue– for the ones who leave. Same mayhem as usual for the earthers, probably. I deleted from my previous post that we appear to also agree that space exploration is the future of H. sapiens ultimately.
I like this joke, but I never get a good laugh with it: Have you heard about the new Chinese-German restaurant? An hour later you’re hungry for power.
The Australians have always commanded great respect in my field/s and in many others. I vaguely had you pegged as a New Englander for some reason. I keep hearing about Australian-Pacific-East Asian trading blocs and attendant immigration issues. Is it rational to resist powerful economic arguments?
By the way, I have noticed a striking paucity of meaningful China news here, both in MSM and on blogs, reporting or speculation. As if there is a concerted effort to play nice– perhaps a subconscious realization that they are a force to be reckoned with or will be soon. Is the media tone any different in the antipodes?
Dare, if China moves ahead as you suggest it will be because of all the technology they have a) stolen from us [and others] or b) that we have been foolish enough to share so freely.
I have read that many British felt the same way in the early 20th century about the USA. I never underestimate China.
Is it rational to resist powerful economic arguments?
I believe economics is one of the most important forces shaping history.