The Case For God [Archive]

Maia

17th January 2010, 12:56 PM

I try to catch NPR's To The Best Of Our Knowledge each week; often the various segments and interviews are quite good. This week, they devoted the first hour to the idea of "faith in the secular world" and had an interview with Karen Armstrong, the author of The Case For God.
I must say I did not find Armstrong's "case" to be very compelling. She does come across as quite knowledgeable of religion in general, both in history and comparative theology.
She made the case that in the past, nascent scientific thinking and religion seemed to compliment each other.
However, her view of "God" seems to have distilled down to the "outside of reality" idea with no definable characteristics or qualities that could be discerned by humans.

Having heard similar notions before, I find it very difficult to see how this view of God differs from that of having no God at all....
Armstrong seems to find her idea of God-inspired "transcendence" in altruism and service/compassion for one's fellow man.
I've heard that notion before as well, and the proponents seem to think that such altruism can only stem from God; failing to understand the well-studied evolutionary underpinnings of all of those "good" human characteristics.
If that's the best she's got to offer.....

Karen Armstrong often seems to fall into the "well-meaning but annoying" category, but I'm also sorry to say that I'm not impressed by this particular argument at all. "Well-studied" is an adjective; it is not a presentation of evidence, and that's usually about all one sees. Going back to the actual evidence does not improve anything, because it's based on the fallacy that absolutely everything observable in human behavior is 100% adaptive, and this is simply not a provable case.

We simply don't know how much of what we observe is the result of exaptations (or "spandrels", to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase), and to struggle so incredibly hard to fit every conceivable aspect of human cognition, emotion, and behavior into completely strict adaptationism (per Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, or Dennett), actually seems like some weird variant of intelligent design. ("We're altruistic because it helped us cooperate in the hunt on the African steppes 250,000 years ago!" to use one of the milder unjustified leaps in logic.) But we weren't designed, so everything in human nature doesn't have "evolutionary underpinnings" in the sense that it's all adaptive, either. Sometimes, we simply don't know why people are attracted to things like altruistic behavior, and we may never know. The need to have some kind of authoritative answer seems in itself to me to be an attempt to cling onto a theology without God, which is yet another reason why I don't like Richard Dawkins.

George152

17th January 2010, 01:18 PM

The case for god should be padded, with the lhandle on the outside!

Ausmerican

17th January 2010, 02:13 PM

curious as to how the beginning of the Bible is chock full of miracles and other amazing events.

and as time goes on, the miracles becoming crappier and less frequent.

and now, we don't see any. what happen, God has arthritis?

Uninspired Deity Syndrome?

:)

Easily explained:
There was this guy called 'The Masked Messiah' that was going from town to town showing everyone how the miracles were done.

Also a couple of big time miracle workers called Pennus & Tellech kept showing folks how they did some of their miracles and loudly proclaiming all miracles Taurus Merda!

kuroyume0161

17th January 2010, 03:26 PM

a theology without God

Theology (study of God) without God isn't theology. QED

There is not one single shred of evidence that there is some supernatural, extra-universal thing. Therefore, there is no need to explain anything (understood or not) using such a thing. But attributing human attributes to it because we might not explicitly know why they exist or how they came about is truly grasping at straws.

Sit down. Bad news. God is dead. (Actually, it never existed but sometimes one has to put it into terms more understandable.)

withallyourmind

17th January 2010, 03:31 PM

curious as to how the beginning of the Bible is chock full of miracles and other amazing events.

and as time goes on, the miracles becoming crappier and less frequent.

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth. Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.

Ausmerican

17th January 2010, 04:39 PM

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth. Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.

You think? That's nothing.
Superman once pushed the frackin MOON out of orbit with his bare hands.

Gord_in_Toronto

17th January 2010, 05:03 PM

Karen Armstrong often seems to fall into the "well-meaning but annoying" category, but I'm also sorry to say that I'm not impressed by this particular argument at all. "Well-studied" is an adjective; it is not a presentation of evidence, and that's usually about all one sees. Going back to the actual evidence does not improve anything, because it's based on the fallacy that absolutely everything observable in human behavior is 100% adaptive, and this is simply not a provable case.

We simply don't know how much of what we observe is the result of exaptations (or "spandrels", to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase), and to struggle so incredibly hard to fit every conceivable aspect of human cognition, emotion, and behavior into completely strict adaptationism (per Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, or Dennett), actually seems like some weird variant of intelligent design. ("We're altruistic because it helped us cooperate in the hunt on the African steppes 250,000 years ago!" to use one of the milder unjustified leaps in logic.) But we weren't designed, so everything in human nature doesn't have "evolutionary underpinnings" in the sense that it's all adaptive, either. Sometimes, we simply don't know why people are attracted to things like altruistic behavior, and we may never know. The need to have some kind of authoritative answer seems in itself to me to be an attempt to cling onto a theology without God, which is yet another reason why I don't like Richard Dawkins.

Re the bolded part. Those groups that co-operated survived. And had children. Those that did not co-operate, did not capture food in bad times and were eaten by hungry lions. Straight forward Evolution by Natural Selection. And that does not even get into Game Theory which explains it in a more robust way. :th:

arthwollipot

17th January 2010, 05:08 PM

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth. Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.Wait - Jesus was only on the earth for 3 years?

devnull

17th January 2010, 05:33 PM

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth. Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.

Actually, wasnt one of the discarded books of the bible all about Jesus in his teen years and all the pranks he would perform with his soopa-powas?

Maia

17th January 2010, 05:35 PM

Re the bolded part. Those groups that co-operated survived. And had children. Those that did not co-operate, did not capture food in bad times and were eaten by hungry lions. Straight forward Evolution by Natural Selection. And that does not even get into Game Theory which explains it in a more robust way. :th:

Quite honestly, I didn't want to get into the types of arguments that truly annoy me, so I picked that one because it's relatively uncontroversial. However, "cooperation" is not "altruism". To jump from one assumption to the other is not logical. The attempt to completely explain every feature of human behavior, thinking, emotion, etc., in terms of how it "must" have been adaptive in evolutionary terms is often not logical and not backed up by actual evidence. It is not a straightforward argument, and there is controversy-- not about Darwinian evolution itself, but about how certain aspects of it have actually played out. All of evolution is not covered by natural selection; every feature of human behavior is not an adaptation. This school of thought is not even the faintest bit religious, but it is rather different from the Dawkins-esque party line. This is one of the major places where Stephen Jay Gould diverged from the strictly adaptionist school of thought, as do evolutionary biologists such as Niles Eldridge and Richard Lewontin and neuroscientists such as Steven Rose, materialist atheists one and all.

There is no "case for God", but strict adaptionism frankly seems a little too much like some strange variety of a case for non-theological intelligent design at times. Evolution doesn't have an intelligent design of any kind, and every human function just does not have an "evolutionary purpose." Some of them are there for NO REASON AT ALL.

Gord_in_Toronto

17th January 2010, 06:50 PM

Quite honestly, I didn't want to get into the types of arguments that truly annoy me, so I picked that one because it's relatively uncontroversial. However, "cooperation" is not "altruism". To jump from one assumption to the other is not logical. The attempt to completely explain every feature of human behavior, thinking, emotion, etc., in terms of how it "must" have been adaptive in evolutionary terms is often not logical and not backed up by actual evidence. It is not a straightforward argument, and there is controversy-- not about Darwinian evolution itself, but about how certain aspects of it have actually played out. All of evolution is not covered by natural selection; every feature of human behavior is not an adaptation. This school of thought is not even the faintest bit religious, but it is rather different from the Dawkins-esque party line. This is one of the major places where Stephen Jay Gould diverged from the strictly adaptionist school of thought, as do evolutionary biologists such as Niles Eldridge and Richard Lewontin and neuroscientists such as Steven Rose, materialist atheists one and all.

There is no "case for God", but strict adaptionism frankly seems a little too much like some strange variety of a case for non-theological intelligent design at times. Evolution doesn't have an intelligent design of any kind, and every human function just does not have an "evolutionary purpose." Some of them are there for NO REASON AT ALL.

You and I obviously fundamentally differ in our understanding of the World.

As a strict materialist, I see Evolution by Natural Selection as the explanation of why life is the way it is. In this I am supported by Game Theory and that appears to be intrinsic to the fabric of the Universe. Collaborative altruism exists because groups with it have a better chance of surviving than those that do not.

That we have traits that are neutral or even counterproductive is undoubtedly true and this possibility is also part of the ToE.

PS I have never read anything by Dawkins et al. My atheism is home grown and my understanding of the ToE is based on formal education and reading.

Dunstan

17th January 2010, 06:56 PM

to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase

*takes drink*

which is yet another reason why I don't like Richard Dawkins.

*takes drink*

Beerina

17th January 2010, 07:06 PM

Armstrong seems to find her idea of God-inspired "transcendence" in altruism and service/compassion for one's fellow man.
I've heard that notion before as well, and the proponents seem to think that such altruism can only stem from God; failing to understand the well-studied evolutionary underpinnings of all of those "good" human characteristics.

If that's the best she's got to offer.....

We wouldn't need altruism if it weren't possible to starve to death or fall down and break your neck.

It's truly a stupid world to put people in, then marvel at their kindness to each other.

Bikewer

17th January 2010, 07:10 PM

Pretty much in line with Gord....My short couple of sentences do not do justice to the rather large body of work done on the evolutionary advantages of altruism, cooperation, and various other traits we humans think of as good.
This is prime study material for all manner of researchers.

My own particular take as a layman is rather simple; as humans we are heir to a set of behaviors which served our ancestors well for the most part. Some of these, in modern polite society, we think of as "good", and some we think of as bad. ( strong territoriality, greed, sudden outbursts of violence, holding grudges....)
We don't need the input of a deity to explain these things, though more study in general of human behavior is going to be of interest for a long time.
Societies seek, for the most part, to maximize good behaviors and minimize bad ones...

ToddH

17th January 2010, 08:00 PM

You think? That's nothing.
Superman once pushed the frackin MOON out of orbit with his bare hands.

Hell, Thanos extinguished half the life in the universe just to impress Mistress Death. Top that Yahweh.

PBTree

17th January 2010, 08:11 PM

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth. Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.

Tons eh?. Let's hear about (randomly pick a number) 40 of them.

Pure Argent

17th January 2010, 08:31 PM

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth.

Jesus died in the year three? Better tell the Pope.

Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.

Unfortunately, there's absolutely no evidence for these miracles. And anyway, Judas was a better singer.

ytNoiQ8LkS8

Maia

17th January 2010, 08:42 PM

*takes drink*

*takes drink*

(peers into flask)

Is there any chocolate in that?

Yes, of course natural selection is the prime force behind evolution, but it isn't the one and only factor to consider. Because of that fact, some aspects of human behavior and cognition will never really have an explanation when it comes to their origination. There was no God to create them, there was nothing resembling intelligent design, and they aren't there because they served an evolutionary purpose to begin with. They're spandrels-- here's the link to the original Gould/Lewontin paper which explained the concept. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/77447) Here's a link to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)) (evil Wikipedia, but it does have its uses.) They're

a phenotypic characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other character, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection.

They have later selective value, but they did not originate because of natural selection. Some aspects of those qualities which make us human don't make ANY sense at ALL, at least when it comes to the reason why they're present in the first place. So not only does this go beyond the concept that these qualities were "created by God," but also beyond the idea that they first evolved for some kind of specific purpose. They didn't. There's even more randomness than there appears to be.

withallyourmind

18th January 2010, 12:25 AM

You think? That's nothing.
Superman once pushed the frackin MOON out of orbit with his bare hands.

Superman wins

withallyourmind

18th January 2010, 12:27 AM

Wait - Jesus was only on the earth for 3 years?

Oh yeah, didn't phrase that very well.

GrandMasterFox

18th January 2010, 06:01 AM

Hell, Thanos extinguished half the life in the universe just to impress Mistress Death. Top that Yahweh.
Lazy ass. Who leaves a job half done?
Majin-Bu tookout the entire universe in less than 5 minutes.

godless dave

18th January 2010, 02:58 PM

Armstrong is making the case for vague deism, but she dishonestly pretends that vague desim is what organized religions were about all along.

Gord_in_Toronto

18th January 2010, 06:09 PM

(peers into flask)

Is there any chocolate in that?

Yes, of course natural selection is the prime force behind evolution, but it isn't the one and only factor to consider. Because of that fact, some aspects of human behavior and cognition will never really have an explanation when it comes to their origination. There was no God to create them, there was nothing resembling intelligent design, and they aren't there because they served an evolutionary purpose to begin with. They're spandrels-- here's the link to the original Gould/Lewontin paper which explained the concept. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/77447) Here's a link to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29) (evil Wikipedia, but it does have its uses.) They're

They have later selective value, but they did not originate because of natural selection. Some aspects of those qualities which make us human don't make ANY sense at ALL, at least when it comes to the reason why they're present in the first place. So not only does this go beyond the concept that these qualities were "created by God," but also beyond the idea that they first evolved for some kind of specific purpose. They didn't. There's even more randomness than there appears to be.

Whoa. Laddy. "They have later selective value, but they did not originate because of natural selection." So, if they "did not originate because of natural selection", they must have another reason such as a random mutation. If such mutation was not strongly deleterious to survival and reproduction it could be spread throughout the population. This neither contradicts the TOC or nor is it inexplicable by it. If they "have later selective value", then what's the argument?

Can you give me an example as to what you are talking about?

Darth Rotor

18th January 2010, 06:49 PM

» The Case For God
..
Just a twelve pack, I understand he's cutting back on the brewskis.

Maia

18th January 2010, 08:07 PM

Whoa. Laddy. "They have later selective value, but they did not originate because of natural selection." So, if they "did not originate because of natural selection", they must have another reason such as a random mutation. If such mutation was not strongly deleterious to survival and reproduction it could be spread throughout the population. This neither contradicts the TOC or nor is it inexplicable by it. If they "have later selective value", then what's the argument?

Can you give me an example as to what you are talking about?

Gould's concept of spandrels, as I understand it, is

nonadaptive features with high potential for subsequent exaptive utility.

However, a lot of these features may or may not have that exaptive utility at all. Here's an example that he really did give... okay, I'm not going to go into the whole thing, because I think that just half of it is enough, but there's a lot more where this came from. Men have non-functional nipples. The logical solution is to understand male nipples as nonadaptive spandrels: females need them for an obvious purpose, and many developmental aspects follow a single pathway. From a strictly adaptionist POV, however, male nipples simply make no sense at all, and a lot of weird explanations have been advanced for them, none of which has any evidence whatsoever supporting it.

Now, this kind of example just comes across as silly, because there's nothing very controversial about it. But we'll step into controversy with amazing speed if we start to look at some other examples, and I'm not really sure if I want to go there. Basically, I'll just say that the real problem with ultra-adaptionism-- and I've thought this for a very, very long time, before I ever read SJG, although he always argued this passionately-- is not only that it isn't scientifically accurate, but that it isn't kept in a scientific or genuinely evolutionary context to begin with. And when it isn't, it resembles bad theology. This is the main argument that I have never wanted to get into around here.

annnnoid

18th January 2010, 08:29 PM

"The case for God." Is there one? Yes. As for the next question. It will be answered by itself....perhaps after the flies have moved on to more fecund feasting.

BobTheDonkey

18th January 2010, 08:49 PM

Gould's concept of spandrels, as I understand it, is

However, a lot of these features may or may not have that exaptive utility at all. Here's an example that he really did give... okay, I'm not going to go into the whole thing, because I think that just half of it is enough, but there's a lot more where this came from. Men have non-functional nipples. The logical solution is to understand male nipples as nonadaptive spandrels: females need them for an obvious purpose, and many developmental aspects follow a single pathway. From a strictly adaptionist POV, however, male nipples simply make no sense at all, and a lot of weird explanations have been advanced for them, none of which has any evidence whatsoever supporting it.

Now, this kind of example just comes across as silly, because there's nothing very controversial about it. But we'll step into controversy with amazing speed if we start to look at some other examples, and I'm not really sure if I want to go there. Basically, I'll just say that the real problem with ultra-adaptionism-- and I've thought this for a very, very long time, before I ever read SJG, although he always argued this passionately-- is not only that it isn't scientifically accurate, but that it isn't kept in a scientific or genuinely evolutionary context to begin with. And when it isn't, it resembles bad theology. This is the main argument that I have never wanted to get into around here.

I don't think anyone here believes every single bit of the way our species has evolved is 100% purpose built. There are 3 ways a mutation can go - good, neutral, bad - good genes are passed, neutral genes are passed, bad genes are eradicated via natural selection.

You're getting confuzzled, Maia. How easy it would be to look at a few (or hundred) specific examples and say "well, I can't think of a purpose for this adaptation at any time, so it must be spandrel". But the bottom line is that if we don't look into it, if we don't do our research (as it seems you advocate via your comments regarding "x adaptation has no survival benefit") then we'd not be very scientific. At that point, we might as well just give in and say "goddidit".

For the record, Dawkins isn't how you seem to picture him. In fact, his latest book includes many examples of evolutionary traits that are quite useless/backwards/etc. I really don't see where this animosity towards Dawkins is founded (at least, not in this discussion)...

kuroyume0161

18th January 2010, 09:18 PM

"The case for God." Is there one? Yes. As for the next question. It will be answered by itself....perhaps after the flies have moved on to more fecund feasting.

Like? When theologians present their case it is usually in the form of special pleading based upon some ideals about gnosis or logic. Or using tradition or dogma. When critical thinkers/scientists present their case it is usually in the form of requiring objective evidence. There is zero objective evidence for any god. As noted previously, it seems that the more scientific and critically thinking humans become the less gods exist. They fade into mythos, allegory, and story telling.

Commercial Ad: The god that creates the universe but doesn't interfere thereafter. Just don't do it. Nike. (or Zeus or Yahweh or Mishna or ...)

Hux

18th January 2010, 09:48 PM

Wherever there is woowoo and I see the word "compelling" my eyes glaze over. Which means there is no point reaching for my revolver.

kuroyume0161

18th January 2010, 10:14 PM

BobTheDonkey

18th January 2010, 10:44 PM

Societies seek, for the most part, to maximize good behaviors and minimize bad ones... +10. That is the goal it seems. We have spent millenia trying to find a balance between 'individual rights' and good behavior within society. It is very difficult obviously and reaches some odd ideals in the process. Is the 'Star Trek' utopia possible or are we over-extending our ideals over reality? Hard to say at this juncture.

This actually brings in the "nature vs nurture" battle.

Are we altruistic by our very nature (through natural selection) or are we altruistic because the society in which we are immersed requires, on some level, altruism to function?

arthwollipot

18th January 2010, 10:49 PM

This actually brings in the "nature vs nurture" battle.

