Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on November 05, 2021, 01:21:28 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a video interview with Rupert Sheldrake...scientist and philosopher. Very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzkMXoC8hQ
He speaks well and is very articulate. Speaks of science, materialism, spirituality, atheism and many other things.
I know some of you will just dismiss him away.....typically. However, some others may find his talk very interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a video interview with Rupert Sheldrake...scientist and philosopher. Very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzkMXoC8hQ
He speaks well and is very articulate. Speaks of science, materialism, spirituality, atheism and many other things.
I know some of you will just dismiss him away.....typically. However, some others may find his talk very interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
Given his reputation for pseudoscience he is easily dismissed.
-
Given his reputation for pseudoscience he is easily dismissed.
Having heard him a bit here and there, I'm glad that his son, Merlin, of Entangled Life'* does not seem to have followed his path into pseudo-science. My (older) son read me 'Entangled Life' over the phone and we were both very interested in it.
From a wikipedia page or something, I have read that Rupert Sheldrake did some pioneering work in something or other in the serious world of science before his delusion of a faith belief set in which should of course be given the credit it merits, but I must say I do not wish him well on the bandwagon of publishing books referring to the paranormal etc.
*This book is one of the six on the list from which best Science book of the year will be chosen.
Rupert Sheldrake's voice has a somewhat smug air to it in my opinion and I wonder if he is trying to convince himself he made the right vchoice going into the pseudo-science area. c
-
Given his reputation for pseudoscience he is easily dismissed.
Materialism is philosophy Gordon. So you are committing a fallacy suggesting that everything he says is dismissable.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a video interview with Rupert Sheldrake...scientist and philosopher. Very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzkMXoC8hQ
He speaks well and is very articulate. Speaks of science, materialism, spirituality, atheism and many other things.
I know some of you will just dismiss him away.....typically. However, some others may find his talk very interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
I believe he was cancelled by the TEDocracy for criticising materialism.
-
Having heard him a bit here and there, I'm glad that his son, Merlin, of Entangled Life'* does not seem to have followed his path into pseudo-science. My (older) son read me 'Entangled Life' over the phone and we were both very interested in it.
From a wikipedia page or something, I have read that Rupert Sheldrake did some pioneering work in something or other in the serious world of science before his delusion of a faith belief set in
A career path like Dawkins then.
-
Materialism is philosophy Gordon. So you are committing a fallacy suggesting that everything he says is dismissable.
Nope - I'm simply referring to an oft-made criticism of him: that he peddles overt pseudoscience, and on that basis I'd say he can be dismissed.
-
It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories.
Obsessive materialism (physicalism) is the problem.
-
Obsessive materialism (physicalism) is the problem.
Perhaps dualism is the problem.
-
It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories.
No, it's pseudoscience because he isn't doing science but claims that he is. He's not doing science because his ideas are not properly formulated hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified. They are also at odds with real theories that have been tested.
-
It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories.
That demonstrate that you completely misunderstand what a scientific theory is. It isn't some kind of guess or assertion - here is a standard definition:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
So a theory in science is an explanation based on really, really strong evidence and data. So if Sheldrake has no evidence (he doesn't) then he has no theory in scientific terms. If he claims he does then he is playing at pseudoscience, not practicing science.
-
I thought we were talking about Sheldrake on materialism not his cockamamy science.
Now I bet people here don’t know what those are and are arguing they don’t need to (The Myer’s shuffle).
First of all, he accuses many in the scientific establishment of crusading for philosophical materialism.
Secondly he argues that materialism requires a couple of miracles I.e supernatural events to be true.
While there are Sheldrake’s about more heinous offences are slipping under the radar and here I mean
Sean M Carroll who has sought to eliminate the principle of sufficient reason and those authors who contribute to the Edge organisation on what they would remove from science.
-
Nope Nope it isn’t a philosophy or nope it doesn’t matter if it is or not we can still dismiss him wholesale whatever he says on anything
- I'm simply referring to an oft-made criticism of him: that he peddles overt pseudoscience, and on that basis I'd say he can be dismissed.
ok so it may be ok to dismiss his pseudoscience on it’s merits but dismissing anything and everything he says is fallacious.
-
I thought we were talking about Sheldrake on materialism not his cockamamy science.
Now I bet people here don’t know what those are and are arguing they don’t need to (The Myer’s shuffle).
You mean like his 'morphic resonance' notion (which has been well and truly trashed). I'd imagine that others here are at least aware of this, albeit pseudoscience like this doesn't merit much in the way of attention.
First of all, he accuses many in the scientific establishment of crusading for philosophical materialism.
Secondly he argues that materialism requires a couple of miracles I.e supernatural events to be true.
While there are Sheldrake’s about more heinous offences are slipping under the radar and here I mean
Sean M Carroll who has sought to eliminate the principle of sufficient reason and those authors who contribute to the Edge organisation on what they would remove from science.
If you're going to defend Sheldrake and extrapolate from that then I'll leave you to it: I've got some drying paint that needs watching.
-
That demonstrate that you completely misunderstand what a scientific theory is. It isn't some kind of guess or assertion - here is a standard definition:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
So a theory in science is an explanation based on really, really strong evidence and data. So if Sheldrake has no evidence (he doesn't) then he has no theory in scientific terms. If he claims he does then he is playing at pseudoscience, not practicing science.
We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.
His discussion is largely about Consciousness and the mind, about which science has no definitive ideas at all.
Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others. Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience. Sam Harris also quotes from Buddhist ideas.
-
This is Sheldrake on materialism
It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”’17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry
-
You mean like his 'morphic resonance' notion (which has been well and truly trashed). I'd imagine that others here are at least aware of this, albeit pseudoscience like this doesn't merit much in the way of attention.
If you're going to defend Sheldrake and extrapolate from that then I'll leave you to it: I've got some drying paint that needs watching.
All you are saying here is that because Sheldrake’s pseudoscience was so heinous that permits us to unfallaciously dismiss everything he say’s. That’s a fallacy Gordon.
-
We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses.
Sriram - there is a massive difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. If you don't understand the difference I suggest you do and do some homework.
But even if Sheldrake has a valid scientific hypothesis, to be valid it needs to be based on some prior evidence. And the whole purpose of a hypothesis is for it to be tested via the scientific method in order to obtain evidence and data which inform further hypotheses to be tested and so on. Eventually when sufficient repeatable data are obtained from the testing of multiple hypotheses then we may come to a point where we can derive a theory.
But to an extent all scientific theories remain speculative as they are the best explanation based on the available evidence, which must be a considerable amount of evidence. But, of course, as we conduct further science we may end up with new data which means that a different or variant theory is a better explanation. But we don't just chop and change on theories all the time - why, because for something to be a theory there must be really strong evidence for it.
That's how science works.
-
Sheldrake does have a valid hypothesis. As valid as any of the others that I mentioned above.
-
Sriram - there is a massive difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. If you don't understand the difference I suggest you do and do some homework.
But even if Sheldrake has a valid scientific hypothesis, to be valid it needs to be based on some prior evidence. And the whole purpose of a hypothesis is for it to be tested via the scientific method in order to obtain evidence and data which inform further hypotheses to be tested and so on. Eventually when sufficient repeatable data are obtained from the testing of multiple hypotheses then we may come to a point where we can derive a theory.
But to an extent all scientific theories remain speculative as they are the best explanation based on the available evidence, which must be a considerable amount of evidence. But, of course, as we conduct further science we may end up with new data which means that a different or variant theory is a better explanation. But we don't just chop and change on theories all the time - why, because for something to be a theory there must be really strong evidence for it.
That's how science works.
And yet at least two laddies on this forum argue that others may be proved wrong by what might be in an unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe....and nobody bats an eyelid......bonkers.
-
We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.
In principal you are absolutely correct, the fact that they are Sheldrake's ideas rather than someone else's isn't sufficient basis to reject them. However, these comparisons you are trying to make are not like for like.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are explicitly terms for phenomena we observe for which we currently don't have a good explanation - they are not claims, they are place-holders for areas where we currently know we don't have any good ideas.
Parallel universes and multiple dimensions are more philosophy than science, an idea which in the future may or may not be testable but currently is not - currently it's just fanciful thinking that borrows from some current science as a basis.