Are we altruistic by our very nature (through natural selection) or are we altruistic because the society in which we are immersed requires, on some level, altruism to function?You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive. I'd say that both are true.

Skeptic Ginger

18th January 2010, 11:33 PM

Jesus was involved tons of miracles in his 3 year stint on the earth. Including being raised from the dead and walking through walls... that's pretty impressive in my book.There are lots of 'miracle men' in India right now. They do a good job of fooling uneducated people. I'm not impressed.

That is of course if you but the myth Jesus even actually existed....but I digress.

Skeptic Ginger

18th January 2010, 11:35 PM

I'll have to get back to this thread when I have time to listen to the OP story. Here's a link:

Karen Armstrong Builds A 'Case For God' (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112968197)

BobTheDonkey

18th January 2010, 11:46 PM

You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive. I'd say that both are true.

:D I should have phrased my post differently. I'm in full agreement with you on this. There are, however, many people who argue as though it's one or the other...

Mashuna

19th January 2010, 12:40 AM

You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive. I'd say that both are true.

I've not read it yet, but I've had Nature via Nurture (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/1841157457) recommended to me as a good read on the subject.

annnnoid

19th January 2010, 12:37 PM

Like? When theologians present their case it is usually in the form of special pleading based upon some ideals about gnosis or logic. Or using tradition or dogma. When critical thinkers/scientists present their case it is usually in the form of requiring objective evidence. There is zero objective evidence for any god. As noted previously, it seems that the more scientific and critically thinking humans become the less gods exist. They fade into mythos, allegory, and story telling.

Commercial Ad: The god that creates the universe but doesn't interfere thereafter. Just don't do it. Nike. (or Zeus or Yahweh or Mishna or ...)

It takes a seriously serious skeptic to actually see that there is a very good case for God. How serious are you?

WaterBreather

19th January 2010, 01:07 PM

The argument from design
describes the origin of the perfect order of Scienctific laws.

aTheists would have us believe,
that perfect order can come from randomness -
or from nothing.

There has never even been an aTheist theory that even remotely suggests
how the perfect laws of nature came out of nothing or randomness

they will say
"everything has a cause"

what caused causality?
did it cause itself before it itself existed?

what caused math?
is there some math that existed before math to cause that math?

then math too must have existed before it existed

HOW IMPOSSIBLE!

without the concept of CREATION
(primal conscious first cause - not mechanism)
absolutely nothing in the universe makes any logical sense

perfect order from randomness?
from nothing?

the only randomness and nothing is the illogical illusions lived by sinners
stuck in a pseudo-newtonian billiard ball model
of the universe - proven categorically WRONG since Heisenberg over half a century ago

they believe that all is determined without overstanding
that only CREATION can bring about determinism in the first place

because
they are enslaved by their earthly desires and addictions
fetishes and idols

they have lost the freedom of creative will
and anthropromorphisize their mechanised machine lives of slavery
to money and
worship of
soullessness
onto the universe itself

REPENT!
DISSENT!
DESTROY THE SECULAR GOVERNMENT!

;-j

kuroyume0161

19th January 2010, 02:57 PM

It takes a seriously serious skeptic to actually see that there is a very good case for God. How serious are you?

Like?

You need to present your case or it is all hand waving.

I'd say that I'm a serious skeptic (most of the time - when I'm not being facetious, that is ;) ). I come from a narcotically religious background so it isn't like I haven't examined the situation at all or have dismissed it out of hand.

I await...

kuroyume0161

19th January 2010, 03:37 PM

Now on to you, bugger:

The argument from design
describes the origin of the perfect order of Scienctific laws.

aTheists would have us believe,
that perfect order can come from randomness -
or from nothing.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. Again, creationist caricaturization of what we know, not even viewing the facts (things that we know from observation not how we understand them). There is good evidence that the universe started with a bang about 13.7 billion years ago (see COBE and Cosmic Background Radiation).

There has never even been an aTheist theory that even remotely suggests
how the perfect laws of nature came out of nothing or randomness

Perfect in what way? Define perfect. And, again, Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Please, no more of the 'came out of nothing or randomness'. Current hypotheses about how the universe started involve, tada, something and not total randomness. Actually, the better hypotheses go with a symmetric state that was disturbed so as to get the universe rolling (the Big Bang).

they will say
"everything has a cause"

what caused causality?
did it cause itself before it itself existed?

what caused math?
is there some math that existed before math to cause that math?

then math too must have existed before it existed

HOW IMPOSSIBLE!

Argument from insanity (?). Time (as we know it) didn't exist before the Big Bang therefore anything IN this universe didn't exist before that either (including causality and math (?)). Math was caused by humans several millenia ago.

BobTheDonkey

19th January 2010, 03:42 PM

<snipped in support of "Save the Grammar*">

Unfortunately, the world is not in "perfect order". In fact, many things are notably imperfect about this world in which we reside.

Explain the backward design of the eye?
Or the pharyngeal nerve of the giraffe?
Or, hell, male nipples?
Or differences between any two members of any species?

(stole most of these from Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth)

I should actually start this movement...

annnnoid

19th January 2010, 03:58 PM

Maia

19th January 2010, 04:12 PM

I don't think anyone here believes every single bit of the way our species has evolved is 100% purpose built. There are 3 ways a mutation can go - good, neutral, bad - good genes are passed, neutral genes are passed, bad genes are eradicated via natural selection.

You're getting confuzzled, Maia. How easy it would be to look at a few (or hundred) specific examples and say "well, I can't think of a purpose for this adaptation at any time, so it must be spandrel". But the bottom line is that if we don't look into it, if we don't do our research (as it seems you advocate via your comments regarding "x adaptation has no survival benefit") then we'd not be very scientific. At that point, we might as well just give in and say "goddidit".

No... it's that there are a few different possible lines of thought here. One is that strict adaptionism-- the idea that only functionalism, only the long-term, extrapolated effects of microevolution and natural selection alone explain evolution-- doesn't really fit the evidence; specific examples like male nipples are, I agree, kind of silly and don't work nearly as well to make the point as the underlying argument does. SJG does a much better job of explaining the entire thing-- particularly punctuated evolution (or really punctuated equilibrium theory) which DOES fit the available evidence-- in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. LONG book. :eye-poppi (As do Niles Eldridge and Richard Lewontin.)

For the record, Dawkins isn't how you seem to picture him. In fact, his latest book includes many examples of evolutionary traits that are quite useless/backwards/etc. I really don't see where this animosity towards Dawkins is founded (at least, not in this discussion)...

Yeah, I know, I know... he's a great evolutionary biologist and all, and in every debate, he's inevitably cuter than his opponent... :rolleyes:. I really fundamentally don't agree with some of his concepts, though. And the consistently snarky tone from him is just not necessary. It's all good and well to come up with a list of non-adaptive traits, but he still never agreed with Gould about punctuated equilibrium theory, and he's still an adaptionist. The reason I don't agree with him has NOTHING to do with his being an atheist, because so was Gould-- that wasn't what they disagreed on at ALL. But their disagreements were pretty substantial and that's pretty much where mine are too.

ETA: As far as that goes, E.O. Wilson is an atheist too (as far as I know, at least), and he and SJG (with his homeboy Richard Lewontin) had to share an elevator in the museum of comparative zoology (MCZ) at Harvard for several years. Apparently, if looks could kill, there would have been two evolutionary biologists and one entomologist carried out of there on stretchers on a daily basis. In fact, Wilson is a fellow for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Everyone involved has got serious atheist/secular humanist cred. There are a lot of other grounds on which to disagree.

Sledge

19th January 2010, 04:59 PM

It takes a seriously serious skeptic to actually see that there is a very good case for God. How serious are you?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/1TrueSledge/whysoserious1.jpg

arthwollipot

19th January 2010, 05:01 PM

REPENT!
DISSENT!
DESTROY THE SECULAR GOVERNMENT!I'm pretty sure that saying things like this is illegal in certain areas. It's called inciting revolution and considered treason.

Skeptic Ginger

19th January 2010, 06:00 PM

It takes a seriously serious skeptic to actually see that there is a very good case for God. How serious are you?Nonsense.

It takes basic critical thinking skills and a bit of paradigm shifting about the god question to recognize there is overwhelming evidence all gods are mythical beings.

annnnoid

19th January 2010, 06:48 PM

Nonsense.

It takes basic critical thinking skills and a bit of paradigm shifting about the god question to recognize there is overwhelming evidence all gods are mythical beings.

I am, of course, aware that you have something on the order of 19,000 more posts than me....making me a mere novice. But them's fightin words there skeptigirl! Prepare for armed combat.

....but not just now. I have spaghetti to eat and a movie to watch. We shall have to resolve the fundamental question of existence on the morrow.

Gord_in_Toronto

19th January 2010, 06:50 PM

Gould's concept of spandrels, as I understand it, is

However, a lot of these features may or may not have that exaptive utility at all. Here's an example that he really did give... okay, I'm not going to go into the whole thing, because I think that just half of it is enough, but there's a lot more where this came from. Men have non-functional nipples. The logical solution is to understand male nipples as nonadaptive spandrels: females need them for an obvious purpose, and many developmental aspects follow a single pathway.

"many developmental aspects follow a single pathway". Yes. And since there is no great selection against male nipples they get carried along with everything else.

From a strictly adaptionist POV, however, male nipples simply make no sense at all, and a lot of weird explanations have been advanced for them, none of which has any evidence whatsoever supporting it.

You don't have to explain why male nipples exit. You need an explanation as to why they would be selected against once they have come into existence for whatever reason. In any case male nipples are "useful" for sexual arousal in some significant portion of the male population and may then have a evolutionary advantage.

Now, this kind of example just comes across as silly, because there's nothing very controversial about it. But we'll step into controversy with amazing speed if we start to look at some other examples, and I'm not really sure if I want to go there. Basically, I'll just say that the real problem with ultra-adaptionism-- and I've thought this for a very, very long time, before I ever read SJG, although he always argued this passionately-- is not only that it isn't scientifically accurate, but that it isn't kept in a scientific or genuinely evolutionary context to begin with. And when it isn't, it resembles bad theology. This is the main argument that I have never wanted to get into around here.

If you are trying to prove your case, then it is a very poor example.

Maia

19th January 2010, 07:04 PM

You don't have to explain why male nipples exit. You need an explanation as to why they would be selected against once they have come into existence for whatever reason. In any case male nipples are "useful" for sexual arousal in some significant portion of the male population and may then have a evolutionary advantage.

Oh, THAT argument! Anyway... no, I don't need an argument for why they would be selected against, because at most, that's what an exaptation is. An exaptation doesn't have "an evolutionary advantage". It's a function which did not evolve through natural selection but which may, or may not, have some later useful function. There simply hasn't been enough time for it to have a genuine evolutionary advantage through the process of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't work this way; it is not, as Dennett claimed, a "universal acid" which somehow mysteriously works in the same way at genetic, biological, cultural, and social levels, no matter what the time frame is, never mind that this isn't what Darwin originally argued at all, never mind that it makes about as much sense as the perversion of "Social Darwinism" ever did. This is an incredibly, staggeringly illogical and irrational argument. I cannot believe that it is being dragged out, dressed up in the emperor's new clothes, yet AGAIN, considering its history-- Oh, I'm not getting into this. I don't have enough time this week. I have to learn SPSS software and read about feeding assistance in nursing homes!

ETA: Okay, clearly a touchy subject for me. :rolleyes:I should add that I really don't mean to imply that anyone on this thread is nurturing social Darwinism, or currently helping E.O. Wilson to edit a new version of Sociobiology: &*@!$%@! Yes, I Meant What I Wrote in 1975; I'm 80 Years Old And I'll Say What I Want! But I hold very strong views about this particulary slippery slope thinking; sociobiology and evolutionary psychology-- the extension of strict adaptionism to cultural evolution, an extension completely unjustified by the facts, in the considered opinions of a very long list of scientists whose cred more than matches up to their ideological opponents in every conceivable way-- can sound so innocuous, but it leads to some truly disturbing places. I've felt this way for a very long time, and that's one big reason why I think it may be better to just not get into it.

BobTheDonkey

19th January 2010, 08:49 PM

Oh, THAT argument! Anyway... no, I don't need an argument for why they would be selected against, because at most, that's what an exaptation is. An exaptation doesn't have "an evolutionary advantage". It's a function which did not evolve through natural selection but which may, or may not, have some later useful function. There simply hasn't been enough time for it to have a genuine evolutionary advantage through the process of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't work this way; it is not, as Dennett claimed, a "universal acid" which somehow mysteriously works in the same way at genetic, biological, cultural, and social levels, no matter what the time frame is, never mind that this isn't what Darwin originally argued at all, never mind that it makes about as much sense as the perversion of "Social Darwinism" ever did. This is an incredibly, staggeringly illogical and irrational argument. I cannot believe that it is being dragged out, dressed up in the emperor's new clothes, yet AGAIN, considering its history-- Oh, I'm not getting into this. I don't have enough time this week. I have to learn SPSS software and read about feeding assistance in nursing homes!

So...there are 3 ways a mutation can go: good, neutral, bad. If it's good, it gets passed on. If it's neutral, it gets passed on. If it's bad, it's selected against.

I fail to see how that's not general ToE?

It seems you believe that ToE by Natural Selection claims that somehow any mutation that survives must do so for a specific survival benefit. This is not at all the case, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that. We are saying that neutral mutations neither hurt nor help the survival of the specimen, so it's passed (or not, as sometimes happens with neutral mutations) to future generations.

You seem to have issue with people picking a specific trait, pointing to it, and theorizing over how it could have been passed down due to a survival benefit it presented at some point in time. I extrapolate this to asking the question of why bother researching anything along these lines - since we can only know whether a gene is passed due to necessity or neutrality by doing exactly what you have issue with - pointing at a specific trait and theorizing over how it could have improved survivability of the species. In this case, altruism - a trait which can very easily be seen to benefit a number of species other than just humans: any species that lives in packs (nearly all, really) have some kind of altruism.

kuroyume0161

19th January 2010, 09:12 PM

A narcotically religious background….that’s a good place to start. Lots of momentum to go….somewhere.

…but first, we’ve got to ask what we’re asking….or, more precisely, what’s asking it. Scientifically, if a phenomena (a question) is produced by something (a person), the way to understand the phenomena is to first study that which produces it.

You.

So what is a person? How about I save us all a few billion words and a few hundred thousand pointless questions and summarize the situation.

We don’t know.

It might be useful if you asked yourself how you feel about this fact, because it is true; however much you may like to admit it, not like to admit it, or simply not care….science simply does not have an explanation for you…[or anyone]; lots of guesses, lots of theories, but nothing remotely close to anything resembling an explanation. So, if you think you know who you are because science says you are x, y, or z…you can simply conclude that you don’t know who you are (because science doesn’t either). Like I said, asking yourself how you feel about ‘knowing who you are’….or what kind of identity you actually do have is kind of a fundamental feature of our existence. Folks usually gotta have some idea ‘who I am’ otherwise they have trouble getting out of bed in the morning. So, since a ‘scientific’ explanation of/for you is no longer an option, does that alter who you are?

For now, we’ll just conclude that science does not know who you are (religion, of course, says it does [but as you quite accurately point out….it provides no evidence, at least, no obvious evidence] but we’re all skeptics here and religion is not reasonable, yet).

At the moment, the biggest thing we don’t know is what, or why ‘consciousness is’ ...you, in other words (according to Dawkins, it is the biggest unanswered question in science….which makes it pretty big….can’t be a good skeptic if you don’t know the basics). So what do ‘consciousness’ do (besides ask stupid questions about what consciousness’s do?)? Oh, they say stuff like this:

"Oh, Sariputra, Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form;
The Same is True For Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness."

"No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind;
No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object;
No Realm of the Eye,
Until We Come to No realm of Consciousness."

….any skeptic have any idea what that means (I borrowed it from another board….it’s from something called Buddhism, which if you are a studied skeptic, you will realize is not actually a religion [Sam Harris, the uber-famous atheist and drinking buddy of Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchins practices a form of Buddhism)?

…so does anyone have any idea what it means? That’s a rhetorical question actually (if you knew what it means, you would likely not be at this board). Of course not. A really stupid skeptic would insist that it’s irrelevant religious garbage….thus the reason they are referred to as stupid. Let’s see if any show up and prove me right.

I’ll continue later. That’s probably quite a pile to respond to already.

…by the way….I poke skeptics here and there, but I actually think skepticism is the most viable approach to finding the truth of this place. I just often get the impression that a lot of skeptics are really superficial, and not really all that interested in finding out what there is to be skeptical about, except the stuff they can say stupid things about.

I was once the ultimate skeptic (I was Thomas, the guy who demanded Jesus prove that he’s Jesus). It’s a good POV to stick to.

I'm going to keep this short as possible. :)

This seems to be leaning towards solipsism or 'we're all in the Matrix' on the surface. Maybe deeper you are trying to submit that consciousness cannot be accounted for by purely physical means/explanations? I don't go for that. We have mountains of evidence that shows what happens to a human 'consciousness' when the brain's functionality is tampered with or impaired. That pretty much puts the seat of consciousness just where we, being skeptical and scientific, would expect it to reside. Consciousness is just a word we use to try to embody an attribute - it, in itself, is not some absolute property that only humans possess.

While humans have evolved to our level of consciousness beyond other animals it is quite assured that there are other levels of consciousness. Plenty of examples of animals that aren't simple brain-automatons (dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, other primates all show motivation, motive, levels of intelligence, some rudiment of emotion - something probably necessary to care for young and be part of a social group). Plus, there was another: homo neanderthalensis. That means that another species (as best as we can categorize) was also at about the same level of consciousness. How does this information sit with the mystical magical ideas being proposed or claim of agnosticism?

What is a person? A person is an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens that we know evolved apart from chimpanzees at least 7 million years ago (from a common ancestor). A person is made of mainly organic molecules, lives about 70 years, is a social animal, has language, and so on. We are, indeed, more than the sum of our parts. But the same is true of all life. The 'more than' part does not require the need to assume non-materialistic attributions.

A theory is an explanation. Evolutionary theory is the explanation of the observation of the evolution of life on Earth. It doesn't tell us why Latin was a language or why people use emoticons but it tells us a great amount about what a person is from at least an existential and biological viewpoint.

ElightenMe

19th January 2010, 09:19 PM

Skeptic Ginger

19th January 2010, 10:33 PM

I am, of course, aware that you have something on the order of 19,000 more posts than me....making me a mere novice. But them's fightin words there skeptigirl! Prepare for armed combat.

....but not just now. I have spaghetti to eat and a movie to watch. We shall have to resolve the fundamental question of existence on the morrow.I've presented the evidence and rationale for my claim more than once.

The paradigm shift is away from the idea one must prove gods do not exist and instead, a critical thinker can follow where the abundant evidence of where god beliefs originate actually leads. The second paradigm shift is away from the idea we must test every single potential god possibility. When one evaluates other evidence, an unwavering pattern is more than sufficient to declare a conclusion.

In other words, I dismiss the idea that because people believe in gods, the default position is to assume gods exist and disprove that claim.

What do we really have? We have thousands of years of human history of people inventing god belief after god belief. We know that the god beliefs we actually examine all turn out to be mythical beings: Ra, Pele, Zeus, Ramtha, and so on.

We know that there is no evidence supporting any single god belief being based on evidence of any real god.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, all god beliefs are beliefs about things people made up for various reasons.

That's it. Simple, straightforward and if one follows the evidence instead of trying to fit the evidence to the pre-drawn conclusion, the evidence says gods are myths. All gods, not just everyone else's god but the one the believer claims exists.

arthwollipot

19th January 2010, 10:37 PM

I am, of course, aware that you have something on the order of 19,000 more posts than me....making me a mere novice. But them's fightin words there skeptigirl! Prepare for armed combat.:popcorn1

CurtC

19th January 2010, 10:42 PM

what caused causality?
did it cause itself before it itself existed?

what caused math?
is there some math that existed before math to cause that math?

then math too must have existed before it existed

HOW IMPOSSIBLE!

Did God create the laws of logic? Or could he make it so that there are just a few prime numbers?

I sometimes hear theists complain about the old standbys, can God make a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it, or can God make a square circle, and the reasonable answer from a theist is that God can do anything that's logically coherent - that he is subject to logic. But here you are implying that God created logic, and therefore could presumably override it.

So which is it? Is God able to make math so that there are just a few prime numbers?

BobTheDonkey

20th January 2010, 12:16 AM

:popcorn1

Mind sharing that popcorn? :D

kuroyume0161

20th January 2010, 12:21 AM

Mind sharing that popcorn? :D

Popcorn? If you walk over to my setup, I have a barbecue going, a tapped keg, and a table of nachos, chips, veggies for dipping. This is going to be almost as good as the Super Bowl. :cool:

BobTheDonkey

20th January 2010, 12:38 AM

Popcorn? If you walk over to my setup, I have a barbecue going, a tapped keg, and a table of nachos, chips, veggies for dipping. This is going to be almost as good as the Super Bowl. :cool:

Woo hoo! I'm in

godless dave

20th January 2010, 05:56 AM

At the moment, the biggest thing we don’t know is what, or why ‘consciousness is’ ...you, in other words (according to Dawkins, it is the biggest unanswered question in science….which makes it pretty big….can’t be a good skeptic if you don’t know the basics). So what do ‘consciousness’ do (besides ask stupid questions about what consciousness’s do?)? Oh, they say stuff like this:

"Oh, Sariputra, Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form;
The Same is True For Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness."

"No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind;
No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object;
No Realm of the Eye,
Until We Come to No realm of Consciousness."

….any skeptic have any idea what that means (I borrowed it from another board….it’s from something called Buddhism, which if you are a studied skeptic, you will realize is not actually a religion [Sam Harris, the uber-famous atheist and drinking buddy of Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchins practices a form of Buddhism)?

Do you seriously think nobody here is familiar with Buddhism?

While we know very little about consciousness, there are a few things we do know. We know it comes from human brains (and maybe other animal brains, depending on how you define consciousness). We know each human has his or her own experience of consciousness, and no experience of anyone else's consciousness. There is no evidence to suggest that individual consciousnesses are connected in any way, or that there is some universal consciousness.

annnnoid

20th January 2010, 08:57 AM

F’in hell….talk about hand-a-wavin. We do not KNOW it comes from human brains. Why? Because of the simple and indisputable fact that we do not KNOW what IT is. How can we KNOW it comes from human brains when we do not KNOW what it is that we are talking about (the biggest unanswered question in science is how big, exactly?)? Also, we do not KNOW that nobody has any experience of anybody else’s consciousness. For one thing, we do not even know what ‘consciousness’ is, so how can we definitively say what we do or do not know about it? From what explicit scientific investigation do you come to this conclusion? ….your opinion. Period. I congratulate you on your skepticism….you get the award for most egregious breach of the skeptical rules this week….dude.

….as for Buddhism.....yeah I’m a complete idiot….I actually thought that out of the umpteen thousand members of these forums, many of whom are very capable individuals BTW, that not a single one knows the slightest thing about Buddhism.

So if you are so familiar with it, why not tell us exactly what it means…..or, as they say in kindergarten, STFU.

I will reply, politely, to the other comments later.

godless dave

20th January 2010, 09:04 AM

F’in hell….talk about hand-a-wavin. We do not KNOW it comes from human brains.

Yes, we do.

Why? Because of the simple and indisputable fact that we do not KNOW what IT is.

So how do you even know what you are talking about?

Also, we do not KNOW that nobody has any experience of anybody else’s consciousness.

Have you ever experienced anyone else's consciousness? Seen things through someone else's eyes, hear things through someone else's ears, felt things that someone else's body was touching, smelled things through someone else's nose?

For one thing, we do not even know what ‘consciousness’ is, so how can we definitively say what we do or do not know about it?

I guess we can't discuss it at all then, let alone use it as some kind of evidence for God.

annnnoid

20th January 2010, 10:51 AM

Y’know what Godless Dave, I suggest you either depart or grab some popcorn and remain on the sidelines. I have no interest in playing stupid word games with people who don’t know how to think. I simply have better things to do. You are perfectly free to post as you wish, just don’t expect me to respond.

BTW….I noticed you didn’t say a thing about that Buddhist quote. Why not? Personally, I’d suggest you not bother. If the rest of your POV is anything to go by, you wouldn’t have clue (nothing to be ashamed of actually, very few people would). I would have difficulty with it, and I might even be Sam Harris.

godless dave

20th January 2010, 10:58 AM

Y’know what Godless Dave, I suggest you either depart or grab some popcorn and remain on the sidelines. I have no interest in playing stupid word games

Can't answer my questions then?

If consciousness isn't in the brain, why do brain injuries affect consciousness?

Regarding Buddhism, there are of course many different varieties. A common Buddhist belief is that our individual experiences of consciousness are part of a universal consiousness. Is that what you were getting at?

kuroyume0161

20th January 2010, 10:59 AM

Yes, we do.

So how do you even know what you are talking about?

Have you ever experienced anyone else's consciousness? Seen things through someone else's eyes, hear things through someone else's ears, felt things that someone else's body was touching, smelled things through someone else's nose?

I guess we can't discuss it at all then, let alone use it as some kind of evidence for God.

I agree. I don't see how this is an argument for god either. Consciousness = god is an old argument that has never been sufficient to be convincing. It just slides down the slope into:

Consciousness exists
Soul/universal-consciousness must exist because of this
Therefore god

The nice thing about the concept of consciousness is that it can be placed into a black box, gift-wrapped, and made to be an unknowable quality. Philosophers will probably be trying to define it forever. But that is not how it is viewed by modern science and medicine. It is viewed more as an emergent property of recursive circuitry within the neo-cortex of the brain. Sure, we don't know completely how we achieve our uniquely human awareness but that doesn't mean that we don't know much about it. Consciousness is a term yielded very wildly and without much care. I'd rather have more direct evidence for the case for god, thank you very much.

CurtC

20th January 2010, 12:26 PM

If consciousness isn't in the brain, why do brain injuries affect consciousness?

That's the key point.

As to annnnoid's question about what consciousness IS, science views consciousness as simply what the brain does.

Something that I've been pointing out for the last couple of years is that, you know how the science of evolution has led many people to change their view of the role of God, or the necessity of God as an explanation? I think that brain science is the next step. As we learn more about the workings of the brain, it's becoming more and more difficult for anyone to maintain a non-materialist view of consciousness and the idea of a dual soul.

Locknar

20th January 2010, 06:24 PM

Please stay on topic and address the OP when posting comments (Rule 11). Also be mindful - it is attack the argument not the arguer (Rule 12).

Pure Argent

20th January 2010, 06:54 PM

http://www.familyrecroom.com/images/popcorn.JPG

Go Godless Dave!

*waves JREF pennant*

Skeptic Ginger

20th January 2010, 07:52 PM

Woo hoo! I'm inI wouldn't get my hopes up, I think the show is a re-run.

annnnoid

21st January 2010, 01:58 PM

I wouldn't get my hopes up, I think the show is a re-run.

....and how do you come to that conclusion skeptigirl?

BTW....the story of Thomas may be apocryphal, but in the end Jesus convinced him. Thomas was a skeptic no more. I guess Jesus was into dudes with balls.

Sledge

21st January 2010, 03:04 PM

As opposed to dudes with vaginas? :confused: I've seen that video, but I don't think Buck Angel was around 2000 years ago.

Maia

21st January 2010, 05:31 PM

Can't answer my questions then?

If consciousness isn't in the brain, why do brain injuries affect consciousness?

Oh, they definitely do. I would be the one to ask about that. :rolleyes: Yes, yes, there's also a lot of great research available on such sites as pubmed.gov, but getting a windshield through the head gives one a unique perspective, let's just say. I can tell y'all all about post-TBI consciousness both before and after neurological meds. (waves happy psychotropic drug flag. Yay!)

Anyway, BobtheD, I think the question of strict adaptionism vs. punctuated equilibrium theory-- and the consequences this has for theories about social and cultural "evolution"-- really belongs somewhere else. For sure, it doesn't have a single thing to do with anything remotely resembling a case for God, or Karen Armstrong. One interesting thing about Karen, btw, is that she's an ex-nun (I can't remember if that was mentioned before in this thread or not). I've read her autobiography and it's a fascinating glimpse into an eerie world of pre-Vatican II weirdness. :eye-poppi

Regarding Buddhism, there are of course many different varieties. A common Buddhist belief is that our individual experiences of consciousness are part of a universal consiousness. Is that what you were getting at?

Ommmm.... (picks up a case of God and cracks one open. It tastes a lot like Diet Mountain Dew.)

Tricky

21st January 2010, 05:43 PM

F’in hell….talk about hand-a-wavin. We do not KNOW it comes from human brains. Why? Because of the simple and indisputable fact that we do not KNOW what IT is.
We don't know what gravity is either, but we can describe its effects.

So let's start there. What are some of the effects of consciousness? The ability to respond meaningfully to communication from others? Awareness of what is around you? A feeling of personal identity?

Feel free to expand. Give us some of the traits of consciousness that can be detected and recognized. If you can't do that then you need not worry about consciousness since you are unable to even recognize it or describe some of its traits.

But I'm guessing you can, just as I did above. Okay, say you have some traits now that people agree on. Now try to show which ones of those traits still exist in a person when their brain is no longer functioning. Or if you want a more fun experience, try reducing brain function in some enjoyable way such as by steadily consuming alcohol. What you will see is that all of the traits you have described show decreased or erratic performance as you sozzle your brain function.

Now, try to think of a trait of consciousness that isn't affected by lowering (or discontinuing) brain function. Be prepared to back this contention up with evidence, just as I have shown the evidence for the brain being extremely important to any recognizable traits of consciousness.

How can we KNOW it comes from human brains when we do not KNOW what it is that we are talking about.
That is why you describe the traits. That is how we describe virtually all phenomena, including gravity. If you tried to tell somebody what gravity is, you would end up describing its traits. The same is true of consciousness. Personally, I have a few working definitions of consciousness, though they are contextual. I'm surprised you don't.

Also, we do not KNOW that nobody has any experience of anybody else’s consciousness.
You can do tests for this. Things like Zener cards can be used to show that some of the traits of consciousness, like awareness of our surroundings, cannot be passed from one person to another without some form of well-known communication. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that we can ever prove a thing to be impossible. The most we can do is to show that it is highly unlikely.

For one thing, we do not even know what ‘consciousness’ is, so how can we definitively say what we do or do not know about it?
Still struggling with that, eh? Keep working on those traits. You'll be able to come up with a working definition like most other people have.

From what explicit scientific investigation do you come to this conclusion? ….your opinion. Period. I congratulate you on your skepticism….you get the award for most egregious breach of the skeptical rules this week….dude.
Well, you weren't talking to me, but I've just described a couple of experiments that you can use to test the traits of consciousness and how they relate to the brain. Sure, as a skeptic I'd have to see them done repeatedly, but I think that there are sufficient experiments, especially in the "alcohol intake" thing.:p

So if you are so familiar with it, why not tell us exactly what it means…..or, as they say in kindergarten, STFU.

There is not an exact definition. It depends on whether you are talking about consciousness as opposed to sleeping, or consciousness as in the ability to respond meaningfully to communication, or consciousness as awareness of surroundings. The word is contextual and can be used many ways. Tell us which one you are talking about by describing its traits.

I will reply, politely, to the other comments later.
I do hope "STFU" is not an example of politeness.

Robin

21st January 2010, 09:54 PM

Actually, Mormons claim to have SP2. It doesn't matter how many service packs you add, the architecture is flawed.
But if you call the help desk they say PEBCAC.

Skeptic Ginger

21st January 2010, 10:03 PM

....and how do you come to that conclusion skeptigirl?Do you really think you have anything new to add to the god debate? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

BTW....the story of Thomas may be apocryphal, but in the end Jesus convinced him. Thomas was a skeptic no more. I guess Jesus was into dudes with balls.It's a story. Got any evidence it is any more than just another myth?

Robin

21st January 2010, 10:09 PM

what caused causality?
did it cause itself before it itself existed?
I get it, God caused causality - right?

How did he cause causality when there was no causality to cause it with?
what caused math?
is there some math that existed before math to cause that math?
So God cause maths too? Wow!

God could have chosen for pi to be 4, I suppose?

Robin

21st January 2010, 10:17 PM

It takes a seriously serious skeptic to actually see that there is a very good case for God. How serious are you?
Well then - let's hear it.

kuroyume0161

21st January 2010, 10:32 PM

Well then - let's hear it.

Supposedly the 'consciousness' thing was it. If that is the best case for god then god is assuredly a myth, fable, man-made byproduct of wishful thinking.

I'm serious. :)

Robin

21st January 2010, 10:45 PM

"Oh, Sariputra, Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form;
The Same is True For Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness."

"No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind;
No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object;
No Realm of the Eye,
Until We Come to No realm of Consciousness."

….any skeptic have any idea what that means
Do you?

Certainly it means nothing in the form you have presented it here - two fragments out of context.

You need the whole thing for context.

Robin

21st January 2010, 10:57 PM

Supposedly the 'consciousness' thing was it. If that is the best case for god then god is assuredly a myth, fable, man-made byproduct of wishful thinking.

I'm serious. :)
Was there an actual case made?

kuroyume0161

21st January 2010, 11:13 PM

Was there an actual case made?

Not really. As best as I could interpret the revelationary response, it was:

We don't know crap about consciousness, therefore it's/we're God, dude.

This type of argument about humans being soooo amazing compared to other animals because we have sentience that universal-consciousness/solipsism/god must exist just gets tiring after awhile (and I've been dealing with these types of arguments for like fifteen years).

This is why I mentioned Homo Neanderthalensis. There is actual 'evidence' that they had about as much sentience as Homo Sapiens Sapiens: fire, hunting, tool skills, burial of dead, possibly language. Did the 'universal consciousness' make two prototypes and go, 'eh, I like this one better"? It boggles the mind the mental gymnastics employed to fit ideas into reality.

Robin

21st January 2010, 11:19 PM

Not really. As best as I could interpret the revelationary response, it was:

We don't know crap about consciousness, therefore it's/we're God, dude.

This type of argument about humans being soooo amazing compared to other animals because we have sentience that universal-consciousness/solipsism/god must exist just gets tiring after awhile (and I've been dealing with these types of arguments for like fifteen years).

This is why I mentioned Homo Neanderthalensis. There is actual 'evidence' that they had about as much sentience as Homo Sapiens Sapiens: fire, hunting, tool skills, burial of dead, possibly language. Did the 'universal consciousness' make two prototypes and go, 'eh, I like this one better"? It boggles the mind the mental gymnastics employed to fit ideas into reality.
Ah yes, the "we don't know what consiousness is, therefore we can draw extravagant metaphysical conclusions from it" line.

I know it well.

CurtC

22nd January 2010, 06:55 AM

BTW....the story of Thomas may be apocryphal, but in the end Jesus convinced him. Thomas was a skeptic no more. I guess Jesus was into dudes with balls.

The part I bolded above shows you don't know what a skeptic is. A skeptic is a person who demands evidence for claims, and recognizes how we can be fooled.

A skeptic who demands evidence and gets it, would then believe the claim while remaining a good skeptic.

Robin

22nd January 2010, 06:58 AM

I guess Jesus was into dudes with balls.
I have heard that too.

But I understand the Vatican have issued a denial.

annnnoid

22nd January 2010, 07:11 AM

Robin....you are following me around....how flattering.

Robin

22nd January 2010, 07:16 AM

Robin....you are following me around....how flattering.
Hmmm... I am participating in more than one thread that you are also participating in.

And so you conclude that I am following you around.

That seems to betray a lack in critical thinking and a rather overactive ego.

By the same logic I have a veritable fan club at JREF!

annnnoid

22nd January 2010, 09:36 AM

Gord_in_Toronto

22nd January 2010, 10:02 AM

….interesting isn’t it….the degree to which words lack the ability to encompass their meaning. Something is not lost in translation. Something is always lost in translation (what?). What a dysfunctional form of communication. Could there be a universe in which exists a functional form of communication (one of those in the multiple universe model). What character might that form of communication take?

Perhaps my post would have appeared as:

Removed infracted content.

Or maybe it might appear as:

‘Bit of a coincidence that you should pop up here. I figure you like to pull my posts apart and that’s fine. I’d rather they be pulled apart by someone who has some capacity to know how. I’ll make a mild joke about it and move on.’

Removed infracted content.

If dude A said to dude B ‘I am skeptical that you are, in fact, dude B’….and dude B proved to dude A that he is, in fact, dude B, then dude A is no longer skeptical that dude B is, in fact, dude B.

I’ll give you another example.

If dude A said to dude B ‘I am skeptical that you are a dude’….and dude B pulled down his pants and proved that he is, in fact, a dude….then dude A can say with some degree of accuracy ‘yes dude B, I am no longer skeptical that you are a dude’.

So in relation to Jesus, Thomas was no longer a skeptic. If Thomas had skeptic colored hair before Jesus convinced him, I imagine he still had skeptic colored hair afterward, but that’s kind of academic, obviously.

It's a story, dude. Similar to millions of other fictions.

If we are to believe the NT, thousands of people saw and heard Jesus during his life time while he raised the dead, walked on water, healed the sick, caused pigs to drown themselves and destroyed innocent trees. Yet, after his death (in which the heavens went dark) he was forgotten about for a couple of generations. If those who saw him did not believe, why should I two-thousand years later believe the Bible stories any more than those of the thousands of "god men" down through history?