String theory is a mathematical model which explains some (but not all) observable effects at a quantum level, and is theoretically testable if a) it gets refined into a complete explanation and b) we develop suitable equipment.
Genomorphic theory was Sheldrake's attempt to explain phenomena that either didn't exist, or which had other explanations in line with demonstrated science.
His discussion is largely about Consciousness and the mind, about which science has no definitive ideas at all.
Science has not finished exploring consciousness, it's true, but Sheldrake's ideas around consciousness are not science because they aren't testable. Again, that doesn't, of itself, make them wrong, but it does make his claims of science in regard of his work on consciousness wrong, and it makes his prominent expression of his science education and background in support of his claims at least unethical, if not downright dishonest.
Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others. Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience. Sam Harris also quotes from Buddhist ideas.
Again, it's not about who is making the argument, it's about how the argument stacks up. Sheldrake, and others, make up untestable and unevidenced explanations to 'explain' phenomena, which they're allowed to do, and we're allowed to dismiss. To my knowledge, the other people you've cited don't claim 'science' when they do it, but Sheldrake does.
O.
-
We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses.
Yet again you're showing your ignorance by lumping all those things together as if they were even all in the same category. As I've explained to you many times, they aren't.
No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.
Yes, there is. He's basically just made up something vague and undefined, apparently just because he likes it and/or thinks he can make more money selling new age woo than he could doing real science.
Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others.
These people's ideas are not even similar to each other.
Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience.
That's not why he's dismissed as pseudoscience.
-
This is Sheldrake on materialism
It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”’17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry
So, he talks shit about that too. ::)
-
And yet at least two laddies on this forum argue that others may be proved wrong by what might be in an unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe....and nobody bats an eyelid......bonkers.
Nobody has attempted to prove anything at all by anything without evidence, except that your argument doesn't take into account all the possibilities. Are you really too dim to get that?
-
We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.
His discussion is largely about Consciousness and the mind, about which science has no definitive ideas at all.
Also, there are many others who share similar ideas....Chalmers, Tononi, Hoffman and others. Just because Sheldrake quotes extensively from Hindu philosophical ideas, his ideas need not be dismissed as pseudoscience. Sam Harris also quotes from Buddhist ideas.
Isn’t the level of vilification of Sheldrake though down to his criticism of materialism. After all he was considered ok enough to be invited to give a TED talk after which the vilification really started.
I think the animus against him might partially be down to snobbery because in his book about ideas that deserve investigation he chose things that the person in the street was interested in.
-
...and here I mean
Sean M Carroll who has sought to eliminate the principle of sufficient reason...
From somebody who thinks it can be adhered to simply by making trite, utterly baseless assertions. ::)
-
So, he talks shit about that too. ::)
Explain why without bringing up anything outside seemless, causal explanation.
-
Isn’t the level of vilification of Sheldrake though down to his criticism of materialism. After all he was considered ok enough to be invited to give a TED talk after which the vilification really started.
I think the animus against him might partially be down to snobbery because in his book about ideas that deserve investigation he chose things that the person in the street was interested in.
Sheldrake's ideas are speculative of course....but that by itself does not warrant being dismissed as pseudoscience. There are lots of speculative ideas in science that have no real evidence to support them. Mathematics by itself cannot be taken as evidence.
The fact that he quotes from Hindu texts and is sometimes supported by Deepak Chopra is what some people consider as a big joke. They have no real argument against him because he is speculating about phenomena that no one has any clear ideas about anyway.
-
All you are saying here is that because Sheldrake’s pseudoscience was so heinous that permits us to unfallaciously dismiss everything he say’s. That’s a fallacy Gordon.
No it isn't: it is fair comment in that what this guy is known for is overt pseudoscience, and it isn't a fallacy to point that out.
Perhaps you should, since you seem to be a Sheldrake apologist, cite something of his that hasn't been critiqued as being pseudoscience.
-
Sheldrake does have a valid hypothesis. As valid as any of the others that I mentioned above.
Do he - and what evidence is he basing that hypothesis on. And how can that hypothesis be tested using the scientific method. For a scientific hypothesis to be valid it must be based on prior evidence and be testable.
-
Explain why without bringing up anything outside seemless, causal explanation.
Philosophical materialism is irrelevant anyway. Either we have some methodology from which we can tell what is likely to be correct or we're into blind guessing. As for why things exist and are as they are, nobody has an answer to that, regardless of materialism. And "seamless causal explanations" is not a restriction on science.
-
Philosophical materialism is irrelevant anyway. Either we have some methodology from which we can tell what is likely to be correct or we're into blind guessing. As for why things exist and are as they are, nobody has an answer to that, regardless of materialism. And "seamless causal explanations" is not a restriction on science.
An inadequate answer to why you assert that Sheldrake’s statement is shit i’m Afraid.
Cause and effect is science as is causal explanation. What Sheldrake points out is that materialism demand suspension of itself to establish itself in a sudden appearance I would add the equally miraculous infinite regress here which also requires the suspension of causal explanation.
-
Philosophical materialism is irrelevant anyway.
Hardly when this thread is all about materialism.
-
Cause and effect is science as is causal explanation.
Causality is a part of science. It is not all of science. This may have been a reasonable statement before relativity and quantum mechanics, not now.
What Sheldrake points out is that materialism demand suspension of itself to establish itself in a sudden appearance I would add the equally miraculous infinite regress here which also requires the suspension of causal explanation.
As I said, philosophical materialism is irrelevant to science. There are some things we don't know and why things exist and are as they are is a question that nobody has an adequate answer for regardless of science or their position on philosophical materialism.
Also 'sudden' appearance is an outdated, Newtonian view that doesn't fit with the modern picture of space-time as described by general relativity. An infinite past, a change in direction of time, and closed timelike loops are all logically coherent and do not conflict with what we know from science to date. They are not 'miraculous'.
Hardly when this thread is all about materialism.
You asked me about the quote, which was about science and 'miracles'.
-
It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories.
Obsessive materialism (physicalism) is the problem.
His telepathy phone experiments and his morphic resonance experiments(especially surrounding the dog Jaytee) are classic examples of how not to conduct scientific experiments. Unfortunately for him, they have led to the accusation of pseudoscience, accusations which he has not been able to shrug off. Yes, he has captured the public's imagination(a bit like Von Daniken), but when it comes to evidence for his ideas, this is sorely lacking.
-
We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.
I'm not sure they all are actually. A scientific hypothesis is a guess that you can test. I think dark matter and dark energy would be counted as scientific hypotheses. Parallel universes and string theory are just speculation - we have no idea how to test them yet. Multiple dimensions are self evidently true. There are at least four and four is multiple in my book.
-
Causality is a part of science. It is not all of science. This may have been a reasonable statement before relativity and quantum mechanics, not now.
As I said, philosophical materialism is irrelevant to science. There are some things we don't know and why things exist and are as they are is a question that nobody has an adequate answer for regardless of science or their position on philosophical materialism.
Also 'sudden' appearance is an outdated, Newtonian view that doesn't fit with the modern picture of space-time as described by general relativity. An infinite past, a change in direction of time, and closed timelike loops are all logically coherent and do not conflict with what we know from science to date. They are not 'miraculous'.
You asked me about the quote, which was about science and 'miracles'.
I 'm wondering if spontaneity is in fact causelessness. Out of nothing is surely not what quantum physicists mean after all, a physicists nothing is not the same as a philosophers nothing. If you are insisting on true quantum spontaneity than it seems to me determinism needs to go.
I don't think it detracts from Sheldrakes accusation in anyway since the quantum spontaneous generation of the universe has happened evidently just once.
-
As I said, philosophical materialism is irrelevant to science. There are some things we don't know and why things exist and are as they are is a question that nobody has an adequate answer for regardless of science or their position on philosophical materialism.
Also 'sudden' appearance is an outdated, Newtonian view that doesn't fit with the modern picture of space-time as described by general relativity. An infinite past, a change in direction of time, and closed timelike loops are all logically coherent and do not conflict with what we know from science to date. T
Well having asserted these things it is up to you to demonstrate the logical coherence.
Sure infinities are mathematical but then so are multiverses and those have been placed in the category of philosophy which I agree with. There may well be infinities of time but we have to account for the matter and energy in them or leave it as a mystery.