:boggled:

annnnoid

22nd January 2010, 11:14 AM

…actually skeptigirl that doesn’t quite answer how you came to that conclusion…but it’s a reasonable answer anyway. Yet another case of misunderstanding. Never enough words to go around it seems. Another billion and I still think we wouldn’t be able to communicate, we’d all just be even more confused. So communication is not a function of words, but understanding….how interesting. I wonder what that is…understanding (in the [gasp, choke, spit #@$%***@#] bible I think it says something like “understanding is seeing things as they really are”………do we, see things as they really are?).

By the way…the word apocryphal means exactly that so I’d appreciate it if you’d stop making stupid requests for evidence (science can measure this, science can measure that….uh huh). If there’s one thing that annoys me about skeptics it’s this constant juvenile demand for evidence. I might just have to demand evidence that you could understand whatever evidence I have, which not a one of you has any ability what so ever to actually provide. So knock off the evidence trip, it’s way stale. Think outside the box, because if there’s one thing there is an abundance of evidence of, it’s the box.

“Ah yes, the "we don't know what consciousness is, therefore we can draw extravagant metaphysical conclusions from it" line.”

…….yeah, of course. How stupid to draw extravagant metaphysical conclusions from something that is extravagantly metaphysical (consciousness produced Shakespeare, Goethe, Picasso, Hitler, Alexander the Great, Plato, Leonardo Da Vinci, Einstein, Caravaggio, Rumi, Wittgenstein, Galileo, Darwin, Leibniz, Dante, Chaucer, Gandhi, Gautama Buddha, Descartes…etc. ad infinitum….obviously we are dealing with a profoundly mundane phenomenon here)(it also produced skeptigirl….but far be it for me to suggest that there may be some varieties of consciousness that function better than others [is it a fact?….and why might that be d’you suppose?])(just so you won’t feel slighted sg…I wouldn’t include myself in that list either).

...and since we don’t know what consciousness is (except the biggest unanswered question in science) we’ll just conclude the answer must be trivial. I guess we’ll see won’t we…what kind of pedestrian conclusions my prosaic consciousness can achieve.

….oh yeah, Tricky….consciousness is the brain and all that. Been there, done that, goes nowhere. Sorry, I’m just not gonna waste my time on it. If you want to find out why it goes nowhere, go read some of the ‘what is consciousness’ thread. It gets explained just about as clearly as a subject as incomprehensible as consciousness can be explained. I have other fish to fry and that isn’t one of them. Not to say that it isn’t a fish, it’s a damn big one, but it’s the river that matters.

Incorretly infracted. Infraction should have been for annnnoid's previous post.

normdoering

22nd January 2010, 11:39 AM

... as time goes on, the miracles becoming crappier and less frequent.

The last miracle to tackle is the "religious experience." Theists will fall back on personal experiences when cornered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYY1PIRZF8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acvGCmSqJkM

Note how the one guy, called thereprieve, even admits that his experience is driving him away from what he knows to be logical and scientific.

annnnoid

22nd January 2010, 12:51 PM

The last miracle to tackle is the "religious experience." Theists will fall back on personal experiences when cornered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYY1PIRZF8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acvGCmSqJkM

Note how the one guy, called thereprieve, even admits that his experience is driving him away from what he knows to be logical and scientific.

....yes of course....and we all know how reliable personal experiences are. But hang on....aren't you a person, and don't you have experiences???? So does that mean your own personal experiences are BS as well?

If there's one thing that a lot of skeptics have in common with creationists, it is the ability to make themselves look stupid.

kuroyume0161

22nd January 2010, 01:22 PM

....yes of course....and we all know how reliable personal experiences are. But hang on....aren't you a person, and don't you have experiences???? So does that mean your own personal experiences are BS as well?

If there's one thing that a lot of skeptics have in common with creationists, it is the ability to make themselves look stupid.

Personal experience, a.k.a. subjectivity, is perfectly fine for most things. But the reason that science has actually been the most successful way of understanding the universe and allowing us to utilize it in ways never imagined is because it is based upon objectivity. That is, hypotheses about observations need to be tested independently, with the test itself open to scrutiny by anyone, so that the best hypothesis, if any, can be said to explain the observation best irregardless of who is experiencing it.

When it comes to understanding some phenomenon, a billion (or 7) personal experiences amounts to tot (just look at religion). It is the process of science to remove subjectivity and find underlying structure objectively that makes it work - or do you think that science (look at the computer, light, household items, car, plane, train, rocket, iPhone, satellites, surgical equipment, vaccines, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (and so on)), er, doesn't work?

There is certainly someone in this thread making themself look stupid - and I'm not staring in a mirror.

BobTheDonkey

22nd January 2010, 01:27 PM

Personal experience, a.k.a. subjectivity, is perfectly fine for most things. But the reason that science has actually been the most successful way of understanding the universe and allowing us to utilize it in ways never imagined is because it is based upon objectivity. That is, hypotheses about observations need to be tested independently, with the test itself open to scrutiny by anyone, so that the best hypothesis, if any, can be said to explain the observation best irregardless of who is experiencing it.

When it comes to understanding some phenomenon, a billion (or 7) personal experiences amounts to tot (just look at religion). It is the process of science to remove subjectivity and find underlying structure objectively that makes it work - or do you think that science (look at the computer, light, household items, car, plane, train, rocket, iPhone, satellites, surgical equipment, vaccines, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (and so on)), er, doesn't work?

There is certainly someone in this thread making themself look stupid - and I'm not staring in a mirror.

Additionally, my everyday experiences can be verified through means other than just my own personal anecdote. There is some kind of corporeal evidence or witnesses, etc.

I run my truck off the road in the middle of the night and miss a dozen trees, there will be ruts/tracks in the ground, dirt on the tires/undercarriage, etc that can be seen by someone else.

That's the difference between religious/supernatural anecdotes and everyday anecdotes.

ETA: In other words: The scientific method can be applied to my everyday, anecdotal experiences and be "proven" to be possible, and/or recreated. This is not something that can be said of supernatural/religious anecdotes.

annnnoid

22nd January 2010, 02:14 PM

Really....we can somehow conclusively establish (verify) exactly what is happening in you?

Not even wrong.

You and every other human being who has ever lived is subjective. Entirely, totally, completely, 100% subjective….. and there is NO way that any science has of establishing in any way what so ever what is going on in you. Period. You either tell me the truth, or you’re lying. It is all personal experiences. It is all self-report.

All…..of…..it. I don’t give a damn if you can establish that you’re jumping up and down and wearing a suit made out of cucumbers and singing the Ode to Joy or how many people agree with any of these facts. Everything that goes on inside of you is known to you, and only to you. Love, hate, worry, fear, happiness, anger, surprise, contempt, remorse, disappointment, optimism, awe, spite, hope, pleasure and everything you think…etc. etc…..all inside you.

I can no more confirm what is happening in you than I can confirm what is happening at the center of a black hole. So saying ‘well this subjective religious experience stuff is all BS because they have no evidence to back it up’…..is, itself, all BS. Period. You have no evidence to back up what’s inside of you either, except what you say about it….so if you dismiss their experiences for lack of evidence, you dismiss your own as well.

Maia

22nd January 2010, 02:20 PM

Eegh, well, anyway. I found a wonderful John Shelby Spong article (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_shelby_spong/2007/01/i_welcome_the_attention_that_1.html). I think it has a lot more to do with the OP than the driftiness we have lately drifted into. The title is: "Human Definitions of God Need Revision." While I'm not exactly sure what Dawkins thought of this, I think it's a better way of conceptualizing things that Karen Armstrong's argument is (although I didn't think hers was ALL that bad, I might as well say. But I'm not referring here to whatever she said on MPR, which might have been a big bag of stupid, for all I know, but to an essay she wrote. I'll try to find it.)

It's very short. An excerpt:

I welcome the attention that serious atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are offering the world at this moment through their books. They are bringing what I regard as a deserved criticism and a necessary correction to what Christianity has become in our generation.

annnnoid

22nd January 2010, 04:29 PM

The driftiness that we have currently drifted into began as an attempt to present a case for god. Naturally all the resident skeptics swarm as though a new turd has been dropped, thinking there is yet another hapless Christian spouting spurious nonsense…who they can swiftly dispatch with their typically feeble philosophies.

Y’know Maia….I’ve read a lot of your posts, and I do find them interesting and informative. I am not all that familiar with Spong, but I can say that I’m likely familiar with his objective. Authentic religion. I’ve often wondered about this religious stuff, and why it exists, and what purpose it serves, and how (and I’ve been in it….from the charismatic to the conservative [and I could even recommend a few books that you might find quite unique]). It’s a giant issue, and skeptics typically simplify it to everyone’s detriment (their own included, which doesn’t concern me greatly except for the fact that a critical mass of idiots can actually make a difference [we need look no further than the creationists for evidence of this]).

George Will once said: It’s hard to be an iconoclast in a world knee deep in the debris of icons.

What the skeptic/atheist typically doesn’t realize is that, after supposedly toppling all the religious icons (which they haven’t) they have established a whole series of icons of their own. I just figure the atheist/religion dialogue is probably better served if both sides have a clearer understanding of where they are…partly because I think the skeptics actually have more in common with religious people than they would ever want to admit. It’s a big issue though and I don’t really know if I want to go to the effort of arguing.

So, as Mom Theresa said: “I can’t do what you can do, and you can’t do what I can do, but we both got to do what we can do”….which I do, as long as I want to anyway.

Sledge

23rd January 2010, 07:16 AM

annnnoid

23rd January 2010, 09:23 AM

….and we are presented with irrefutable proof of the level of your reasoning…..having demonstrated none.

stijndeloose

23rd January 2010, 10:12 AM

Really....we can somehow conclusively establish (verify) exactly what is happening in you?

Not yet. Your point being? It looks like you’re heading for god of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) argument here. I hope you know why that particularly line of reasoning is worthless.

What we CAN establish is that something is happening: ever heard of brain-scans? Which brings me to:

Everything that goes on inside of you is known to you, and only to you. Love, hate, worry, fear, happiness, anger, surprise, contempt, remorse, disappointment, optimism, awe, spite, hope, pleasure and everything you think…etc. etc…..all inside you.

Any emotion that can be properly – scientifically – defined allows for corresponding scientific hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses imply falsifiability and testability, in other words: they can be tested against reality. Unfortunately, your whole ‘God concept’ cannot, which makes it entirely and utterly worthless.

Many of these emotions HAVE been properly defined, and for a number of them, the correspondent parts of the brains have been successfully located, thus clearly relating emotions to brain activity.

Moreover, all emotions that can be scientifically defined can also be triggered, which, again, allows for predictions and testing against reality.

AGAIN: your ‘God’ concept doesn’t.

You and every other human being who has ever lived is [sic] subjective. Entirely, totally, completely, 100% subjective….. and there is NO way that any science has of establishing in any way what so ever [sic] what is going on in you. Period.

Yes, there is. See above. I’m not claiming we have explained the ‘workings’ of human beings completely yet, but we ARE making progress. And you know how? Because we are using something called the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), which allows, as mentioned above, for testing against reality.

Blind assertions (of which the whole ‘God concept’ is a prime example) do not.

I can no more confirm what is happening in you than I can confirm what is happening at the center of a black hole.

Ahem. Only there is clear evidence that black holes EXIST, even if they haven’t been observed directly.

You know why? Because scientists postulating their existence employed something called the the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), which allowed them to formulate a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that allowed for predictions that could be tested against reality. The fact that these predictions turned out to be correct supports the notion that black holes exist.

Again: can you provide us with a testable and falsifiable ‘god hypothesis’?

So saying ‘well this subjective religious experience stuff is all BS because they have no evidence to back it up’…..is, itself, all BS. Period.

Oxcrap. See above.

annnnoid

23rd January 2010, 10:30 AM

Stijndeloos……why do you think the psychology departments are always located amongst the humanities, and not beside engineering.

....your argument is BS and I'm simply not going to waste my time on it. If you want to know why it's BS go read some of the consciousness threads and educate yourself.

Nuf said.

….and as of this point, I haven’t provided anything remotely resembling a ‘god concept’. Isn’t that called making assumptions.......and isn’t that called being biased……and isn’t that bluntly unscientific?

Again…nuf said.

stijndeloose

23rd January 2010, 11:12 AM

….and as of this point, I haven’t provided anything remotely resembling a ‘god concept’. Isn’t that called making assumptions.......and isn’t that called being biased……and isn’t that bluntly unscientific?

It's neither. I made the wrong assumptions and stand corrected.

So kindly clarify: what are you trying to say? That personal experience is as good in establishing the supposed existence of certain entities?

John Jones

23rd January 2010, 11:21 AM

why do you think the psychology departments are always located amongst the humanities, and not beside engineering.

They are?

tsig

23rd January 2010, 11:35 AM

I get it, God caused causality - right?

How did he cause causality when there was no causality to cause it with?

So God cause maths too? Wow!

God could have chosen for pi to be 4, I suppose?

The Indiana House of Representatives beat him to the punch:

"In 1897, a physician and amateur mathematician from Indiana named Edwin J. Goodwin believed that he had discovered a correct way of squaring the circle. He proposed a bill to Indiana Representative Taylor I. Record, which Record introduced in the House under the title A Bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897.

The text of the bill consists of a series of mathematical claims (detailed below), followed by a recitation of Goodwin's previous accomplishments:

... his solutions of the trisection of the angle, doubling the cube and quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly ... And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend.

These false claims are typical of a mathematical crank. Claims of the trisection of an angle and the doubling of the cube are particularly widespread in crank literature.[1] According to Doron Zeilberger, Goodwin's "solutions" were indeed published in the AMM, though with a disclaimer.[2]

The Indiana House of Representatives referred the bill to the Committee on Swamp Lands (or on Canals, according to some sources). It was transferred to the Committee on Education, which reported favorably, and the bill passed the House unanimously. As this debate concluded, Purdue University Professor C. A. Waldo arrived in Indianapolis to secure the annual appropriation for the Indiana Academy of Sciences. An assemblyman handed him the bill, offering to introduce him to the genius who wrote it. He declined, saying that he already knew as many crazy people as he cared to. [3]

The Indiana Senate had not yet completed final passage of the bill (which they had referred to the Committee on Temperance) and Professor Waldo coached enough senators overnight that they postponed the bill indefinitely."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Unfortunately the Senate had more clout.

annnnoid

23rd January 2010, 11:46 AM

I’m saying there is no scientific grounds to dismiss personal religious experience. We don’t know what’s going on in religious people anymore than we know what’s going on in non-religious people. You dismiss one, you dismiss the other.

…and considering the dimensions of many so-called religious experiences…to dismiss them simplistically as ‘delusional’ (as Dawkins typically does) is blatantly biased, not to mention scientifically juvenile.

Mr. Jones….point taken. They’re not always in the humanities. Point is, you won’t find them beside mathematics, engineering, chemistry or biology. Typically they’ll be in some variety of applied biochemistry (medicine)…or just scattered between philosophy, linguistics, medicine, neurology etc.. There is a reason, though, why psychology is not typically regarded as a ‘science’. To put it simply, there is no way to quantify human behavior.

John Jones

23rd January 2010, 11:53 AM

Mr. Jones….point taken. They’re not always in the humanities. Point is, you won’t find them beside mathematics, engineering, chemistry or biology

My experiences are to the contrary, but back on topic, psychology and I suppose sociology study religious experiences. They're not 'hard' sciences like physics and chemistry, but they are arguably scientific endeavors.

stijndeloose

23rd January 2010, 12:04 PM

I’m saying there is no scientific grounds to dismiss personal religious experience. We don’t know what’s going on in religious people anymore than we know what’s going on in non-religious people. You dismiss one, you dismiss the other.

…and considering the dimensions of many so-called religious experiences…to dismiss them simplistically as ‘delusional’ (as Dawkins typically does) is blatantly biased, not to mention scientifically juvenile.

I do NOT deny the existence of personal religious experience. What I do deny is its bearing on reality.

Love for a person does not have any bearing on the existence of that person. Belief in god has no bearing on his existence.

Personal experience is worthless in establishing the purported existence of entities.

tsig

23rd January 2010, 12:12 PM

annnnoid

23rd January 2010, 01:03 PM

And what is this reality that you are referring to? We don’t know where this universe came from, we don’t know if there are other dimensions or not, we don’t know what the universe is made of, we don’t know if we are alone in the universe (and we certainly don’t have any idea what form other ‘life’ might take), we don’t know how life occurred on this planet…..and remember that really big one, what is consciousness…..aka: you….no idea (so we actually have no idea how we know, or don’t know, anything at all).

So as far as ‘reality’ goes….what exactly does that mean? Whose reality? Science certainly cannot claim to have an answer as to what reality actually is (so if you wake up every morning and think you actually know where you are….sorry, big mistake).

As the rest of it, what if personal experience is the entity. Y’know what it says in that rag known as the bible: know thyself and know thy god. Actually, it says just about the same thing in every single major philosophical and religious tradition that has ever existed. Why do suppose that is? Considering that science has as yet no clue as to the true nature of consciousness I’d suggest you not bother trying to answer that one…..not scientifically anyway.

….so what if….?....just a thought. No real way to prove it, or not. Considering how much ‘evidence’ there is to suggest something, it would be quite reasonable to scientifically conclude that there is something to suggest. At the very least. At….the…..very….least. As for what, well that’s another matter. Maybe we’ll get there eventually.

As for your idea that: ‘Personal experience is worthless in establishing the purported existence of entities.’…….why not? What is an ‘entity’? Personal experience is all you’ve got to establish the existence of anything….if you haven’t noticed.

You might want to keep this in mind: It’s a fact that every single empirical observation is a subjective experience produced by one's senses. There is nothing empirical about your ability to arbitrate the veracity of those senses (except your experience of them). Faith. Pure and simple.

Tsig….you’re not even irrelevant.

tsig

23rd January 2010, 01:18 PM

Maia

23rd January 2010, 01:49 PM

Not yet. Your point being? It looks like you’re heading for god of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) argument here. I hope you know why that particularly line of reasoning is worthless.

What we CAN establish is that something is happening: ever heard of brain-scans? Which brings me to:

Any emotion that can be properly – scientifically – defined allows for corresponding scientific hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses imply falsifiability and testability, in other words: they can be tested against reality. Unfortunately, your whole ‘God concept’ cannot, which makes it entirely and utterly worthless.

Many of these emotions HAVE been properly defined, and for a number of them, the correspondent parts of the brains have been successfully located, thus clearly relating emotions to brain activity.

Moreover, all emotions that can be scientifically defined can also be triggered, which, again, allows for predictions and testing against reality.

AGAIN: your ‘God’ concept doesn’t.