-
I'm wondering if spontaneity is in fact causelessness. Out of nothing is surely not what quantum physicists mean after all, a physicists nothing is not the same as a philosophers nothing. If you are insisting on true quantum spontaneity than it seems to me determinism needs to go.
You seem to be muddling up various ideas. Quantum mechanics appears to call determinism into question, and some events happen without specific causes. This is a separate issue to the nature of space-time as one manifold with time being families of directions through it. In that picture we just have the four-dimensional manifold. Looking in the past time direction for a reason as to why the manifold exists is fundamentally muddleheaded, whether it's infinite or finite in said direction.
I don't think it detracts from Sheldrakes accusation in anyway since the quantum spontaneous generation of the universe has happened evidently just once.
The quote from Sheldrake is just stupid anyway. Science doesn't rely on 'miracles' it just admits there are things we don't know - and it's not as if anybody else has a credible answer anyway.
If (as one conjecture suggests) the universe could tunnel into existence, then there is no reason at all to think it happened only once, just that it happened at least once.
Well having asserted these things it is up to you to demonstrate the logical coherence.
They can be modelled mathematically without contradictions.
There may well be infinities of time but we have to account for the matter and energy in them or leave it as a mystery.
The existence of space-time is a mystery in the sense of an unanswered question. As I keep saying, nobody has a credible answer as to why things exist and are as they are. It has nothing to do with science or materialism. Making up god(s) or multi-dimensional universe building, supernatural pixies doesn't help because their existence would be just as much of a mystery as the one we started with.
-
Vlad,
… or leave it as a mystery.
Whether or not that’s the case, attempting to solve the mystery by inserting “god” and calling that a mystery too has no explanatory value. I may as well then answer “why god?” with “uygt87t6” and call that a mystery too.
You’re in turtles all the way down territory again here.
-
You seem to be muddling up various ideas. Quantum mechanics appears to call determinism into question, and some events happen without specific causes. This is a separate issue to the nature of space-time as one manifold with time being families of directions through it. In that picture we just have the four-dimensional manifold. Looking in the past time direction for a reason as to why the manifold exists is fundamentally muddleheaded, whether it's infinite or finite in said direction.
I'm afraid I am unable to distinguish this from word salad. And there is no one who is qualified on this forum to run through it.....or if they are qualified have a vested atheistic interest in not commenting on it
The quote from Sheldrake is just stupid anyway. Science doesn't rely on 'miracles' it just admits there are things we don't know - and it's not as if anybody else has a credible answer anyway.
I'm sure Sheldrake is speaking about miraculous in terms of a one off event or an eternal thing both of which science would say was the preserve religion
If (as one conjecture suggests) the universe could tunnel into existence, then there is no reason at all to think it happened only once, just that it happened at least once.
But no evidence for it. So much for importance of evidence
They can be modelled mathematically without contradictions.
If you were to back this assertion up by actually doing it somebody could come along analyse your working and mark it. If it doesn't appear then we suspect you are avoiding scrutiny
The existence of space-time is a mystery
But when I used the word mystery, someone who I will not name shat themselves over it in the sense of an unanswered question. As I keep saying, nobody has a credible answer as to why things exist and are as they are. It has nothing to do with science or materialism. Making up god(s) or multi-dimensional universe building, supernatural pixies doesn't help
Popping out of no where without explanation is supernatural. When do you ever see it happening? A real infinite regress? when did you ever see one of those?
-
Vlad,
Whether or not that’s the case, attempting to solve the mystery by inserting “god” and calling that a mystery too has no explanatory value. I may as well then answer “why god?” with “uygt87t6” and call that a mystery too.
You’re in turtles all the way down territory again here.
No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.
Your caricature view of just shouting the word God at any problem shamanically is er, an ignorant caricature trying to get your horses laugh response....cue more Hillsidean bollocks.
Turtles all the way down? What the fuck are you talking about?
-
I'm afraid I am unable to distinguish this from word salad. And there is no one who is qualified on this forum to run through it.....or if they are qualified have a vested atheistic interest in not commenting on it
While the mathematics is somewhat complicated, you can use a simple analogy. If you ignore two dimensions of space and consider one of space and one of time, then the space-time manifold is analogous to a two-dimensional surface. It may close back on itself, like cylinder or sphere, or it may extend infinitely in all directions, or have an edge.
The fact that you can identify one direction (well, it's not actually a single direction, it depends on the observer) with what we call 'time' does not mean that tracking back along a time direction leading to the past is going to tell you why the surface exists.
I'm sure Sheldrake is speaking about miraculous in terms of a one off event or an eternal thing both of which science would say was the preserve religion
No, it wouldn't.
But no evidence for it. So much for importance of evidence
This is currently only a conjecture anyway. If we had evidence that that is how the universe arose, we'd have pretty clear, albeit indirect, evidence that it didn't happen just once because that would be a massive coincidence. At least we would unless there was something it the competed and tested theory that would suggest it was a unique event.
If were to back this assertion up by actually doing it somebody could come along analyse your working and mark it. If it doesn't appear then we suspect you are avoiding scrutiny
The solutions aren't secret. For example there are multiple solutions involving perhaps the most bizarre possibilities of closed timelike curves: Closed timelike curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve). Other possibilities are outlined in the videos I gave before: Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.0).
But when I used the word mystery, someone who I will not name shat themselves over it
Did they?
-
No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.
So do so, or point to somebody else who has and hasn't made blindingly obvious mistakes and comical attempts to make the argument fit the god they happen to want.
You've made this utterly baseless claim multiple times and you've never once come up with anything remotely coherent. In fact you've spent most of those discussions running away from being explicit about the argument and the supposed necessary entity and trying to shift the burden of proof.
-
Vlad,
No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.
No, we call it “the universe” – and you have no argument that isn’t fallacious to rule out the universe being its own explanation. “God” is just the don’t know (or “mystery”) you try to use to explain the a priori don’t know/mystery. As an explanation it’s worthless, for reasons that have been explained to you many times now.
Your caricature view of just shouting the word God at any problem shamanically is er, an ignorant caricature trying to get your horses laugh response....cue more Hillsidean bollocks.
Except of course that’s exactly what you do: “I don’t know how the universe began, therefore god. I don’t care how god began, therefore mystery” is literally all you have. It’s desperate stuff given how many times you’ve been schooled on it, and calling it a caricature is just dishonest.
Turtles all the way down? What the fuck are you talking about?
Infinite regress, as has been explained to you a bajillion times already.
-
Vlad,
No, we call it “the universe”
and the next question is ''what is necessary about it?''. What is it's sufficient reason for being the necessary entity.?
I'm pretty confident one hasn't come to light because Carroll, who probably has an intellect far in excess of yours hasn't found one hence his uncompleted mission to debunk the principle of sufficient reason. Indeed somebody on this forum referenced the paper he wrote on it..
If you think the universe is the necessary entity demonstrate it.
Carroll knows and I think you know in your heart of hearts that what we can observe is contingent. He is too intelligent to ignore this.
-
and the next question is ''what is necessary about it?''. What is it's sufficient reason for being the necessary entity.?
Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?
How is a necessary entity even a logically coherent concept (other than in the irrelevant and relative sense of necessary for something else specifically; beer for a beer belly)? In other words, how is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist? What would characterise something that would cause some logical problem if it didn't exist?
What is necessary about your god-concept?
What is its sufficient reason for being the necessary entity?
If you think the universe is the necessary entity demonstrate it.
If you think your god-concept is the necessary being, then demonstrate it (after you've answered the questions above, of course).
-
Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?
are you responding to me or Bluehillside. when I said ''No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.'' he said and I quote
No, we call it “the universe”.
I have stated why I disagree with your objections. Now let us see you put your money where your mouth is and take him to task over his belief in the necessary entity.
-
Vlad,
and the next question is ''what is necessary about it?''. What is it's sufficient reason for being the necessary entity.?
To which the answer remains “don’t know, although we do have some hypotheses about that that may or may not be correct”.
So what?
I'm pretty confident one hasn't come to light because Carroll, who probably has an intellect far in excess of yours hasn't found one hence his uncompleted mission to debunk the principle of sufficient reason. Indeed somebody on this forum referenced the paper he wrote on it..
More stupidity. Not having an answer to something doesn’t thereby give you a warrant to drop in whatever notion takes your fancy to fill the gap, especially when you think you can get that notion off the hook of the same question with “it’s a mystery”.
If you think the universe is the necessary entity demonstrate it.
Would it help you if (yet again) I set out for you step-by-step how the burden of proof fallacy works?
Once again, I don’t make the claim that the universe is “the necessary entity” and nor does anyone else here. Endlessly straw manning that doesn’t change the fact of the matter. What I (and everyone else) actually say is that we don’t know whether the universe is the necessary entity, but also that neither you nor anyone else has an argument to show that it isn’t. Therefore it’s possible, and a possibility is all I need.
YOU on the other hand make the positive statement that the universe cannot be the necessary entity, and therefore that something else must be. YOU choose to call that something “god”, and YOU hide behind “it’s magic innit” when asked the same question you ask about the universe.
Do you understand this yet? I don’t need to demonstrate that the universe is the necessary entity at all because it’s not a claim that I make. YOU on the other hand do claim that the universe is not the necessary entity and so the burden of proof is with YOU to demonstrate YOUR claim.
Carroll knows and I think you know in your heart of hearts that what we can observe is contingent. He is too intelligent to ignore this.
Actually post Newtonian physics “what we can observe” may not be all be contingent, but in any case what we can observe tells us nothing about what we can’t observe, and still you have no way out of the fallacy on composition into which you keep collapsing.
Apart from all that though…
-
Vlad,
Once again, I don’t make the claim that the universe is “the necessary entity”
I'm sorry old son you did exactly that in reply#44
You cannot prove someone wrong on the strength of something you yourself cannot prove.
However it is your scientism that doesn't accept logic.
-
are you responding to me or Bluehillside. when I said ''No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.'' he said and I quote
...
I have stated why I disagree with your objections. Now let us see you put your money where your mouth is and take him to task over his belief in the necessary entity.
Blatant evasion noted. Where have you ever answer any of the questions I just put to you? Blue appears to have answered for himself.
Your turn to address my questions, here they are again:-
Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?
How is a necessary entity even a logically coherent concept (other than in the irrelevant and relative sense of necessary for something else specifically; beer for a beer belly)? In other words, how is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist?
What would characterise something that would cause some logical problem if it didn't exist?
What is necessary about your god-concept?
What is its sufficient reason for being the necessary entity?
-
Blatant evasion noted. Where have you ever answer any of the questions I just put to you? Blue appears to have answered for himself.
Then we must question your understanding of the word ''answer''.
-
Then we must question your understanding of the word ''answer''.
Laughable. Okay, where is it you think you've got anywhere near answering any of them?
You seem to have spent most of the other thread either ignoring them or repeatedly evading any direct answers at all.
-
The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'. He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.
The video linked in the OP is quite good (though long). He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!
-
The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'. He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.
The video linked in the OP is quite good (though long). He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!
He is being vilified because he produces pseudoscience, and while that may take some effort I would describe it as 'meaningless' and not 'meaningful': more laughable that laudable.
-
The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'.
It's not ridiculous at all, in fact it's what the evidence is telling us. Even many of the more radical ideas about conciousness that you have previously referred to (IIT and Orch OR, for example), would agree that it is the brain that produces the fully functioning mind.
He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.
He's being vilified because he's a known charlatan who peddles pseudoscience.
He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!
Science doesn't have 'narrow confines' unless you mean that it actually has to be science, rather than wishful thinking or vague, baseless nonsense like "morphic resonance" which seems to mean whatever suits him at the time.
The problem, as always with you, is that you don't care what the source is, how credible the idea is, or even how closely it fits to what you, obviously and desperately, want to be true, if you even think it hints it that direction, you'll jump on it and promote it here.
You're taking the exact opposite of the scientific approach by deciding what's true first and then going to look for anything at all that you think might support it. This is exactly the same approach we get from YECs.
-
The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'. He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.
The video linked in the OP is quite good (though long). He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!
I actually watched the video and found some of it quite interesting, such as his view that materialism was dreadfully ‘depressing’. Presumably this might go some way to explain his apparent need to reject it, leading to such fancies as his belief that the sun is conscious. I’ve no idea what he actually meant by that and he didn’t elaborate, but it does give me pause to wonder why it would actually matter to him one way or the other.
Perhaps a conscious sun would help to re-enchant a universe that seems to have lost its sparkle, but if so then who exactly has disenchanted everything? It seems to me that the version of materialism Sheldrake seeks to escape is precisely the child of dualism, which he now embraces as his salvation.
Once the world has been split by this peculiar creed and all value assigned to the experiencing consciousness then the material stuff left behind is by definition without value. If one is a follower of this wholly unnecessary corruption of thought then I can certainly sympathise with Sheldrake. Materialism must seem awfully dreary.
-
The ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism posit that the whole universe and everything in it, is conscious.
-
The ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism posit that the whole universe and everything in it, is conscious.
I am aware of that. What I don't understand is what it actually means. In normal usage, to be conscious of something means to be aware of it. I suppose one could stretch the idea of awareness to include any any reactivity to ones surroundings, such as a towel flapping on the washing line when the wind blows, but to do so would render the normal usage pretty much redundant and to what end would one wish to do that? In what meaningful sense is the towel conscious? Does it perhaps enjoy the warmth of the sun's rays, or maybe the sun and the towel take the opportunity to have a little chat about the funny ideas that humans entertain. As for 'the whole universe', is this conscious because it includes conscious beings or in some other sense? Is it, for example, a being in its own right with its own thoughts, feelings, plans and so forth? And while we're at it, is the belief that everything is conscious a kind of monism or some version of dualism? If matter is itself conscious then what is the beef with materialism and how can consciousness be non-material? But if matter needs to interact with some non-material species of consciousness in order to exhibit conscious traits how can we say everything is conscious? Just asking.
-
Hi everyone,
It can be seen that people in different countries come up with similar ideas (philosophical or scientific) at around the same time (without any communication between them). We can also see that learning is faster in later generations in certain areas. Even very young children take to mobile phones and stuff very fast as compared to earlier generations.
Even evolution has been seen as 'learning'.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534715002931
*************
Until recently such cognitive learning seemed irrelevant to the ‘uninformed’ process of evolution. In our opinion, however, new results formally linking evolutionary processes to the principles of learning might provide solutions to several evolutionary puzzles – the evolution of evolvability, the evolution of ecological organisation, and evolutionary transitions in individuality. If so, the ability for evolution to learn might explain how it produces such apparently intelligent designs.
*************
These things could be due to some sort of an influence getting passed on down the generation and even laterally influencing similar minded people. What Sheldrake is talking about could have a basis, though it could be more philosophical conjecture than a scientific proposal.
-
So Sriram, shall I take it that you can make no more sense of panpsychism than I can but just don't want to admit it?
-
You can ask more questions than I can answer....
-
Until recently such cognitive learning seemed irrelevant to the ‘uninformed’ process of evolution.
Learning is a hugely beneficial evolutionary trait. While the evolutionary process may well be uninformed, as it were, if the ability to learn is evolutionarily beneficial to survival (it is), then it will be selected for within the context of natural selection. We should therefore, expect successive generations to become more successful in their ability to learn and their ability to teach.
-
Merely dumping everything on a nebulous 'evolution' and on a metaphoric natural selection doesn't help. You are merely trying to circumvent the issue.
Fact is that there is a real process of reactive adaptation and learning inbuilt into the evolutionary process. This shows Intelligence and purpose. The process by which these things happen also requires more than just DNA.
What Sheldrake is doing is to attempt an explanation using the idea of Fields and collective consciousness. It may be philosophical conjecture. Nothing wrong with that given the amount of conjecture that has become commonplace in science. The contempt and swiftness with which he is dismissed however shows fear and discomfort on the part of mainstream scientists similar to the Church condemning Galileo.
-
Merely dumping everything on a nebulous 'evolution' and on a metaphoric natural selection doesn't help. You are merely trying to circumvent the issue.
There is no issue to circumvent - and no matter how often you repeat the ignorant drivel about natural selection being a metaphor, it will not change the fact that it is a real, observable, and computable process.