This is one of the things that drives me nuts around here. Arguments which represent less than complete agreement with SOME of these concepts need not be the product of weird woo-woo ramblings, and they have nothing to do with the God portion-- yet they get smushed in with it. Nobody could be more of a materialist than neuroscientist Steven Rose, and he lays out point-by-point cases for just why and how supposed findings of neurological "correlations" to "emotions" (and how they could be "defined" and/or "triggered") are incredibly vague and dubious, larded throughout with unfortunate popularized silliness, based on inflated second or third or tenth-hand reports at best of any experiments actually performed by neuroscientists. For that matter, neuroscience is my own passionate hobby, as it must be, because I have a seriously damaged brain (a windshield through the head will have that effect.) I know what it means to have both higher (prefrontal and temporal lobes) and lower (limbic system) functioning extremely compromised. And I know what it's like to get a lot of functioning back. I have also studied everything, everything I could get my hands on, both now, with the luxuries of pubmed.gov and Psychinfo, and back in the day when you had to go to libraries and look up things on microfilm and then sneak into the University of Minnesota pretending to do a science project and illegally use Gophernet. So I know a lot about these incredibly complex neurological issues, inside and out.

BUT, then we do get people on here who always have to try to relate these questions back to theism. They really have nothing to do with God, the Devil, angels, archangels, cherubs, Hitler's ghosts, the Bell Witch, paranormal powers, psi wheels, or whether or not those weird walking shoes actually help anybody lose weight. Now, everyone has the right to make whatever argument they want, but I wish we could just DROP IT and declare certain discussions a God-free zone!!!

Ahem. Anyway, continue discussion. The Ritalin's kicking in now and everyone is happy. :)

stijndeloose

23rd January 2010, 01:54 PM

You might want to keep this in mind: It’s a fact that every single empirical observation is a subjective experience produced by one's senses. There is nothing empirical about your ability to arbitrate the veracity of those senses (except your experience of them). Faith. Pure and simple.

Tsig….you’re not even irrelevant.

You're confusing senses and emotions. If you think there's no difference, then why don't you drive your car/ride your bike with your eyes closed and earmuffs on? Or do you?

Reality is whatever can be empirically shown to exist, i.e. using our senses and NOT our emotions. The scientific method helps us out in establishing the reality what cannot be directly observed.

Now, you CAN of course argue that there are things that (or even the effect/consequences of which) cannot be empirically perceived AT ALL. The question then arises, however, how said things can have any relevance to anyone?

Robin

23rd January 2010, 02:25 PM

annnnoid

23rd January 2010, 04:01 PM

Maia….I don’t know if you are specifically referring to me….but the title of this thread is, after all ‘the case for god’. How many people have ever visited this forum and successfully made a case for god?. I’m not trying to be egotistical here but I imagine the number is something like zero. Would it matter if there actually is a credible case for god….or not? I know it sounds like just a slightly weird thing to suggest that I can present such a thing (or even that there might be such a thing in a form that a swarm of rabid skeptics would recognize)….or even that I’d want to (which I may not). I would be interested in your answer, partly because I’m sure you actually have one. I’m not trying to put you on the spot, I’m just interested in your POV. If you don’t think the issue has any value I’d like to know why you think that.

I’ll just give you a peak into my POV so you understand why I don’t just throw god, or the idea of god, or the belief in god, or the belief in believing in god….right out the window. I’m not trying to arbitrate the relevance of any of these issues….just whether any of them can be regarded as credible, and if so, from what POV. IMO….all of them are. That does not mean ‘religion’ cannot exist without any or all of them (that's obviously a bit simplistic). This seems to be an issue that matters substantially to you. I get the impression that you dislike any variety of explicit theism. That’s fine…and I can understand your POV. Like I said….I’ve been involved in religion….from charismatic to conservative, so I am familiar with quite a few things about it. I just think theism is not so easy to dismiss. Whatever psychological realities may be involved in faith, of whatever variety, the issues are not at all easily evaluated. It may seem disagreeable to you, but I think there is a place for explicitly theistic faith. I’ve often wondered what that place actually is, and why. I have ideas about it but I don’t think this is really the place for them.

You seem to advocate an ‘authentic religion’. Personally, I’d just be happy with ‘authentic human being’…but considering how displaced many folks are from that possibility, religion is almost a necessity.

…..as for things driving people nuts around here (besides poorly educated skeptics who are convinced they understand far more than they do)….I’d say the atheist tendency to summarily dismiss the religious POV as irrational delusion (as per Dawkins etc.). I guess this accounts for my occasional harsh treatment of certain responses.

I know skeptics are religiously averse to any variety of manifesto, but I think anyone signing up to JREF should sign a pledge to actually be skeptical of their own abilities before being skeptical of others. Then skepticism might actually achieve some real social relevance.

Sledge

23rd January 2010, 04:46 PM

….and we are presented with irrefutable proof of the level of your reasoning…..having demonstrated none.

My reasoning is perfectly valid. If someone starts with such a blatant piece of rubbish as "You and every other human being who has ever lived is subjective," I reason that the rest of the post will be cobblers. Of course, if you wish to explain what you meant, I'll be open to reconsidering my position.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd January 2010, 09:06 PM

annnnoid

24th January 2010, 08:07 AM

Gord....sledge for some reason seems to think that I should rewrite my whole argument just for him (as opposed to just going and reading what's already been posted).

Explain to me why exactly I should be expected to do that?....or perhaps you might describe the attitude of someone who makes such a request ....perhaps.

Skeptigirl....you are quite correct. But I'm not finished yet. I don't expect you to believe my claim....that would obviously be naive. I'd be worried if I actually cared about what anybody here thinks about what I can do (except, perhaps, for a few select individuals)? What I care about is why I might want to go to the trouble of actually doing it.

kuroyume0161

24th January 2010, 08:51 AM

You're confusing senses and emotions. If you think there's no difference, then why don't you drive your car/ride your bike with your eyes closed and earmuffs on? Or do you?

Reality is whatever can be empirically shown to exist, i.e. using our senses and NOT our emotions. The scientific method helps us out in establishing the reality what cannot be directly observed.

Now, you CAN of course argue that there are things that (or even the effect/consequences of which) cannot be empirically perceived AT ALL. The question then arises, however, how said things can have any relevance to anyone?

This is close to the response that I was going to make but with a bit more criticism on the subjective, personal experience as evidence/case for god.

To annnnoid:

1. Calling out skeptics and scientists for requiring evidence is a bit like calling out musicians for requiring air (or some material medium) for the propagation of sound. 'Skepticism' is just one area that covers an entire ideology of not believing stuff without observation, evidence, research, and investigation. I'd say that 'critical investigation' or even 'scientific investigation' are closer to covering the method and ideology involved, even in most peoples' atheism. As noted, we are only dealing with that which can be objectively experienced so as to remove personal experience and popular unevidenced beliefs.

2. What use is your idea about 'universal consciousness'*? Does it simply make you feel smug, warm-and-fuzzy, happier? Or can you use it for anything at all - heal the sick, bring the dead back to life, employ super powers, walk on water, predict the future, bring world peace, etc.? If a universal consciousness has no effect in this universe except making you feel good then what use is it as an ideology, philosophy, or belief system? Deism is in the same boat since it speculates a god which created the universe to run all by itself. It is a useless hypothesis for the creation of the universe because of this since it provides no information that makes it different from the current natural explanation (except unnecessarily to insert an undetectable supreme being).

3. Most of these type of doctrines (T.M. for instance) claim that the more people who believe the stronger the results. So far not one, NOT ONE (in history ever), has ever shown to work actually. Billions of buddhists, muslims, christians and the world is pretty much the same chaotic mess. Except for the knowledge and technology provided by the scientific method, strike me surprised. Medical science has cured diseases and saved or bettered countless lives. We have several amazing modes of transportation (automobiles, airplanes, spacecraft). We have global communications. We have massive repositories of information. We have discovered the workings of life (genetics, evolution, biology). And the T.M.ers continue to bounce up and down on their butts claiming that one day they'll fly and bring world peace. Show me results. Without results it is all hand-waving. Remember my statement about hand-waving. You are still waving your hands. Where are the fragging evidences, results, efficacies?

*Which, in a couple of your later posts does seem to be morphing more into a solipsistic ideology. If I were you, I'd do some **deep** reading on why solipsism is a void philosophical stance and is probably worse by magnitudes than the 'goddidit' point of view. Also note how it relates to 2.

ETA: You imply in your responses that atheists are people who either never considered theism or theistic points-of-view or former theists who woke up one day and said, 'there is no god' or 'nogoddidit', and became instant atheists for no reason or dubious reasons. How condescending! I spent the better part of the last thirty years in deep contemplation, exploration, and reading on religion, theology, and philosophy. I did not arrive at my current atheism easily or quickly. For probably ten years I had an internal struggle between whether or not god existed, whether or not I might be condemning myself to (christian) hell, whether or not I was in denial or going in the wrong direction, whether or not there was some supernatural being out there which would fill that need which I was putting aside. And I certainly did not join some group of atheists and consume their rhetoric. I was an atheist long before I knew there were other atheists (or what 'atheism' even was). My knowledge, learning, reasons, and justification to put it aside have never been challenged by any pandering or intellectual debating. If anything, the more that I learn and observe, the more it seems likely that this is a human-based phenomenon. I leave you with your personal, internal, emotional beliefs.

Bye...

Gord_in_Toronto

24th January 2010, 10:11 AM

Gord....sledge for some reason seems to think that I should rewrite my whole argument just for him (as opposed to just going and reading what's already been posted).

I just went back through this thread and, other than the posts about evolution by natural selection, about the only thing I see is an argument about the reality of subjective experience. Is this what you are talking about?

Explain to me why exactly I should be expected to do that?....or perhaps you might describe the attitude of someone who makes such a request ....perhaps.If someone is interested enough to make a request, perhaps he should have his questions answered? There are certainly a great number of threads on this forum in which posters exhibit monomania. Generally, they are humoured until they go away -- though sometimes they actually change their minds.

In any case -- think of the lurkers. ;)

<SNIP>

Sledge

24th January 2010, 04:21 PM

So in response to a request to explain what you mean, your answer is "no"? Gotcha.

arthwollipot

24th January 2010, 10:33 PM

If there’s one thing that annoys me about skeptics it’s this constant juvenile demand for evidence.How else do you suggest we distinguish between things that are true and things that aren't?

arthwollipot

24th January 2010, 10:37 PM

So as far as ‘reality’ goes….what exactly does that mean? Whose reality? Science certainly cannot claim to have an answer as to what reality actually is (so if you wake up every morning and think you actually know where you are….sorry, big mistake).So what stops you from following this line of thought to its logical conclusion and deciding that you are the only entity in the universe? All others are just your perceptions, after all.

Darat

25th January 2010, 02:24 AM

Several posts moved to AAH for Rule 12 and Rule 11 breaches. Stop the personal attacks and other breaches of the Membership Agreement and keep to the topic of the thread.

Pure Argent

25th January 2010, 04:53 AM

If there’s one thing that annoys me about skeptics it’s this constant juvenile demand for evidence.

If something has no supporting evidence, why do you believe it? If it has supporting evidence, why not present it?

annnnoid

25th January 2010, 07:33 AM

So what stops you from following this line of thought to its logical conclusion and deciding that you are the only entity in the universe? All others are just your perceptions, after all.

....because that is not its logical conclusion. The key word in what you wrote is the word 'just'. Why do suppose that is the key word?

As for your previous question: "How else do you suggest we distinguish between things that are true and things that aren't?"

Are your thoughts true?
Are your feelings true?
Are your memories true?

…prove it!

(...don't bother trying, it's pointless....there's lots of arguments that seem to go somewhere, but they all end up in exactly the same place....one great big question mark [and if you don't know why don't expect me to educate you, go and find out for yourself....just keep in mind that these are not easy things to understand {which partly explains why I responded to Sledge the way I did....because from what I could see of his one line posting history, he simply had no interest in understanding anything IMHO....and please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented the situation}])

….why do I have to keep returning to such basis issues? Oh yeah, the skeptics bible. Commandment number 8, paragraph 4, lines 2-4.

Always ask for evidence, except for obvious things. Those just exist and we don’t have to ask for evidence if we are the ones who decide they just exist. Because, after all, we’re not religious... and skeptics, by definition, are right.

…hate to point it out to you, but you are religious. You believe and have faith in things that you did not create, do not create, do not control, and do not understand.

It is indisputable. All these fantastical protestations to the contrary are….shall I quote Dawkins: delusional.

You may believe in something that you think is true, but in fact, a very great deal of what you believe in is speculation, approximation, and theory....and a walloping great pile of it is pure fancy. So you do not believe in the truth at all, you believe in some symbolic representation of an approximation of something. The only truth that actually exists, is you, and that is the only variety of authentic truth that there is. Truth is your ability to recognize it. And since science has no idea what 'you' actually are, any relationship you have with yourself is entirely a function of faith.

godless dave

25th January 2010, 09:24 AM

Really....we can somehow conclusively establish (verify) exactly what is happening in you?

Has anyone claimed we can?

You and every other human being who has ever lived is subjective. Entirely, totally, completely, 100% subjective….. and there is NO way that any science has of establishing in any way what so ever what is going on in you. Period. You either tell me the truth, or you’re lying. It is all personal experiences. It is all self-report.

All…..of…..it. I don’t give a damn if you can establish that you’re jumping up and down and wearing a suit made out of cucumbers and singing the Ode to Joy or how many people agree with any of these facts. Everything that goes on inside of you is known to you, and only to you. Love, hate, worry, fear, happiness, anger, surprise, contempt, remorse, disappointment, optimism, awe, spite, hope, pleasure and everything you think…etc. etc…..all inside you.

I can no more confirm what is happening in you than I can confirm what is happening at the center of a black hole. So saying ‘well this subjective religious experience stuff is all BS because they have no evidence to back it up’…..is, itself, all BS. Period. You have no evidence to back up what’s inside of you either, except what you say about it….so if you dismiss their experiences for lack of evidence, you dismiss your own as well.

Yes. So what?

It is precisely because subjective perceptions are fallible that we compare those perceptions with those reported by others.

annnnoid

25th January 2010, 10:51 AM

‘Fallable’…. Dave….the word is ‘fallable’. Let’s see if anyone else shows up to explain why what you say is wrong (fallable…IOW). It’s not that complicated, but around here I often get the impression skeptics would rather believe what they believe than actually get the facts (I guess religious people aren’t the only religious people around). Anyone else got the facts?

godless dave

25th January 2010, 11:19 AM

Why don't you explain why what I say is wrong?

stijndeloose

25th January 2010, 12:48 PM

"Fallable"?! :confused:

Not even funny.

What 'facts' can there be if all perception is subjective?

CurtC

25th January 2010, 01:31 PM

"Fallable"?! :confused:

I guess you'd pronounce it as if the word means "able to fall," with a broad-a sound in the first syllable instead of a short-a.

annnnoid

25th January 2010, 01:50 PM

The word is fallible, instead of 'in'.

Actually, I suppose the facts are not all that easily understood. If they were, I suppose a lot more folks would actually understand them. I wonder where all these degrees-of-understanding actually go. What does it suggest, that understanding is incremental? What trajectory does it imply?

So what facts can there be if all perception is subjective? Actually, what you might ask is how do you know when you know that you know something? What feature of your existence is relevant when something is....true? Of course, nobody actually knows why we do things one way and not another, but it is an indisputable fact that we do a very great many things one way and not another. Knowing when we know that we know what we know....is one of those things. Thus, I can say 2+2=4, and so can you.

As for Dave, that'll take longer, so I'll answer it later.

Gord_in_Toronto

25th January 2010, 04:13 PM

Autumnman

25th January 2010, 04:27 PM

Sledge

25th January 2010, 05:01 PM

Ok, can ANYONE explain what annnnoid is talking about? I'm seeing plenty of words, some of them even spelt properly, but the order they're in conveys no meaning. I get a sense that he doesn't like skeptics and being asked to provdide evidence, but I can't tell what he's failing to present evidence for.

Autumnman

25th January 2010, 07:17 PM

The Case For God.

The term "God" denotes the "One Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

What are the precise attributes asigned this conception of "God"?
Is this a theistic, revelation inclusive, conception of "God"?
Or, is this a deistic, reason & nature-based, conception of "God"?

It seems to me that to make "The Case For God" the three above questions should be answered. Then, based on the answers to the above questions we can begin examining "The Case For God".

If anyone is interested, I would very much enjoy such a discussion.
Autumnman

annnnoid

25th January 2010, 07:59 PM

kuroyume0161

25th January 2010, 10:07 PM

The term "God" denotes the "One Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

While creator is disputable, ruler isn't as much. Being facetious, I haven't seen any supreme beings measuring the universe (insert drums here). On target, the ruler of the universe seems to be ruling using rules that 'even a caveman' can understand. That is, if humans can see patterns and regularity in the universe that seemingly work without supernatural/extra-universal intervention that makes for a sorry 'supreme ruler' indeed (esp. if we are to know that it exists).

This is a major problem with 'the case for god'. In a universe created by and intervened within by such a being one would expect things to happen which cannot be explained (ever - ignoring our current limitations) which would lend to the notion that this being existed. Now, we have plenty of so-called miraculous events noted in history. But their verifiable occurrence has diminished with greater intellect, better recording of events, and introduction of scientific ideologies. Because of this, it is almost assured that one can extrapolate backwards in time and suggest that such events were misunderstood natural phenomena, embellished phenomena, tales, or metaphor. As a matter of fact, many of these miracles have no supporting evidence, contradictory evidence, or flaws which make them not only improbable but maybe even impossible.

The being that created the universe to work just as it does (deistic god) isn't even worth discussing. This is the being that has no use in being investigated. What information can we extract from this being's single input into the universe other than it has no care about anything in it or about being known by anything within it and we cannot know anything more about it (as in, other than to make itself known by disrupting the process which it set in motion - an intervening god)?

If such a being is relegated to only operations on an intra-personal level with humans on this planet it makes for a very weak case. Since our perceptions are imperfect and our internal 'being' (sentience, consciousness, intellect, whatever you want to label it) is understood only to a certain extent it would be foolish to put all of our bets on this being evidence for a supreme being.

What are the precise attributes asigned this conception of "God"?

The first question is the most troublesome (for all time and history, actually). Every god (or deity or nymph or demon) has varying attributes. One reason that monotheism became popular was that it moved the duties of a chorus of demi-gods or a pantheon of gods under a single purposeful being. But in the process, the attributes of this being became very entangled and vague. The christian god is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These three attributes alone create a paradoxical being - ignoring the seeming lapses in any of the attributes, as recorded in religious texts. Omniscience and our free will have caused consternation for centuries. My solution there is that god would know everything and we would 'feel' like we had free will but it would not be real free will. Instead, we think we have it but it really doesn't exist (since god knows everything that was, is, and will happen - otherwise, how could it be knowing of everything?). We can only have real free will if god cannot know everything. One solution, albeit convoluted, would be if god knew everything in the way that we postulate multi-verses. That is, he sees all outcomes and their branchings (and so on). But would this being see or know the true path (not omniscience if it doesn't). Even then, free will would be at peril. Enough of that though.