Fact is that there is a real process of reactive adaptation and learning inbuilt into the evolutionary process. This shows Intelligence and purpose.
No, it doesn't. You brought up this opinion paper before and the whole idea is based on, you guessed it, natural selection. From the concluding remarks section (of the full paper):
"[Learning theory] expands what we think evolution is capable of. In particular, it shows that via the incremental evolution of developmental, ecological, or reproductive organisations natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem solving."
What Sheldrake is doing is to attempt an explanation using the idea of Fields and collective consciousness. It may be philosophical conjecture. Nothing wrong with that given the amount of conjecture that has become commonplace in science. The contempt and swiftness with which he is dismissed however shows fear and discomfort on the part of mainstream scientists similar to the Church condemning Galileo.
No Sriram, every wingnut who writes something you like isn't the next Galileo. Sheldrake has given up doing science and decided to sell books on new age woo instead. The swiftness is just due to him being a relatively well known wingnut almost as notorious as Deepak Chopra.
The problem, as always, is you don't know or seem to care how credible the sources you latch on to are, as long as you think they are saying something you like. As I said before, that the exact opposite of rational inquiry and science, because you've started by assuming the conclusion. Your mind is completely closed to any other possibilities at all.
-
Merely dumping everything on a nebulous 'evolution' and on a metaphoric natural selection doesn't help. You are merely trying to circumvent the issue.
Evolution might be 'nebulous' but it is also really retailed, with all sorts of traits having evolutionary advantage - and that, of course, includes the ability to learn.
Fact is that there is a real process of reactive adaptation and learning inbuilt into the evolutionary process. This shows Intelligence and purpose. The process by which these things happen also requires more than just DNA.
Of course the process by which evolution occurs requires more than just DNA. DNA is merely a code for protein production - evolution requires the proteins produced fro DNA and their various interactions with other elements of living systems and of the broader environment. But evolution also requires traits to be hereditary - i.e. passed on from generation to generation, and that is where the code (DNA) is really important. And although there are other hereditary elements, e.g. driven by epigenetics, those themselves are the product of the action of proteins again coded for by DNA.
What Sheldrake is doing is to attempt an explanation using the idea of Fields and collective consciousness. It may be philosophical conjecture. Nothing wrong with that given the amount of conjecture that has become commonplace in science. The contempt and swiftness with which he is dismissed however shows fear and discomfort on the part of mainstream scientists similar to the Church condemning Galileo.
Wrong way around Sriran - the kind of unevidenced pseudoscience that Sheldrake promulgates is akin to the ignorance of the church was asserting, without evidence, that the earth was at the centre of the solar system (cos they needed people to be oh-so important for their religion) - observation, the scientific process and evidence proved them wrong. Science happily accepts when it is wrong and changes its view - but it does so on the basis of evidence not hand-waving conjecture. So if Sheldrake provides credible evidence to back up his conjectures then the scientific community will move their thinking in alignment (that's what science and scientists do), but if he doesn't provide any evidence then his assertions will be, quite rightly, dismissed.
-
Its all very well to keep talking of evidence. But as discussed earlier, evidence is not always measurable in nature. Everything is not Physics.
Secondly, attitude makes a lot of difference.....the two boxes syndrome. Scientists are as prone to prejudice and confirmation bias as anyone else and are as trapped in a belief system as anyone else.
-
Scientists are as prone to prejudice and confirmation bias as anyone else and are as trapped in a belief system as anyone else.
Potentially true, but the scientific method keeps them honest as it needs to be objective and reproducible so is specifically designed to remove the subjective biases of individual scientists. The same isn't true within 'faith'/'belief'-based prejudices and biases where there is no attempt to us a methods to remove bias and prejudice - indeed most religious systems are based on the notion of embedding and compounding faith-based bias and prejudice.
-
Its all very well to keep talking of evidence. But as discussed earlier, evidence is not always measurable in nature. Everything is not Physics.
The problem is that you haven't got any evidence, measurable or not. You just keep making bald assertions and your only defence when questioned is to pretend that you are exempt from providing evidence for your point of view. Nobody else accepts that.
Scientists are as prone to prejudice and confirmation bias as anyone else and are as trapped in a belief system as anyone else.
Science is not though. Scientists may be wrong about things but science moves on without them.
-
There is no science without scientists. All the limitations and biases inherent in scientists will have its effect on science. 'Science' can develop differently in different cultures.
In India, for example....Yoga and spirituality are seen as sciences. I am sure westerners have no clue how that can be so.
-
There is no science without scientists. All the limitations and biases inherent in scientists will have its effect on science.
But science is self correcting. It may set out down the wrong path but the evidence against it will build up to the point that it is corrected. Individual scientists may never change their opinions but the consensus moves with the evidence.
'Science' can develop differently in different cultures.
Science can't though.
In India, for example....Yoga and spirituality are seen as sciences.
Yoga is not a science. It doesn't tell us anything about how the World works and it is not supposed to. Spirituality is just feelings.
I am sure westerners have no clue how that can be so.
I'm sure that you (and I don't mean Indians, I mean you: Sriram) have no clue what science is.
-
Science cannot be self correcting. That is nonsense. The direction in which scientists and their biases take it.....it will go.....till later generations adopt different attitudes and change its course. Science can never be independent of scientists and the tools they choose to construct. Attitude and perception are everything.
'Yoga is not a science. It doesn't tell us anything about how the World works and it is not supposed to. Spirituality is just feelings'.
See my point....!
-
I see where Sriram is coming from in the sense that science or the scientific method provides peer-reviewed demonstrable explanations using observed and tested information that scientists have investigated and collected about the physical and material world. If the scientists drive the process, their information is limited to what they get funding to investigate.
So yes there are endless possibilities that the scientific method has not or is unable to investigate, but there is no reason to accept any of those possibilities as true or fact. They just remain possibilities. Some people's taste may incline them to live their lives as if those possibilities are true and other people's tastes may not.
Many of the principles of yoga came about through observation and testing of our physical bodies. In that sense parts of yoga can be included as part of science.
-
Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?
How is a necessary entity even a logically coherent concept (other than in the irrelevant and relative sense of necessary for something else specifically; beer for a beer belly)? In other words, how is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist?
What would characterise something that would cause some logical problem if it didn't exist?
What is necessary about your god-concept?
What is its sufficient reason for being the necessary entity?
Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.
You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.
-
Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
No. They were questions addressed to Vlad's vague hand-waving attempts at producing an argument. Any convolution is a result of his incoherence.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.
All but meaningless. Stuff exists and is the way it is. We don't know why.
You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.
Inventing something, calling it the "ultimate source of existence" and then "God" (for no apparent reason), doesn't address the problem of why stuff exists and is the way it is because, whatever it is, it has to itself be part of what exists.
You've just invented something that would, if it exists, just add to the problem, not solve it.
-
Science cannot be self correcting. That is nonsense.
Are you for real!?! Of course science is self-correcting. That is its whole approach. The scientific method never accepts that any theory is 'proven' merely that it is the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. It also requires that any theory must be exhaustively retested (and demonstrated to be reproducible or not) including using new approaches as they arrive.
And when new evidence emerges it may further support the conclusion within a theory and perhaps provide further detail. Alternatively it may not be consistent with that theory and bit by bit science self corrects itself to support a new scientific theory - which itself will not be cast in stone, but simply be a new expression of the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. And so it goes on.
-
No. They were questions addressed to Vlad's vague hand-waving attempts at producing an argument. Any convolution is a result of his incoherence.
All but meaningless. Stuff exists and is the way it is. We don't know why.
Inventing something, calling it the "ultimate source of existence" and then "God" (for no apparent reason), doesn't address the problem of why stuff exists and is the way it is because, whatever it is, it has to itself be part of what exists.
You've just invented something that would, if it exists, just add to the problem, not solve it.
Logic takes us to the ultimate source I'm afraid.
Your attempt to dismiss the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason is comical.
-
Logic takes us to the ultimate source I'm afraid.
Logic is a stranger to you, as far as I can tell.
Your attempt to dismiss the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason is comical.
Mindless, fallacious mantra that has nothing to do with the questions I asked.
How about you answer the question: what's the sufficient reason for your god?
-
what's the sufficient reason for your god?
For starters, there is the fact that we all exist as conscious entities with the abilities to think, to interact, to create, to manipulate, to argue, to discern good and evil, to pray, to love and to be loved - all indications that we comprise far more than anything which could be just an unintended consequence of unguided, purposeless material reactions.
-
For starters, there is the fact that we all exist as conscious entities with the abilities to think, to interact, to create, to manipulate, to argue, to discern good and evil, to pray, to love and to be loved - all indications that we comprise far more than anything which could be just an unintended consequence of unguided, purposeless material reactions.
While I accept all those attributes are incredible import to us as humans, if you have a broad rather than a narrow anthropocentric perspective they are pretty irrelevant in a cosmic sense. In the context of the universe from its origins to now, from its further point to every other point behaviour aspects of humans are irrelevant and likely undetectable appearing on one tiny planet in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.
-
they are pretty irrelevant in a cosmic sense.
I would be interest in what gives you warrant to say this. What is important in the cosmos and who gets to say. Is that based on salary?
-
Are you for real!?! Of course science is self-correcting. That is its whole approach. The scientific method never accepts that any theory is 'proven' merely that it is the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. It also requires that any theory must be exhaustively retested (and demonstrated to be reproducible or not) including using new approaches as they arrive.
And when new evidence emerges it may further support the conclusion within a theory and perhaps provide further detail. Alternatively it may not be consistent with that theory and bit by bit science self corrects itself to support a new scientific theory - which itself will not be cast in stone, but simply be a new expression of the best explanation at a particular time based on the available evidence at that time. And so it goes on.
Science is done by scientists. If scientists change their data, their models and their interpretations....then science also changes accordingly (not necessarily more correct). Science is always tentative because scientists always rely on their limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases.
-
Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.
You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.
This reveals God to be something invented, not something discovered. A handy fix, devised by humans to close down the existential angst of not knowing where everything comes from. Like a sticking plaster does not cure the problem, it merely covers it up. Don't ask where god comes from, eh ?
-
Science is done by scientists.
Actually - increasingly the science, the generation of data is done by machines, equipment etc - so yesterday one of my post-docs sent me his latest data, a video montage and quantitative graph of fluorescence generated by endothelial cells following transfection with GFP (go look them up if you don't understand the terms). All this was generated by an automated system with no human involvement in the data collection.
If scientists change their data, ...
If scientists change their data then that is scientific fraud, which of course does happen occasionally. But this is often picked up as the requirement for findings to be repeatable means that as other groups look to repeat the study they will come up with different data, and bit by bit the 'changed data' will become apparent and be disregarded, whether or not the scientific fraud is actually uncovered.
their models and their interpretations....then science also changes accordingly (not necessarily more correct).
A scientific position (a scientific theory) will change on the basis of new and additional data, not because scientists have changed their data. And it will continue to be self correcting - so it may move in a direction that is less correct but as we add further data again we will likely move back toward the correct explanation. The point is that the process never stops and the more we go on and the more data will collect and interpret the greater the likelihood that the best explanation for those data (the scientific theory) is the correct one.
Science is always tentative because scientists always rely on their limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases.
Wrong - science is alway tentative because science always recognises that it is possible and desirable to obtain further data, either to strengthen the current theory or, bit by bit, to move it to a better explanation based on greater data. I think you will find that explanations based on limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases are called beliefs.
-
While I accept all those attributes are incredible import to us as humans, if you have a broad rather than a narrow anthropocentric perspective they are pretty irrelevant in a cosmic sense. In the context of the universe from its origins to now, from its further point to every other point behaviour aspects of humans are irrelevant and likely undetectable appearing on one tiny planet in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.
Yes, I agree.
The point I was making is that there are many human attributes which appear to be in conflict with what can be produced from a material universe which is indifferent, even hostile to life on this earth.
-
Yes, I agree.
The point I was making is that there are many human attributes which appear to be in conflict with what can be produced from a material universe which is indifferent, even hostile to life on this earth.
.. which begs the question of why a god would create a universe that is hostile to life. He has something against life ?
-
Yes, I agree.
The point I was making is that there are many human attributes which appear to be in conflict with what can be produced from a material universe which is indifferent, even hostile to life on this earth.
Indifferent and hostile are terms that imply intent. The universe has no 'intent' merely material entities, energy, physical laws etc. And there is nothing that is any way conflicting between those feature of the universe and the very slow evolution of the traits that we see in humans. It is, of course, pretty rare, for the correct conditions to arise for that evolution to occur but given the size and timescales involved in the universe we should not be surprised if this has occurred at least once at some place and at some time in the universe.
-
This reveals God to be something invented, not something discovered. A handy fix, devised by humans to close down the existential angst of not knowing where everything comes from. Like a sticking plaster does not cure the problem, it merely covers it up. Don't ask where god comes from, eh ?
Mankind did not invent the concept of an ultimate source of existence, - it was deduced.
-
Actually - increasingly the science, the generation of data is done by machines, equipment etc - so yesterday one of my post-docs sent me his latest data, a video montage and quantitative graph of fluorescence generated by endothelial cells following transfection with GFP (go look them up if you don't understand the terms). All this was generated by an automated system with no human involvement in the data collection.
If scientists change their data then that is scientific fraud, which of course does happen occasionally. But this is often picked up as the requirement for findings to be repeatable means that as other groups look to repeat the study they will come up with different data, and bit by bit the 'changed data' will become apparent and be disregarded, whether or not the scientific fraud is actually uncovered.
A scientific position (a scientific theory) will change on the basis of new and additional data, not because scientists have changed their data. And it will continue to be self correcting - so it may move in a direction that is less correct but as we add further data again we will likely move back toward the correct explanation. The point is that the process never stops and the more we go on and the more data will collect and interpret the greater the likelihood that the best explanation for those data (the scientific theory) is the correct one.
Wrong - science is alway tentative because science always recognises that it is possible and desirable to obtain further data, either to strengthen the current theory or, bit by bit, to move it to a better explanation based on greater data. I think you will find that explanations based on limited perceptions, assumptions and cultural biases are called beliefs.
Goodness Prof! You really are microscopic in your perception. You are trying hard to misunderstand instead of trying to understand. ::) Or maybe you can't help misunderstanding, given your mindset.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Mankind did not invent the concept of an ultimate source of existence, - it was deduced.
Probably a deduction based on our intuitions about the fundamental nature of reality. Science has long been in the business of upending our intuitions about reality however. See quantum mechanics for details.
-
For starters, there is the fact that we all exist as conscious entities with the abilities to think, to interact, to create, to manipulate, to argue, to discern good and evil, to pray, to love and to be loved - all indications that we comprise far more than anything which could be just an unintended consequence of unguided, purposeless material reactions.
Both irrelevant to the question and an argument from incredulity. ::)
-
Goodness Prof! You really are microscopic in your perception. You are trying hard to misunderstand instead of trying to understand. ::) Or maybe you can't help misunderstanding, given your mindset.
Cheers.
Sriram
Sorry Sriram - wrong way around. It is you that seems continually to misunderstand how science works, to the extent that it comes across as wilful.
All I am doing is trying to help you understand how science works, and I think I do understand how science works. Why - because I am a professional scientist and have been for over 30 years. I have also had overall responsibility for administering the wide-ranging research for an entire Science Faculty in a major research-intensive university and currently have a similar role, focussing on the impacts of research, for the entire university.
So I think I know what I'm talking about.
If you choose to ignore what I'm telling you about how science works, then that is your choice. But should you do so, and you continually seem to do, then I'm afraid it is you, not me, who is guilty of misunderstanding.
And sure, microscopic can apply to me - but only in the context of the work I perform that uses microscopes (including the data I described above), or perhaps the new state of the art microscope we've just installed with nearly £1million funding that I was part of securing, or perhaps the £2m microscope we've just agreed to fund in the university with me being one of the decision makers for that funding.
-
Mankind did not invent the concept of an ultimate source of existence, - it was deduced.
When it gets to the question of why things exist and are the way they are, we simply don't know, but inventing a god doesn't help, because it would just be a part of what exists.
Vlad was arguing about it being necessary but seems unable to answer even the most basic of questions about what that would actually mean. After having insisted that everything has to have a sufficient reason, he can't answer what the sufficient reason for his god would be.