Back to the question. Well, we assign attributes to things we experience or observe. So how can we assign attributes to something which is supposedly beyond our experience or observation? In other words, there has to be something to which to assign attributes. This is what makes me think that the lack of useful, verifiable, accurate attribute assignments leads towards a man-made construct. Attributes such as 'all-powerful', 'smiter of thine enemies', 'ruler of the sun', 'forgiver of sins', 'supreme judge' appear to be more anthropomorphic and derived from desires to have the better god on one's side than your competitor or as a figure which pries into everyone's life as if it is that important. With hundreds of billions of human lives (to the present), can it really be possible for every single one to be so important to this being? What exactly is it interested in attaining thusly? What does god need with a starship? ;)

tsig

26th January 2010, 05:12 AM

You are aware that numbers don’t exist, aren’t you Dave? Kind of difficult to prove something is true when it doesn’t exist….or maybe it is….easy. What do you think? Do numbers exist? Why don’t you Google the question…. see what the experts have to say.

And if 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4, how do you know that you know it? Can you prove that you can trust you? You say you can prove that 2+2=4, but how can you prove something if you can’t prove how you are able to prove it in the first place? Bit of an odd question?….not really.

It’s all self-report Dave. You either have faith in how you operate, or you don’t. There is absolutely no way to prove anything. Faith, as I said….somewhere. Was it here? Can’t really remember.

…maybe tomorrow we’ll see where this has all come.

Odd that the numbers on my paycheck that do not exist buys food that does exist.

Looks like it's time for the baseball bat proof or reality. Here's how it works. We sit down, me with a bat and every time you say it's all illusion or nothing really exists I hit you in the head with the bat. When you complain of the pain I tell you that it's reality intruding on your illusions. :D

godless dave

26th January 2010, 05:17 AM

You are aware that numbers don’t exist, aren’t you Dave? Kind of difficult to prove something is true when it doesn’t exist….or maybe it is….easy. What do you think? Do numbers exist? Why don’t you Google the question…. see what the experts have to say.

And if 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4, how do you know that you know it? Can you prove that you can trust you? You say you can prove that 2+2=4, but how can you prove something if you can’t prove how you are able to prove it in the first place? Bit of an odd question?….not really.

It’s all self-report Dave. You either have faith in how you operate, or you don’t. There is absolutely no way to prove anything.

Yes, I have enough "faith" to reject solipsism. Once solipsism is rejected, no more faith is necessary. I can check my fallible perceptions against other people's fallible reports of their fallible perceptions. With enough cross-checking, we start to get a picture of reality that we can have confidence roughly corresponds to actual reality. Using empiricism and the scientific method, we can generate models of reality that can be tested by others for how closely they correspond to actual reality.

Since a bunch of philosophers took care of most of those steps a few thousand years ago, we don't really have to give them much thought.

Bikewer

26th January 2010, 07:25 AM

If subjective experience is so important, what are we to make of the subjective experiences of the insane or the brain-damaged? Their hallucinations and misperceptions can be utterly real to them....
Also, (as in the arguments for strong-anthropic ideas that the universe is generated by consciousness) what sort of world was there when there was nothing more evolved than say, a sea-slug?

Autumnman

26th January 2010, 08:12 AM

While creator is disputable, ruler isn't as much. Being facetious, I haven't seen any supreme beings measuring the universe (insert drums here). On target, the ruler of the universe seems to be ruling using rules that 'even a caveman' can understand. That is, if humans can see patterns and regularity in the universe that seemingly work without supernatural/extra-universal intervention that makes for a sorry 'supreme ruler' indeed (esp. if we are to know that it exists).

I agree!

This is a major problem with 'the case for god'. In a universe created by and intervened within by such a being one would expect things to happen which cannot be explained (ever - ignoring our current limitations) which would lend to the notion that this being existed. Now, we have plenty of so-called miraculous events noted in history. But their verifiable occurrence has diminished with greater intellect, better recording of events, and introduction of scientific ideologies. Because of this, it is almost assured that one can extrapolate backwards in time and suggest that such events were misunderstood natural phenomena, embellished phenomena, tales, or metaphor. As a matter of fact, many of these miracles have no supporting evidence, contradictory evidence, or flaws which make them not only improbable but maybe even impossible.

I agree!

The being that created the universe to work just as it does (deistic god) isn't even worth discussing. This is the being that has no use in being investigated. What information can we extract from this being's single input into the universe other than it has no care about anything in it or about being known by anything within it and we cannot know anything more about it (as in, other than to make itself known by disrupting the process which it set in motion - an intervening god)?

I agree! But why can’t this deistic god be attributed with being the essential properties of “life”, of nature – on earth and in the greater universe? A deistic god does not lend itself to being anthropomorphized by the human imagination. A deistic Supreme Being may be nothing more than the human mind attempting to embrace the Sublime Nature of Life.
What do you think?

If such a being is relegated to only operations on an intra-personal level with humans on this planet it makes for a very weak case. Since our perceptions are imperfect and our internal 'being' (sentience, consciousness, intellect, whatever you want to label it) is understood only to a certain extent it would be foolish to put all of our bets on this being evidence for a supreme being.

I agree!

The first question is the most troublesome (for all time and history, actually). Every god (or deity or nymph or demon) has varying attributes. One reason that monotheism became popular was that it moved the duties of a chorus of demi-gods or a pantheon of gods under a single purposeful being. But in the process, the attributes of this being became very entangled and vague. The christian god is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These three attributes alone create a paradoxical being - ignoring the seeming lapses in any of the attributes, as recorded in religious texts. Omniscience and our free will have caused consternation for centuries. My solution there is that god would know everything and we would 'feel' like we had free will but it would not be real free will. Instead, we think we have it but it really doesn't exist (since god knows everything that was, is, and will happen - otherwise, how could it be knowing of everything?). We can only have real free will if god cannot know everything. One solution, albeit convoluted, would be if god knew everything in the way that we postulate multi-verses. That is, he sees all outcomes and their branchings (and so on). But would this being see or know the true path (not omniscience if it doesn't). Even then, free will would be at peril. Enough of that though.

I agree!

Back to the question. Well, we assign attributes to things we experience or observe. So how can we assign attributes to something which is supposedly beyond our experience or observation? In other words, there has to be something to which to assign attributes. This is what makes me think that the lack of useful, verifiable, accurate attribute assignments leads towards a man-made construct.

Let me just say, (and I look forward to your response), when I personally look at a “tree” (a living, botanical organism), there is something within that “tree” that is quite different from what I perceive in a “log” or “beam of lumber”. I’m attempting to stay as basic as I possibly can. Human beings cannot “create” living trees. Human beings can only “create” dead trees; logs; lumber. These are facts yes?

Are you following me? Remember, I am not attempting to make a “case for god.”

Attributes such as 'all-powerful', 'smiter of thine enemies', 'ruler of the sun', 'forgiver of sins', 'supreme judge' appear to be more anthropomorphic and derived from desires to have the better god on one's side than your competitor or as a figure which pries into everyone's life as if it is that important. With hundreds of billions of human lives (to the present), can it really be possible for every single one to be so important to this being? What exactly is it interested in attaining thusly? What does god need with a starship? ;)

I completely agree!

Is there not a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life, and does not that Sublime Mystery deserve to be respected by all human beings?

Autumnman

Gord_in_Toronto

26th January 2010, 11:53 AM

<snip>

Is there not a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life, and does not that Sublime Mystery deserve to be respected by all human beings?No. Why on Earth do you think there is? :boggled:

Autumnman

Autumnman

26th January 2010, 12:47 PM

No. Why on Earth do you think there is? :boggled:

No --You do not think that there is a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life?
No --You do not think that all life should be respected?

Why on Earth do I think there is a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life?

I have not heard of anyone who has solved the mystery of life in the Universe, or the mystery of mortal existence on planet Earth.

Life is an amazing mystery. The more I respect something (even my enemy or that which might cause me harm) the more I learn about it.

I can be amazed without necessarily being amused.

I am not certain that I have understood your objection to my statement?

Autumnman

godless dave

26th January 2010, 01:29 PM

I have not heard of anyone who has solved the mystery of life in the Universe, or the mystery of mortal existence on planet Earth.

The mortal part we know a lot about. How life arose to begin with, not nearly as much.

I perceive a sublime mystery to life, but that's a subjective feeling. It doesn't correspond to anything real, other than my human sense of wonder and awe.

I think all life should be respected, but that's a moral choice I make, not a universal imperative.

Autumnman

26th January 2010, 02:07 PM

The mortal part we know a lot about. How life arose to begin with, not nearly as much.

I perceive a sublime mystery to life, but that's a subjective feeling. It doesn't correspond to anything real, other than my human sense of wonder and awe.

I think all life should be respected, but that's a moral choice I make, not a universal imperative.

I am not so certain that we Know all that much about the "mortal part".
Without knowing so much about how life arose to begin with certainly casts a shadow of doubt over what we think we know about mortality.

You too perceive a sublime mystery to life; life is real, therefore your subjective feeling does correspond to what is "real". Other humans also experience a sense of wonder and awe when they glimpse the sublime mystery of life.

I do not see how thinking all life should be respected amounts to a "moral choice"? When such a sense of respect is understood as an aid to the human species survival, does that not suggest that such respect is indeed a "universal imperative" {at least insofar as the human species is concerned)?

Great response, by the way.
Autumnman

Sledge

26th January 2010, 04:34 PM

What "mystery" are you referring to? Whilst I'm happy to explain the birds and the bees to you, it's probably better coming from your parents.

Gord_in_Toronto

26th January 2010, 05:48 PM

No --You do not think that there is a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life?

No. It's mostly biology and Evolution by Natural Selection.

No --You do not think that all life should be respected?

No. I don't like mosquitoes very much.

Why on Earth do I think there is a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life?

I have not heard of anyone who has solved the mystery of life in the Universe, or the mystery of mortal existence on planet Earth.

I suggest you do some more reading then. Stay away from the religious texts.

Life is an amazing mystery. The more I respect something (even my enemy or that which might cause me harm) the more I learn about it.

As I said, do some more reading.

I can be amazed without necessarily being amused.

In that case I pity you. ;)

I am not certain that I have understood your objection to my statement?

Look up the meaning of the word jejune. :covereyes

Autumnman

Maia

26th January 2010, 06:18 PM

No. It's mostly biology and Evolution by Natural Selection.

No. I don't like mosquitoes very much.

I suggest you do some more reading then. Stay away from the religious texts.

As I said, do some more reading.

In that case I pity you. ;)

Look up the meaning of the word jejune. :covereyes

We're all entitled to our opinions, but given that autumnman has stated that he is not attempting to convince anyone of a belief in God, is it really necessary to be so dismissive? Isn't the basis of this attitude a dislike of the way that he's expressing how he thinks about certain philosophical issues-- that he somehow doesn't "sound skeptical enough"? If so, then why aren't the same rules applied to Susan Blackmore's bizarre, fact-free maunderings about memes, complete with strange random borrowed scraps of Zen Buddhism, and statements that she doesn't write anything without taking illegal drugs? (I am really not kidding about that one.) Or Richard Dawkin's overwrought purple prose when he waxes eloquent about his (seriously flawed) gene selection theory? (which history will not remember as his finest scientific hour.) Or Dennett's silliness about natural selection as a "universal acid?" Or E.O. Wilson's nonsense about "consilience"? Or Steven Pinker's tiresome failed-the-basic-logic-class theories about "reverse-engineering" the human brain?

Where is all the skepticism when it comes to these concepts? Until it makes some kind of serious appearance, I don't think that the word "jejune" should be thrown around quite so lightly. I could make a lot of reading suggestions in order to understand some of the problems with the above ideas, if desired. Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory would be a very good place to start. It's 1,400 pages long, so anyone interested may want to get cracking now.

Dunstan

26th January 2010, 07:11 PM

Or Richard Dawkin's overwrought purple prose when he waxes eloquent about his (seriously flawed) gene selection theory?

*takes drink*

Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory would be a very good place to start.

*takes drink*

Seriously, must you turn every thread into your "Dawkins sucks, Gould rules" hobbyhorse?

kuroyume0161

26th January 2010, 07:59 PM

I agree! But why can’t this deistic god be attributed with being the essential properties of “life”, of nature – on earth and in the greater universe? A deistic god does not lend itself to being anthropomorphized by the human imagination. A deistic Supreme Being may be nothing more than the human mind attempting to embrace the Sublime Nature of Life.
What do you think?

In my mind, a deistic god is just an unnecessary encumbrance draped over a nature that doesn't require it. Speculations about to what to attribute the universe's existence/creation are obtuse and don't provide any further knowledge of worth. Unfortunately, life isn't nature (as it were). Life is something that occurs in nature but isn't its directive, goal, expectation, or encompassing trait. While I find the existence of life to be intriguing it ultimately doesn't direct me to consider that there must have been an intelligent force required for such existence to come about. While there are still gaps in our understanding (esp. of origins of life on Earth), there are no mysteries that seem unsolvable or untenable through the scientific/materialistic lens.

Let me just say, (and I look forward to your response), when I personally look at a “tree” (a living, botanical organism), there is something within that “tree” that is quite different from what I perceive in a “log” or “beam of lumber”. I’m attempting to stay as basic as I possibly can. Human beings cannot “create” living trees. Human beings can only “create” dead trees; logs; lumber. These are facts yes?

Are you following me? Remember, I am not attempting to make a “case for god.”

I follow that a tree is a living, dynamic organism which has ongoing processes which we define as 'alive' whereas logs and lumber are trees which no longer have these ongoing processes. On the other hand, a newly cut-down tree will continue its processes using the available energies (solar and water and nutrients still within it) for a bit of time afterwards. There is no inference to something magical or auric about life. It is a complex set of electro-chemical processes involved in a deeply symbiotic environment for which it has evolved to thrive. In other words, if you plant a tree in the arctic it will not thrive even though sun and water are easily available (because of inhospitable temperature and lack of nutrients among other things). It cannot because any single lifeform on this planet isn't an island unto itself and therefore requires much more than the simple available energies and materials to survive. This is something of a new understanding which we call ecosystems but even that doesn't cover the interconnectedness/interdependence of life and its direct dependence upon its environment. When a human travels to the Moon, it brings along all of the external and internal microbes and enzymes which are part of our us and yet independent organisms which help, for the most part, maintain our organism. Without them, we might die or, at least, not maintain health.

Is there not a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life, and does not that Sublime Mystery deserve to be respected by all human beings?

No, I don't see it as a sublime mystery. I see it as a fact of how the universe works. Life is not some improbable construct existing out of synch with the universe. It is wholly probable and exists as an example of what this universe's laws and chemical properties are capable of doing under certain conditions and given lots of time (billions of years). I await the day when we truly discover life created and evolved independently on another world as it will allow us to know so much more about the processes which allow it to happen - and more deeply erode the 'sublime mystery' which plagues us.

kuroyume0161

26th January 2010, 08:00 PM

*takes drink*

*takes drink*

Oh, was I supposed to wait until I read that to start the drinking? Darn! :D

annnnoid

26th January 2010, 08:01 PM

Maia….there is no skepticism when it comes to those concepts you mentioned because….they….don’t….care. They’re not skeptics, they’re children who like to think they’re right and don’t want to make the effort to discover that they’re not. They just want to believe what they believe. They’re just as religious as the illiterate religious folks they so love to spit on. Ridicule, slander, insult, contempt, mockery, disdain, caricature, sneering, taunting, defamation, derision, scorn…….this is the standard vocabulary for many of them. Occasionally someone actually says something substantial….like Kuroyume. For many though it’s nothing but empty prattle.

But we live in a democracy, where everyone is allowed a voice. What was it Churchill said about democracy?....the worst system there is…..except for all the others.

Autumnman made some decent points. I guess it was inevitable that ignorance would appear. I’d like to hear more of what he has to say….if he doesn’t mind having to ignore the occasional irritant.

Maia

26th January 2010, 08:23 PM

*takes drink*

*takes drink*

Seriously, must you turn every thread into your "Dawkins sucks, Gould rules" hobbyhorse?

If you have any actual arguments to make, then feel free to make them anytime; if you have any actual answers to anything I have said, then feel free to offer them. Until then, I can only conclude that you are unable to respond to what has actually been said, which is a collection of arguments, facts, and logic, not the caricature you present. I don't think you're doing your own case any favors by presenting absolutely no semblance of any logical argument whatsoever, and it's hard to believe you can't see that. I really think you're smarter than the way you're presenting yourself, and you can do better.

I never used to post anything like this, but I'm just not as overly bend-over-backwards nice as I used to be around here, frankly.

arthwollipot

26th January 2010, 10:57 PM

....because that is not its logical conclusion. The key word in what you wrote is the word 'just'. Why do suppose that is the key word?

As for your previous question: "How else do you suggest we distinguish between things that are true and things that aren't?"

Are your thoughts true?
Are your feelings true?
Are your memories true?

…prove it!You haven't answered the question. How do we prove it? Please don't dodge. I'm very concerned about distinguishing the true from the false. It's very important to me to know what is and what isn't true. I have a method of doing so, and it involves evidence. Do you have some other method that doesn't involve evidence?

…hate to point it out to you, but you are religious. You believe and have faith in things that you did not create, do not create, do not control, and do not understand.Ah. And now you know what goes on in my head, do you?

Let me tell you honestly - if you want to change my mind about anything, the only reliable way to do so is to show me evidence that I'm wrong. If you can show me that I'm wrong, I will spin on a *********** dime and acknowledge that which can be demonstrated.

Would you say the same? Could you say the same?

You may believe in something that you think is true, but in fact, a very great deal of what you believe in is speculation, approximation, and theory....and a walloping great pile of it is pure fancy. So you do not believe in the truth at all, you believe in some symbolic representation of an approximation of something. The only truth that actually exists, is you, and that is the only variety of authentic truth that there is. Truth is your ability to recognize it. And since science has no idea what 'you' actually are, any relationship you have with yourself is entirely a function of faith.And here we have the solipsism that any speculation on these matters inevitably descends to.

I do not accept solipsism. Of course I take some things on faith. We all do. I have never denied that. The most important thing I take on faith is the proposition that solipsism is false and there is in fact an objective universe out there that can be studied and understood. Once I accept that, everything else suddenly becomes theoretically demonstrable.

And by the way, I'm still not seeing much of "The Case For God" here. All you seem to be doing is trying to debunk everybody else's ideas. Unfortunately you seem to have constructed yourself a big strawman, and are spending all of your time debunking that.