-
Sorry Sriram - wrong way around. It is you that seems continually to misunderstand how science works, to the extent that it comes across as wilful.
All I am doing is trying to help you understand how science works, and I think I do understand how science works. Why - because I am a professional scientist and have been for over 30 years. I have also had overall responsibility for administering the wide-ranging research for an entire Science Faculty in a major research-intensive university and currently have a similar role, focussing on the impacts of research, for the entire university.
So I think I know what I'm talking about.
If you choose to ignore what I'm telling you about how science works, then that is your choice. But should you do so, and you continually seem to do, then I'm afraid it is you, not me, who is guilty of misunderstanding.
And sure, microscopic can apply to me - but only in the context of the work I perform that uses microscopes (including the data I described above), or perhaps the new state of the art microscope we've just installed with nearly £1million funding that I was part of securing, or perhaps the £2m microscope we've just agreed to fund in the university with me being one of the decision makers for that funding.
My discussion has nothing to do with how science works. My point is that ....whatever science does, it is limited and it does not cover many aspects of reality. The basic assumption of materialism is invalid. That is all the point is.
-
...
The basic assumption of materialism is invalid. That is all the point is.
It may be - but how can you know that? Without providing or addressing the arguments, it is just a (pointless) assertion.
Eg: Which steps along which "path" take you that conclusion?
-
Science cannot be self correcting.
You only believe that because you have no idea how science works. Scientists have made plenty of mistakes and got lots of stuff wrong. However, eventually, the accumulated evidence always overwhelms then. The geocentric, theory, phlogiston, caloric, the corpuscular theory of light, the luminiferous ether, Newton's theory of gravity, the wave theory of light: all scientific ideas believed fervently by scientists and all shown to be wrong by science.
That is nonsense. The direction in which scientists and their biases take it.....it will go.....till later generations adopt different attitudes and change its course.
But later generations do adopt different attitudes and change its course. But they don't do it at random. They change its curse because the evidence says the old course was wrong.
'Yoga is not a science. It doesn't tell us anything about how the World works and it is not supposed to. Spirituality is just feelings'.
See my point....!
You don't have a point.
-
Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.
You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.
The word "God" comes with all kinds of baggage. I think it would be better not to use until we have established the nature of this "source of all existence".
-
My discussion has nothing to do with how science works. My point is that ....whatever science does, it is limited and it does not cover many aspects of reality.
But you don't know how science works so you really can't make such claims with any degree of credibility.
The basic assumption of materialism is invalid.
What evidence too you have for that assertion?
What do you understand by the word "materialism"?
-
But you don't know how science works so you really can't make such claims with any degree of credibility.
And regardless of how patiently I, as a longstanding professional scientist of some renown, try to explain how science works he simply refuses to engage whatsoever. You'd think he might have the common courtesy to at least try to understand how science works - yet all he does in response my my attempted explanations is frankly insult me by claiming I am the one with microscopic thinking and the one who misunderstands - just astonishing.
-
:D :D Ha! Ha! Regardless of what we are discussing....you keep repeating what you know. 'I know how science works...I know how science works'...
That is not what we are discussing in this thread. This thread is about the basic assumption of materialism and its limitations. Watch Sheldrake's video.
If science is designed to work only with materialism......then scientists should attempt to enlarge its scope to include other aspects of reality or just keep quite about things that are outside the scope of science.
-
:D :D Ha! Ha! Regardless of what we are discussing....you keep repeating what you know. 'I know how science works...I know how science works'...
That is not what we are discussing in this thread. This thread is about the basic assumption of materialism and its limitations. Watch Sheldrake's video.
If science is designed to work only with materialism......then scientists should attempt to enlarge its scope to include other aspects of reality or just keep quite about things that are outside the scope of science.
This thread is about science and how it works - indeed you mention science and scientist within the OP and the very first reply is about whether the person in the video is a scientist, in other words whether they use the scientific method.
Therefore discussion how science works is absolutely critical to the discussion on this thread - if you don't understand how science works how can you discuss its strengths, its limitations, its scope etc.
And throughout this thread (and on other threads) you have regularly made comments that demonstrate that you either do not understand how it works, or are deliberately misrepresenting how it works. Therefore it is perfectly appropriate to explain to you how it does work. So until or unless you begin to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of how science works I will continue to explain it to you, and also continue to explain why my explanation might be considered rather seriously as I am a very experienced professional scientist of some standing in the global scientific community.
-
If science is designed to work only with materialism
It's not. It deals only with the real World. If you say "this phenomenon in which I believe cannot be dealt with by science", you are saying tat the phenomenon s not part of the real world.
The key point about science has nothing to do with materialism or any of the fancy words that people like you wheel out: it's about testing your ideas to see if they are true. You'd be amazed at how powerful not accepting an idea just because you want to believe it is.
-
You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism. If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?
-
You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism. If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?
According to you this is the after-life. Science is already investigating it.
-
You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism. If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?
I think the point is that for a lot of people it's too big an "IF" to accept as true without any evidence. And given the multiple competing speculations about the supernatural, some people have little appetite for incorporating any of the speculative ideas into their lives in any meaningful way.
If there is no method to discern what is true and what is false, many people increasingly prefer to live their lives without picking a supernatural speculation to explore.
-
You claim that science is not designed to work only with materialism.
Tell me what you mean by materialism and I'll tell you if science is designed only to work with it.
If the real world actually does have an after-life...how will science get to know about it and how will it go about investigating it?
That's for the people who claim an afterlife exists to figure out. All you need to do is to figure out a way to test your claim.
-
I think the point is that for a lot of people it's too big an "IF" to accept as true without any evidence. And given the multiple competing speculations about the supernatural, some people have little appetite for incorporating any of the speculative ideas into their lives in any meaningful way.
If there is no method to discern what is true and what is false, many people increasingly prefer to live their lives without picking a supernatural speculation to explore.
I think you give philosophical empiricists too much credit here as that philosophy actually has no evidence for itself.
Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief. At this point the philosophical empiricist will often introduce the red herring that it works or deny being a philosophical empiricist or even taking the stance when not wanting to be anonymous.
They don't explore because they believe they've already arrived.
In my humble opinion.
-
Tell me what you mean by materialism and I'll tell you if science is designed only to work with it.
That's for the people who claim an afterlife exists to figure out. All you need to do is to figure out a way to test your claim.
You are digressing and not answering a straight question. You claimed that science is not designed to work with only materialism...so you should be knowing what materialism is.
I have enough evidence for an after-life. So, no problem for me....thank you very much!
You claimed that science deals with the real world and is not limited to the material world. My question is....if that is so...how will science, using its established methods, come to know of an after-life and how will it investigate it?
-
I think you give philosophical empiricists too much credit here as that philosophy actually has no evidence for itself.
Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief. At this point the philosophical empiricist will often introduce the red herring that it works or deny being a philosophical empiricist or even taking the stance when not wanting to be anonymous.
They don't explore because they believe they've already arrived.
In my humble opinion.
What does "explore" look like? What does someone do to "explore"? I can read many philosophical ideas and sure it's information about other people's ideas - my eldest asked me to read over her philosophy essay on Singer about speciesism, a discriminatory attitude to animals on par with sexism and racism.
If there is no evidence for any philosophical ideas, what else would exploring the philosophy entail other than reading the paper and acknowledging that there might be some points that I agree/ disagree with in the ideas expressed? There are lots of philosophical ideas I don't take on board or incorporate into my life. Which is presumably what atheists do when it comes to religious ideas about unevidenced supernatural concepts.
-
Vlad,
I think you give philosophical empiricists too much credit here as that philosophy actually has no evidence for itself.
Provided you don’t straw man “philosophical empiricism”, of course it has.
Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief. At this point the philosophical empiricist will often introduce the red herring that it works or deny being a philosophical empiricist or even taking the stance when not wanting to be anonymous.
No, the philosophical empiricist need only confine him or herself to what that term actually means – ie the finding that empiricism provides the only means we yet have to investigate, evaluate and codify the observable universe. The extent to which its results are the reality rather than just a reality is another matter entirely. The point though is that it provides a coherent way to navigate the world whereas guessing about gods, afterlifes, leprechauns or anything else the proponent chooses to posit outwith empiricism’s ambit does not.