Hokulele

26th January 2010, 11:09 PM

This is the strangest thread with the strangest sub-threads I have seen in the R&P sub-forum in some time.

Meh, I guess I should have joined the drinking game two pages ago.

Dunstan

27th January 2010, 12:35 AM

If you have any actual arguments to make, then feel free to make them anytime; if you have any actual answers to anything I have said, then feel free to offer them. Until then, I can only conclude that you are unable to respond to what has actually been said, which is a collection of arguments, facts, and logic, not the caricature you present. I don't think you're doing your own case any favors by presenting absolutely no semblance of any logical argument whatsoever, and it's hard to believe you can't see that. I really think you're smarter than the way you're presenting yourself, and you can do better.

First of all, there's nothing for me to respond to. All you did was assert your opinion that various scientists who have nothing to do with this thread wrote "bizarre, fact-free," "overwrought purple prose" about "flawed" theories, "silliness," "nonsense," and "tiresome failed-the-basic-logic-class theories."

Second, and more importantly, I'm simply not interested in the subject, and would rather not have you cluttering up every thread with it. Start a couple of threads in Science about it. You're not doing your "case," if you have one, any favors by presenting yourself as a single-topic bore, like the tiresome relative at Thanksgiving who has to drag every conversation back to whatever his obsession is.

Autumnman

27th January 2010, 08:13 AM

While I find the existence of life to be intriguing it ultimately doesn't direct me to consider that there must have been an intelligent force required for such existence to come about.

I completely agree; an intelligent force was not required for existence to come about.

While there are still gaps in our understanding (esp. of origins of life on Earth), there are no mysteries that seem unsolvable or untenable through the scientific/materialistic lens.

There appear to be more than mere "gaps in our understanding especially [regarding the] origins of life on Earth." There are so many mysteries that remain unsolved. Human beings can plant trees, but science cannot figure out how to create a forest. Human beings can kill flies, but no human being has yet learned how to scientifically create one. These two examples are not only facts but they are also metaphors. There is so much more to mortality that science cannot comprehend. There is so much more to nature and the natural universe that science cannot comprehend.
Arrogance and disrespect will not aid science in its quest to learn.

I follow that a tree is a living, dynamic organism which has ongoing processes which we define as 'alive' whereas logs and lumber are trees which no longer have these ongoing processes. On the other hand, a newly cut-down tree will continue its processes using the available energies (solar and water and nutrients still within it) for a bit of time afterwards. There is no inference to something magical or auric about life. It is a complex set of electro-chemical processes involved in a deeply symbiotic environment for which it has evolved to thrive.

I made no mention of “magical” (and I don’t know what auric means} “auric” = of or containing gold in the trivalent state.
At least be in awe and respectful of the “complex set of electro-Chemical processes involved in a deeply symbiotic environment for which it [the tree] has evolved to thrive”. Without trees and forests human mortality could be so diminished as to halt further scientific inquiry.

No, I don't see it as a sublime mystery. I see it as a fact of how the universe works.

We humans do not “know” how the universe works. Some scientists are “learning” how some aspects of the universe most probably functions. But the universe (planet earth included) remains largely unexplained, misunderstood, or mysteriously sublime. Scientific theories are referred to as “theories” due to the fact that all the facts have not yet beem discovered or fully understood.

Life is not some improbable construct existing out of synch with the universe. It is wholly probable and exists as an example of what this universe's laws and chemical properties are capable of doing under certain conditions and given lots of time (billions of years).

And one relatively healthy human being may participate in mortality on planet earth for between 80 and 100 years. We don’t live long enough to “grow-up”.

I await the day when we truly discover life created and evolved independently on another world as it will allow us to know so much more about the processes which allow it to happen - and more deeply erode the 'sublime mystery' which plagues us.

That would be a fantastic day. But we really shouldn’t hold our breath (so to speak).

The “sublime mystery” does not plague the scientist; it is where the scientist performs the enquiries and experiments with hopes of gaining insight and knowledge.
The “sublime mystery” is a gift.
Only someone who truly admits that he/she does not know is capable of opening their limited human brain to the task of learning.

With awe and respect,
Autumnman

Autumnman

27th January 2010, 08:21 AM

Autumnman made some decent points. I guess it was inevitable that ignorance would appear. I’d like to hear more of what he has to say….if he doesn’t mind having to ignore the occasional irritant.

Thanks for your observation regarding the points I am trying to convey. Let's discuss some or all of them.

I do not mind ignoring the occasional irritant (and sometimes I find a bit of comic relief woven into their ramblings).

Autumnman

Pure Argent

27th January 2010, 09:39 AM

There appear to be more than mere "gaps in our understanding especially [regarding the] origins of life on Earth." There are so many mysteries that remain unsolved.

Yet there is no reason to believe that they will remain so.

Human beings can plant trees, but science cannot figure out how to create a forest.

Sure it can. Plant lots of trees.

:cs:

Human beings can kill flies, but no human being has yet learned how to scientifically create one.

It's more a matter of complexity than inability, I think. We've already created RNA in the lab.

There is so much more to mortality that science cannot comprehend. There is so much more to nature and the natural universe that science cannot comprehend.

What makes you believe this?

At least be in awe and respectful of the “complex set of electro-Chemical processes involved in a deeply symbiotic environment for which it [the tree] has evolved to thrive”. Without trees and forests human mortality could be so diminished as to halt further scientific inquiry.

Appreciative? Yes. In awe of? That's going a little far. It is, after all, simply another life form.

Scientific theories are referred to as “theories” due to the fact that all the facts have not yet beem discovered or fully understood.

They're referred to as theories because they are theoretically falsifiable.

That would be a fantastic day. But we really shouldn’t hold our breath (so to speak).

I completely agree. Life is rare, and, given the size of the universe, the odds of us finding another life-containing planet are astronomical.

annnnoid

27th January 2010, 10:02 AM

Y’know Arthwollipot….the issue is not whether I can do this thing or not…. make a case for god. The simple problem is whether or not I want to.

What you should understand, being a reasonably intelligent skeptic, is the meaning of exactly the word you keep throwing around. Evidence.

The very simple question is: What are you evidence of? Now if you take that question right down to it’s fundamentals…..deconstruct the philosophy and the psychology and the sociology and the anthropology and the biology and chemistry and physics and history and linguistics and ontology and epistemology and everything else………and how many people ever do all that………you can actually begin to ask what a human being is, and what the question actually means. There are actually three basic issues: What is a question….how do we ask it…..and why do we ask it ('where' and 'when' happen but they’re kind of academic….and as for 'if'…..that just gets a little weird)?

The very fundamental question is what, exactly, is human identity? In what explicit and specific way do we exist?....and what, exactly, is it that does, in fact, exist? How is it normal that a phenomenon defined by it’s ability to ‘know’ does not ‘know’ what itself is? This is evidence of dysfunction, which itself is evidence of function. Dysfunction and function are everywhere…..so add them all up and tell me what you get.

We are the only (known) phenomenon in the universe with the ability to control the degree to which it will be the phenomenon that it is (while the mass of men may be merely, as Pedro Almodovar caustically observed, animals with coats…..we do aspire to be Shakespeare [why?] and we do sometimes achieve it [how?]). Consciousness, therefore, has functions of degree, as well as kind (it would be called mind over matter if it weren’t such an incendiary statement). Maybe it’s no wonder that conventional science doesn’t want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. It implies a whole range of issues…from Rand to Rumi.

So when it comes to answering these very strange questions….it’s quite a challenge. I don’t know if you’ve ever read any of the occasional attempts made by whoever to describe a theory-of-everything, but they tend to be typically slightly mind-boggling. It’s a lot of work, to put it mildly. I’ve got over a dozen years I’ve put into it…and thousands of pages written about it….but to summarize it here….. well, like I said….it’s a lot of work…..and recently I’ve simply lost interest in doing it. I suppose I could blame it on being irritated by dumb skeptics, but that’s really not it. I rather enjoy submerging them in their own slime and watching them squirm…..I think I must have been the Marquis De Sade in another life. I think that’s what motivated me at first……I just get annnnoid with all this stupidity. But there’s only so much enjoyment to be had from such spectacles…..and the mods keep editing or deleting outright my most entertaining posts…..so I guess it just comes down to money. Call up Randi and tell him I need the million bucks…….and I’ll convince him why he doesn’t exist, and god does.

….and since that isn’t going to happen, I’ll just answer a few of your questions.

As for ‘proving it’….you can’t, not within a conventional meaning of the word. You are your ability to know that something is correct or not. You have faith in something for which there exists no proof (except the fact that if it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t either), or you don’t. Life just seems to work better when that faith is….shall we say, real (is there a scientific definition for ‘real’….as in ‘keepin it real’ ….better tell Jay-Z if you know of one). IOW, when you’re ‘real’, it’s just easier to recognize when something is true or not. The fact that things seem to work, including your ability to arbitrate the veracity of your existence with reasonable accuracy, is evidence that something exists that works. What that ‘something’ is nobody knows. Lots of folks call it God….which, considering the bizarre, mysterious, complex, and incomprehensible dimensions of it….is reasonably accurate. As for a more explicit exploration of those dimensions and how they’re even explored in the first place, that will have to wait for another day….or perhaps another life.

…and no, I obviously don’t know what goes on in your head (you don’t either, but that’s another matter). But it is indisputably indisputable….you and every human being alive or who ever has been exists entirely as a function of something you did not create, do not create, do not control, and do not understand. I usually like to keep things as simple as possible, so as evidence of this I simply point to the fact that nobody yet knows what consciousness….aka: you….actually is. You can blather on all you like about how this works or how that works or evidence this or evidence that….but what it comes right down to is nobody, anywhere, anyhow, knows who or what a human being is. Period.

Lots of folks….and especially skeptics….make one hell of a big show of how much we supposedly do know……..but when we cannot say with any even remote degree of certainty how we know anything at all….let alone why we even exist (or if that’s a ‘real’ question)….then there are some universe sized holes in our individual and collective identities. When someone does come up with such an answer it will be the single most significant discovery in the history of the human race (we’re not looking for evidence of life on other planets, we’re looking for evidence of life on this one…….we’re not trying to figure out if there’s life after death, we’re trying to figure out if there’s life before death). I would explain why but, like I said, it's a lot of work. Unless it involves scalping skeptics, I just don't seem to get motivated anymore.

As for changing my mind. Sure. I’d be happy to. But I’ve looked….and I know for a fact that I’ve looked one f**k of a lot more than most folks, because I’ve had the time and I’ve had the resources and I’m just reasonably good at looking…and I know enough about what I’ve looked at to know that I’m right. I have absolutely no doubt about it what-so-ever. Life is about something and that is indisputable. The fact that most folks don’t know what is also indisputable. Why that fact exists is also indisputable. That people have a very specific POV is indisputable. That most people don’t know how to see past that POV is also indisputable. Why that is also is indisputable. I could go on and on….but if you feel like you have some evidence that might provide an answer that challenges mine go ahead and present it. I’ll listen, but I’ll bet Randi’s million bucks that it won’t.

So I know you’ll say ‘oh it’s just another god-of-the-gaps’ theory. Nope. I’ve filled the gaps….and not with god (at least, not any god that you would recognize). Science is the one that hasn’t filled the gaps, and the one that then goes and expects me to believe that it doesn’t matter (as in ‘consciousness is nothing more than electro-chemical brain functions’). All I ask, like a good skeptic, is what actually does exist in those gaps (because they’re there, and something obviously fills them)… and I’m not stupid enough to try and fit a round answer into a square hole.

RoboTimbo

27th January 2010, 10:17 AM

Y’know Arthwollipot….the issue is not whether I can do this thing or not…. make a case for god. The simple problem is whether or not I want to.

I read the thread title, then I read this, then I quit reading.

annnnoid

27th January 2010, 10:39 AM

....and I guess that says all we need to know about you RoboTimbo.

godless dave

27th January 2010, 11:01 AM

The very fundamental question is what, exactly, is human identity? In what explicit and specific way do we exist?....and what, exactly, is it that does, in fact, exist?

This one is fairly easy. Everything inside your skin or growing out of it is you. Everything outside of it and not growing out of it is not. There are of course a couple caveats.

You can chop off the limbs, ears, nose, and other parts and still think and do the things that make you "you". So in that sense, your brain is you. But the brain is obviously part of the whole organism and, without medical technology that hasn't been invented yet, needs at least the torso to surive, so I think we can fairly say that your body is "you" and your brain is the part of you that feels like you and does all the thinking and feeling.

Then there are all those microorganisms in your intestines. You could live without them, although it would be very hard to digest food, and they can live without you, if they found someone else's gut to live in, and of course they have completely different DNA from you. I think we can safely say that they are not part of "you".

The thrust of your argument seems to be that we don't know how consciousness works, therefore, something profound that somehow has something to do with the human concept of God. Your premise is correct, we don't know how consciousness works, but your conclusion does not follow from it.

RoboTimbo

27th January 2010, 11:03 AM

Post something useful and I'll read it. Why did you start a thread with a title that is a lie?

godless dave

27th January 2010, 11:04 AM

Post something useful and I'll read it. Why did you start a thread with a title that is a lie?

He didn't start the thread. He did, however, imply that there was a case for god. So far, he hasn't made it.

Gord_in_Toronto

27th January 2010, 11:09 AM

We're all entitled to our opinions, but given that autumnman has stated that he is not attempting to convince anyone of a belief in God, is it really necessary to be so dismissive? Isn't the basis of this attitude a dislike of the way that he's expressing how he thinks about certain philosophical issues-- that he somehow doesn't "sound skeptical enough"? If so, then why aren't the same rules applied to Susan Blackmore's bizarre, fact-free maunderings about memes, complete with strange random borrowed scraps of Zen Buddhism, and statements that she doesn't write anything without taking illegal drugs? (I am really not kidding about that one.) Or Richard Dawkin's overwrought purple prose when he waxes eloquent about his (seriously flawed) gene selection theory? (which history will not remember as his finest scientific hour.) Or Dennett's silliness about natural selection as a "universal acid?" Or E.O. Wilson's nonsense about "consilience"? Or Steven Pinker's tiresome failed-the-basic-logic-class theories about "reverse-engineering" the human brain?

Where is all the skepticism when it comes to these concepts? Until it makes some kind of serious appearance, I don't think that the word "jejune" should be thrown around quite so lightly. I could make a lot of reading suggestions in order to understand some of the problems with the above ideas, if desired. Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory would be a very good place to start. It's 1,400 pages long, so anyone interested may want to get cracking now.

Jejune

RoboTimbo

27th January 2010, 11:09 AM

He didn't start the thread. He did, however, imply that there was a case for god. So far, he hasn't made it.

I see that now. Thanks, Dave!

How about it, annnnoid? Do you have anything besides solipsism?

annnnoid

27th January 2010, 11:21 AM

…and another typically dismissive post by another typically supercilious skeptic. Why don’t we just go through this thing and I’ll respond to Pure Argent in the same tone that PA responds to Auumnman.

Originally Posted by Autumnman
There appear to be more than mere "gaps in our understanding especially [regarding the] origins of life on Earth." There are so many mysteries that remain unsolved.
PA: Yet there is no reason to believe that they will remain so.
Annnnoid: How do you come to this vague conclusion? Evidence please….specific, explicit, definitive, and conclusive evidence that establishes which mysteries will be solved and how and why. Otherwise, argue your case a little more judiciously…and don’t be so dismissive of someone else’s generalizations when all you’ve got to offer in response is a bunch of generalizations.

Quote:
Human beings can plant trees, but science cannot figure out how to create a forest.
PA:Sure it can. Plant lots of trees.
Annnnoid: Is it actually necessary to ridicule?.....is it?

Quote:
Human beings can kill flies, but no human being has yet learned how to scientifically create one.
PA: It's more a matter of complexity than inability, I think. We've already created RNA in the lab.
Annnnoid: No, actually, it’s a matter of inability. Check your facts please before you post nonsense.

Quote:
There is so much more to mortality that science cannot comprehend. There is so much more to nature and the natural universe that science cannot comprehend.
PA: What makes you believe this?
Annnnoid: What makes you not? Science does not know what life is, how it got started on this planet, or what a human being is. If you have indisputable, definitive, conclusive evidence to the contrary, please present it. When you do, I will call up my friends at the Nobel committee. ……Thus, there is much that science has yet to comprehend (see quote at bottom of page for an example).

Quote:
At least be in awe and respectful of the “complex set of electro-Chemical processes involved in a deeply symbiotic environment for which it [the tree] has evolved to thrive”. Without trees and forests human mortality could be so diminished as to halt further scientific inquiry.
PA: Appreciative? Yes. In awe of? That's going a little far. It is, after all, simply another life form.
Annnnoid: Of course not. How incredibly naïve. Why would a human being, who at best is capable of going bowling and may at times be capable of successfully completing their tax form….be in awe of the most incomprehensibly complex mysteries in the known universe. After all, it’s just another life form, and PA intends to create one tomorrow after brushing it’s teeth.

Quote:
Scientific theories are referred to as “theories” due to the fact that all the facts have not yet beem discovered or fully understood.
PA: They're referred to as theories because they are theoretically falsifiable.
Annnnoid: They’re called theories for an awful lot of reasons, one of which is because that is exactly what they are. There are degrees of accuracy. All theories are based on assumptions, simply because, fundamentally, there is no explicit understanding or how anything actually works. Things do work, so theories have applications. One of the reasons that theories have applications is because they are falsifiable.

Quote:
That would be a fantastic day. But we really shouldn’t hold our breath (so to speak).
PA: I completely agree. Life is rare, and, given the size of the universe, the odds of us finding another life-containing planet are astronomical.
Annnnoid: Actually I’ll be happy if we find life on this one.

Do I have anything besides solipsism? Nothing that exists in one line or less.

Noam Chomsky

“….It should be obvious to everyone (except, apparently, certain atheists….sorry, I couldn’t resist) that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide, because they often focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world…”

Elizabeth I

27th January 2010, 11:30 AM

@ annnoid: If you would learn to use the "quote" function it would make your posts somewhat easier to read.

godless dave

27th January 2010, 11:40 AM

Noam Chomsky

“….It should be obvious to everyone (except, apparently, certain atheists….sorry, I couldn’t resist) that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide, because they often focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world…”

Yes, this is true, but what does that have to do with a case for God?

"How should we treat others?" is a social and moral question.

"What is consciousness?" is a scientific question. "Why does the universe exist?" is a scientific question. Science is the only reliable method for determining what things are and how they work.

If you want to know how humans feel about something, that's an entirely different kind of question. Obviously, those questions are the ones that are important to most humans. But we should not confuse personal importance with universal significance.

tsig

27th January 2010, 11:45 AM

No --You do not think that there is a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life?
No --You do not think that all life should be respected?

Why on Earth do I think there is a Sublime Mystery that permeates all life?

I have not heard of anyone who has solved the mystery of life in the Universe, or the mystery of mortal existence on planet Earth.

Life is an amazing mystery.

I really wish I'd been told about this. Why do I never get the memo?

Guess you never got told about sex.

godless dave

27th January 2010, 11:47 AM

I agree that life is amazing - to us - and somewhat mysterious - to us. I just don't find that particularly profound.

tsig

27th January 2010, 11:53 AM

<taunts deleted> I guess it was inevitable that ignorance would appear. I’d like to hear more of what he has to say….if he doesn’t mind having to ignore the occasional irritant.

Just had to prove your own point, right?

tsig

27th January 2010, 12:00 PM

@ annnoid: If you would learn to use the "quote" function it would make your posts somewhat easier to read.

I don't think that's his intention.

tsig

27th January 2010, 12:02 PM

I agree that life is amazing - to us - and somewhat mysterious - to us. I just don't find that particularly profound.

It's just staring at your hand and wondering why you have one. Some graduated, others still seem stuck in that dorm room staring at their hand.

godless dave

27th January 2010, 12:08 PM

And I wasn't being dismissive. My post above is the answer to the question "what is 'you'". Some people try to make that question more complicated than it is.

Pure Argent

27th January 2010, 12:54 PM

…and another typically dismissive post by another typically supercilious skeptic.

You may want to reread, as I wasn't being either of those things.

Why don’t we just go through this thing and I’ll respond to Pure Argent in the same tone that PA responds to Auumnman.

Well, as I wasn't talking to you, I don't really give a flying fudge.

Annnnoid: How do you come to this vague conclusion? Evidence please….specific, explicit, definitive, and conclusive evidence that establishes which mysteries will be solved and how and why.

We have, as of yet, not found any reason to believe that science is incapable of solving all the mysteries. If you have evidence that there is some fundamental law which prevents us from doing so, present it. Otherwise, your claim is dismissed.

Annnnoid: Is it actually necessary to ridicule?.....is it?

I wasn't ridiculing. I am, as a general rule, not a serious person. I was making a joke, annnnoid. I kind of thought that the :cs: made that rather obvious.

Annnnoid: No, actually, it’s a matter of inability. Check your facts please before you post nonsense.

Actually, no, it's a matter of complexity, as we have created RNA in the laboratory. Please check the facts before you post blatant inaccuracies.

Annnnoid: What makes you not? Science does not know what life is,

Bollocks.

how it got started on this planet,

Bollocks.

or what a human being is.

Bollocks.

If you have indisputable, definitive, conclusive evidence to the contrary, please present it. When you do, I will call up my friends at the Nobel committee.

Life got started on this planet through chemical reactions. Life is a series of self-sustaining and -replicating chemical reactions. A human being is a specific type of organism.

……Thus, there is much that science has yet to comprehend (see quote at bottom of page for an example).

You still have no proof that there is something which prevents science from being capable of discovering the answers to all the mysteries.

Annnnoid: Of course not. How incredibly naïve.

And you accuse me of mocking?

Why would a human being, who at best is capable of going bowling and may at times be capable of successfully completing their tax form….be in awe of the most incomprehensibly complex mysteries in the known universe. After all, it’s just another life form, and PA intends to create one tomorrow after brushing it’s teeth.

I never said that. I just feel no reason to be in awe of something like a tree. That you do is not indicative of a flaw on my part.

Annnnoid: They’re called theories for an awful lot of reasons, one of which is because that is exactly what they are.

Yes, a theory being defined as (for reference later, if needed):

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

From the Merriam-Webster.

There are degrees of accuracy.

Undoubtedly.

All theories are based on assumptions, simply because, fundamentally, there is no explicit understanding or how anything actually works.

Hm? Are you asserting that there is no such thing as causality?

Things do work, so theories have applications. One of the reasons that theories have applications is because they are falsifiable.

Agreed.

Annnnoid: Actually I’ll be happy if we find life on this one.

I have some news for you...

Do I have anything besides solipsism? Nothing that exists in one line or less.

*sighs*

Metaphysics is absolutely useless, annnnoid. All of this stuff about brains in vats, solipsism, p-zombies... none of it actually means anything.

Noam Chomsky

“….It should be obvious to everyone (except, apparently, certain atheists….sorry, I couldn’t resist) that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide, because they often focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world…”

And this is evidence that science cannot find all the answers how...?

SumDood

27th January 2010, 01:01 PM

annnnoid

27th January 2010, 01:59 PM

I seem to have provoked an indignant response. Oh well.

I'm not really interested in any more battles Argent. If you think you're right about your points, then you are free to do so.

tsig

27th January 2010, 02:04 PM

I seem to have provoked an indignant response. Oh well.

I'm not really interested in any more battles Argent. If you think you're right about your points, then you are free to do so.

Would you understand the answer to life's mysteries if you got it?

Lord Emsworth

27th January 2010, 02:28 PM

I have not heard of anyone who has solved the mystery of life in the Universe, or the mystery of mortal existence on planet Earth.

Neither did I hear of such a solution. On the other hand, "God" is that solution.

Now you only need to put the two together ...

Pure Argent

27th January 2010, 02:35 PM

I seem to have provoked an indignant response. Oh well.

When you insult someone, what do you expect?

I'm not really interested in any more battles Argent. If you think you're right about your points, then you are free to do so.

Any more battles? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've been talking to you.

annnnoid

27th January 2010, 03:06 PM

Tsig…..are you aware that you just asked a real question. Better be careful, you might be coming down with something.

Actually it is a very good question. THE question, even.

‘Would you understand the answer to life's mysteries if you got it?’

One of life’s so called mysteries is the ability to understand. See things as they are. Everyone naturally assumes they do, in fact, see things as they are. Like, how else is there to see anything? So close your eyes. What about that kind of seeing?

Some dude named St. Paul once said that we see as though through a glass darkly. Any competent psychologist could tell how relevant that is. Question is, what happens when there’s no dark glass anymore? …and what is this ‘dark glass’ anyway, and how do we know it exists? And what’s it got to do with ‘god’? And what’s it got to do with Chomsky’s thin understanding? And what’s it got to do with consciousness, and how we do, or don’t, know what it is?

What’s interesting about this point in the history of history is that scientists are asking what understanding itself actually is (…sorry Argent, they don’t, in fact, know). What will happen when understanding answers itself….with the right answer? And can it answer with the right answer, if it cannot understand the right answer? Sounds even more mind boggling than QED! Actually, it is.

….as for me, if I got it, I would understand it. But if I didn’t get it….? Question is, how is it….got?

Stay tuned for another episode of…..as the skeptic universe turns.

godless dave

27th January 2010, 03:22 PM

You can't see anything with your eyes closed.

Of course we only see part of the picture. Our eyes only detect a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, and only things bigger than a certain size. Our ears detect vibrations of air (or water, or whatever our ear is in contact with) molecules in some frequencies but not in others. Things moving very slowly seem stationary to us. Things moving very quickly seem to not be there at all.

But what does that have to do with a case of God?

Pure Argent

27th January 2010, 03:31 PM

Being unable to perceive everything != god exists. You're doing nothing but god-of-the-gaps, annnnoid. Nothing new under the sun, and just as unconvincing as it was when theist apologists first dreamed it up.

kuroyume0161

27th January 2010, 03:34 PM

One of life’s so called mysteries is the ability to understand. See things as they are. Everyone naturally assumes they do, in fact, see things as they are. Like, how else is there to see anything? So close your eyes. What about that kind of seeing?

Some dude named St. Paul once said that we see as though through a glass darkly. Any competent psychologist could tell how relevant that is. Question is, what happens when there’s no dark glass anymore? …and what is this ‘dark glass’ anyway, and how do we know it exists? And what’s it got to do with ‘god’? And what’s it got to do with Chomsky’s thin understanding? And what’s it got to do with consciousness, and how we do, or don’t, know what it is?

Chomsky is an a-hole. He's about at the same location on my list as Ben Stein. Shew. Got that out of the way.

We do not see things 'as they are'. We perceive things via a number of different organs of perception according to the fidelity and range of those organs. For instance, we can't hear *ALL* sound as it is. Our human ears are limited to a general range of 20Hz-20kHz in sound frequency as well as varied thresholds of loudness (dB) depending upon frequency below which we cannot hear and above which cause pain (and actual damage to the organ). We use technological equipment to supplement our ability to perceive things beyond our perception. Elephants can 'hear' sounds way below our perceptive range (subsonic - which literally means 'below sound'). Raptor birds (hawks, eagles, osprey) have the ability to see much more detail than humans. Many nocturnal animals have various ways to sense at night (gathering of more light, seeing in infra-red, using sonar, etc.).

This is why subjective perception as the way to understand the universe is one big fail. We need to pool resources and find ways to perceive which cancel out such limitations. Again, science is that methodology. With it, we can 'see' the solar corona, high-energy particles, the surface of atoms, elephant long-distance communications, and many other things otherwise hidden from our senses. So, while our own perceptions are limited (and we know them!) we are not blind as bats - because we can invent ways to sense things in an objective way that augments our perceptions. The notion of 'seeing' reality as it is is, to me anyway, a science fiction or fantasy. It is not possible to experience reality in a pure form. We are experiencing it in as pure a form as we will ever get.

I don't see how this discourse, though, is relevant to the OP. There still has been no positive case for god made. I think we are at the end of this thread and can declare God dead as Nietzsche did some time ago.

arthwollipot

27th January 2010, 04:35 PM

Okay, annnnoid. There's no way I'm going to do a point-by-point reply to your entire wall of text. I'm tired and frankly I can't be bothered. Suffice to say that I strongly disagree with almost everything that you've said. Here are a few highlights.

Y’know Arthwollipot….the issue is not whether I can do this thing or not…. make a case for god. The simple problem is whether or not I want to.As others have said, the thread is called "The Case For God". I would have thought that making a case for god was kinda the point. If you don't want to make a case for god, you don't have to - but it leads me to wonder why you're bothering.

What you should understand, being a reasonably intelligent skeptic, is the meaning of exactly the word you keep throwing around. Evidence.A dictionary suffices.

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.The very simple question is: What are you evidence of?...Blah blah blah.

The very fundamental question is what, exactly, is human identity?...Blah blah blah.

It's not that I'm dismissing your opinions here, annnnoid, it's... well, yeah, actually I'm dismissing your opinions. I spend very little intellectual time on epistemology. I find that it's a complete and utter waste of time asking things like "what is the meaning of being human?". I am human, I exist, and I assume that the universe also exists and is amenable to study.

So when it comes to answering these very strange questions….it’s quite a challenge.No it isn't. You can choose as I do to assume that I exist, you exist, the universe exists, and spend time instead thinking about how things work.

...and recently I’ve simply lost interest in doing it.I sympathise. I lost interest in philosophical epistemology years ago. I prefer to think about physics and biology instead.

I suppose I could blame it on being irritated by dumb skeptics, but that’s really not it. I rather enjoy submerging them in their own slime and watching them squirm…Condescending arrogance. This is one of the main reasons I dismiss your opinions - your attitude towards those who disagree with you.

I think I must have been the Marquis De Sade in another life. I think that’s what motivated me at first……I just get annnnoid with all this stupidity. But there’s only so much enjoyment to be had from such spectacles…..and the mods keep editing or deleting outright my most entertaining posts…..so I guess it just comes down to money. Call up Randi and tell him I need the million bucks…….and I’ll convince him why he doesn’t exist, and god does.This is not helping your case. And you wonder why you keep getting moderated? This is why.

...You have faith in something for which there exists no proofDid you actually read what I said? I said I have faith in the objective existence of the universe because wondering about proof starts an inexorable slide into solipsism, which is a philosophical dead end. It's completely and utterly pointles discussing solipsism, because you can conclude absolutely nothing about a universe that you don't accept the existence of.

Lots of folks call it God….which, considering the bizarre, mysterious, complex, and incomprehensible dimensions of it….is reasonably accurate.I disagree. God also includes attributes of self-knowledge, concern for humanity, an ability to intervene when requested, and sometimes insane jealousy and genocidal rage. When you eliminate those anthropomorphic attributes, you are left with the universe and the laws of physics.

…and no, I obviously don’t know what goes on in your head (you don’t either, but that’s another matter)I at least know some of the things that go on in my head, which is more than you do. You can know me only by my writings (and, if you listen to my podcast, recordings of my voice), and I don't put everything that goes on in my head in writing.

...But it is indisputably indisputable….you and every human being alive or who ever has been exists entirely as a function of something you did not create, do not create, do not controlI can't disagree with this.

and do not understand.I very much disagree with this. Your premise here seems to be that humans are incapable of understanding the universe. I dispute that. While I would agree that it would be more or less impossible in practice for one person to have in her mind every single known fact about the universe, there is no general principle that prevents it apart from the limitations of the human lifespan. There is nothing fundamentally un-understandable about the universe. Everything about the universe can, in principle, be understood by humans.

...nobody yet knows what consciousness… actually is... nobody, anywhere, anyhow, knows who or what a human being is. Period.Yeah, so? Once again, you are assuming that just because something cannot be fully described now, it will forever remain out of our grasp. Personally, I think humans are smarter than that. We will one day understand how it is that consciousness - mind - arises from the physical substructure of the brain. There are a lot of people much smarter than I am who are working on the problem every day. Are they doomed to failure? I don't think so. I think it would be terribly pessimistic and cynical to dismiss their entire body of work before they've even had a chance.

(we’re not looking for evidence of life on other planets, we’re looking for evidence of life on this one…….we’re not trying to figure out if there’s life after death, we’re trying to figure out if there’s life before death).You know what? We're really not. I'm pretty sure anyone you ask will say that they already have evidence of life on earth. Personally, I'm satisfied that there's life on earth and life before death. I spend exactly zero time wondering how I know these things.

I would explain why but, like I said, it's a lot of work. Unless it involves scalping skeptics, I just don't seem to get motivated anymore.You've written an awful lot of words for someone who isn't motivated.

As for changing my mind. Sure. I’d be happy to.Can you give me an example of a situation where you have looked at something and changed your mind about it? What was it that convinced you?

Life is about something and that is indisputable.I dispute it. Life isn't about anything. It simply is. We are a product of ordinary physical processes that happens to have achieved a certain level of self-organisation, and nothing more. We have no meaning or purpose beyond what we give to ourselves.

So I know you’ll say ‘oh it’s just another god-of-the-gaps’ theory.Point of fact: I have not raised the god of the gaps.

Science is the one that hasn’t filled the gapsThere's a vast difference between saying this and saying "science will never be able to fill the gaps", which is what you're doing when you use words like "mysterious" and "unfathomable".

I'll stop there, because I've come very close to the point-by-point discussion that I said I wasn't going to do. My philosophy is this. Yes, there are gaps. Yes, I believe that science is capable - in principle - of one day filling those gaps. It fills more and more gaps every day - every time a new paper is published, another gap is filled. There are still many more to go, and it'll take a long time to fill them all. More than my lifetime, to be sure. But if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, one day all those gaps will be filled.

Gord_in_Toronto

27th January 2010, 08:13 PM

okay, annnnoid. There's no way i'm going to do a point-by-point reply to your entire wall of text. I'm tired and frankly i can't be bothered. Suffice to say that i strongly disagree with almost everything that you've said. Here are a few highlights.

As others have said, the thread is called "the case for god". I would have thought that making a case for god was kinda the point. If you don't want to make a case for god, you don't have to - but it leads me to wonder why you're bothering.

A dictionary suffices.

Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah.

It's not that i'm dismissing your opinions here, annnnoid, it's... Well, yeah, actually i'm dismissing your opinions. I spend very little intellectual time on epistemology. I find that it's a complete and utter waste of time asking things like "what is the meaning of being human?". I am human, i exist, and i assume that the universe also exists and is amenable to study.

No it isn't. You can choose as i do to assume that i exist, you exist, the universe exists, and spend time instead thinking about how things work.

I sympathise. I lost interest in philosophical epistemology years ago. I prefer to think about physics and biology instead.

Condescending arrogance. This is one of the main reasons i dismiss your opinions - your attitude towards those who disagree with you.

This is not helping your case. And you wonder why you keep getting moderated? This is why.

Did you actually read what i said? I said i have faith in the objective existence of the universe because wondering about proof starts an inexorable slide into solipsism, which is a philosophical dead end. It's completely and utterly pointles discussing solipsism, because you can conclude absolutely nothing about a universe that you don't accept the existence of.

I disagree. God also includes attributes of self-knowledge, concern for humanity, an ability to intervene when requested, and sometimes insane jealousy and genocidal rage. When you eliminate those anthropomorphic attributes, you are left with the universe and the laws of physics.

I at least know some of the things that go on in my head, which is more than you do. You can know me only by my writings (and, if you listen to my podcast, recordings of my voice), and i don't put everything that goes on in my head in writing.

I can't disagree with this.

I very much disagree with this. Your premise here seems to be that humans are incapable of understanding the universe. I dispute that. While i would agree that it would be more or less impossible in practice for one person to have in her mind every single known fact about the universe, there is no general principle that prevents it apart from the limitations of the human lifespan. There is nothing fundamentally un-understandable about the universe. Everything about the universe can, in principle, be understood by humans.

Yeah, so? Once again, you are assuming that just because something cannot be fully described now, it will forever remain out of our grasp. Personally, i think humans are smarter than that. We will one day understand how it is that consciousness - mind - arises from the physical substructure of the brain. There are a lot of people much smarter than i am who are working on the problem every day. Are they doomed to failure? I don't think so. I think it would be terribly pessimistic and cynical to dismiss their entire body of work before they've even had a chance.

You know what? We're really not. I'm pretty sure anyone you ask will say that they already have evidence of life on earth. Personally, i'm satisfied that there's life on earth and life before death. I spend exactly zero time wondering how i know these things.

You've written an awful lot of words for someone who isn't motivated.

Can you give me an example of a situation where you have looked at something and changed your mind about it? What was it that convinced you?

I dispute it. Life isn't about anything. It simply is. We are a product of ordinary physical processes that happens to have achieved a certain level of self-organisation, and nothing more. We have no meaning or purpose beyond what we give to ourselves.

Point of fact: I have not raised the god of the gaps.

There's a vast difference between saying this and saying "science will never be able to fill the gaps", which is what you're doing when you use words like "mysterious" and "unfathomable".

I'll stop there, because i've come very close to the point-by-point discussion that i said i wasn't going to do. My philosophy is this. Yes, there are gaps. Yes, i believe that science is capable - in principle - of one day filling those gaps. It fills more and more gaps every day - every time a new paper is published, another gap is filled. There are still many more to go, and it'll take a long time to fill them all. More than my lifetime, to be sure. But if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, one day all those gaps will be filled.

not jejune! ;)