Given the countless times this has been explained to you, you really should know this by now.
They don't explore because they believe they've already arrived.
No, “they” merely claim to have arrived at a functional reality. Re-characterising that to include claims of the reality is just the same straw man you endlessly attempt
In my humble opinion.
Humble or not, your problem (well, one of them at least) is that opinions are all you have. And your opinion about “God” is epistemically identical to my opinion about leprechauns: both are worthless if you want to bridge the gap from subjective to objective.
-
Sriram,
You are digressing and not answering a straight question. You claimed that science is not designed to work with only materialism...so you should be knowing what materialism is.
Science is fundamentally materialistic in character. So what?
I have enough evidence for an after-life. So, no problem for me....thank you very much!
For you, no doubt you think you have. Your problem though if you expect your personal beliefs about that to be taken seriously by anyone else is that what you call “evidence” is hopelessly inadequate if the claim so to be investigated objectively. Your “evidence” is equivalent to my “evidence” about leprechauns. Or to a child’s “evidence” about the Tooth Fairy (“Look, the tooth was gone in the morning. Therefore evidence for the Tooth Fairy!”).
You claimed that science deals with the real world and is not limited to the material world. My question is....if that is so...how will science, using its established methods, come to know of an after-life and how will it investigate it?
Whether or not he was right about that, you’re committing here a basic logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. If you want to claim an after-life (or for that matter leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy) then it’s your job to tell others how the claim should be validated.
-
Vlad,
Provided you don’t straw man “philosophical empiricism”, of course it has.
No, the philosophical empiricist need only confine him or herself to what that term actually means – ie the finding that empiricism provides the only means we yet have to investigate, evaluate and codify the observable universe.
where did you get this from (Cite source please) It looks fake. Giveaways include ''Finding''.... what? by looking with the eyes of an empiricist? ''observable'' is there any other kind for an empiricist? Did you carefully put this reforming of philosophical empiricism together yourself based on words used in our last discussion?
-
Sriram,
Whether or not he was right about that, you’re committing here a basic logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. If you want to claim an after-life (or for that matter leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy) then it’s your job to tell others how the claim should be validated.
No.... If anyone claims that science also deals with non material aspects of reality....it is for them to explain how exactly science will know and how exactly it will go about investigating such phenomena.
-
Vlad,
where did you get this from (Cite source please)
Get what from – that empiricism isn’t absolutist? Try looking it up. What you’re trying for here is more like physicalism, but you know this too what with it having been explained to you ten bajillion times already.
It looks fake.
Only to you. Try taking it up with the authors of pretty much every dictionary, philosophy website and other relevant source if you don’t like it.
Giveaways ''Finding'' what by looking with the eyes of an empiricist. ''observable'' is there any other kind for an empiricist?
They’re hardly “giveaways” – just descriptions of what the term entails. Empiricism brings with a method to distinguish its findings from just guessing, so the “eyes” involved are neither here nor there. If you want to claim a non-material and accuse empiricism of being unable to investigate it though then find another method to do it.
Did you carefully put this reforming of philosophical materialism yourself based on words used in our last discussion?
That supposed “reforming” is exactly the same explanation I’ve given you for years here, no matter how much you’ve ignored it, straw manned it, lied about it etc. Perhaps if after all this time you tried to address the argument you’re actually given rather than “reforming” it to suit your purposes you might finally grasp the mistake you keep making here?
-
Vlad,
Get what from – that empiricism isn’t absolutist? Try looking it up.
I didn't mention the absolutism or otherwise of philosophical empiricism...but more to the point neither did you.
Philosophical empiricism is not methodological empiricism. In fact the latter gives no support to the former. That was just a turd polisher's non sequitur. It is irrelevant.
-
Sriram,
No.... If anyone claims that science also deals with non material aspects of reality....it is for them to explain how exactly science will know and how exactly it will go about investigating such phenomena.
Try reading what was actually said to you. No-one does “claim that science also deals with non material aspects of reality”, not least because the job is all yours to demonstrate first that there even is such a phenomenon to be "dealt" with.
Good luck with it though.
-
Ask Jeremy for instance for why he thinks the material world equals the real world and he would be hard pressed to find evidence for that belief.
Jeremy actually said:
"It's not. It (science) deals only with the real World.......
The key point about science has nothing to do with materialism or any of the fancy words that people like you wheel out: it's about testing your ideas to see if they are true."
-
Vlad,
I didn't mention the absolutism or otherwise of philosophical empiricism...but more to the point neither did you.
Without a claim of absolutism your complaint that empiricism cannot justify itself falls apart. It justifies itself perfectly readily by reference to the observable facts - ‘planes fly, medicines cure etc – which is all it claims to do.
Philosophical empiricism is not methodological empiricism.
Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess. Keep going…
In fact the latter gives no support to the former. That was just a turd polisher's non sequitur. It is irrelevant.
Back to your same straw man? Really though? Methodological materialism does “give support to” philosophical materialism because it provides the data to validate it. Here’s Wiki on empiricism:
“In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]
Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience.[4]
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification".[5] Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Can you see the “or primarily”, “emphasises the role of”, “emphasises evidence”, "knowledge is based on experience", and what’s more the slam dunk of "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Can you though?
If you can, can you also now (finally) grasp where you keep going wrong about this? Empiricism gives us a method of distinguishing a “tentative and probabilistic” model of reality from a just guessed at model of reality. “planes flying, medicine curing and the rest are in the former category that are thus described as “objective” truths, whereas gods and leprechauns existing etc are the latter category and so are only ever “subjective” truths – ie, true just for the person who happens to think they are true.
I have of course explained this to you countless times before now, and we both know that you’ll never address the explanation but hey-ho – there it remains as it always has nonetheless.
-
Vlad,
Without a claim of absolutism your complaint that empiricism cannot justify itself falls apart. It justifies itself perfectly readily by reference to the observable facts - ‘planes fly, medicines cure etc – which is all it claims to do. That it cannot justify itself is just an inconvenient fact for it. That you use philosophical empiricism to justify your atheism is just an inconvenient fact for you
Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess. Keep going…
I 've been saying that long and hard Hillside .You on the hand have been trying to shoehorn philosophical empiricism into methodological empiricism for as long.
If you can, can you also now (finally) grasp where you keep going wrong about this? Empiricism gives us a method of distinguishing a “tentative and probabilistic” model of reality from a just guessed at model of reality. “planes flying, medicine curing and the rest are in the former category that are thus described as “objective” truths, whereas gods and leprechauns existing etc are the latter category and so are only ever “subjective” truths – ie, true just for the person who happens to think they are true.
Here's the rub, is science the child of the philosophical empiricists or visa versa since many rationalists were also methodological empiricists.
-
Vlad,
That it cannot justify itself is just an inconvenient fact for it.
That’s not a fact for the reason I explained and you just ignored. Why be dishonest about that?
That you use philosophical empiricism to justify your atheism is just an inconvenient fact for you
That’s not a fact either. I “justify” my atheism by the fact that neither you nor anyone else I’m aware of can construct an argument to justify the claim “god” that isn’t wrong. Why be dishonest about that?
I 've been saying that long and hard Hillside .You on the hand have been trying to shoehorn philosophical empiricism into methodological empiricism for as long.
I have of course done no such thing, for the reason I explained to you in my last post (and many times before that too) and you have just ignored. Why be dishonest about that?
Here's the rub, is science the child of the philosophical empiricists or visa versa since many rationalists were also methodological empiricists.
Incoherent gibberish won’t help you here either. I explained to you how it is that methodological empiricism validates philosophical empiricism, and you have just ignored that explanation. Why be dishonest about that?
-
You are digressing and not answering a straight question.
Evasion noted.
Your question contained a premise which may or may not be true depending on how you define "the material world". I can't answer it until you define your terms.
You claimed that science is not designed to work with only materialism...so you should be knowing what materialism is.
I have no idea what you mean by "materialism" but you clearly don't think it is the same as "the real World". What do you think it is?
I have enough evidence for an after-life. So, no problem for me....thank you very much!
It's time you put up or shut up then. Show us the evidence.
You claimed that science deals with the real world and is not limited to the material world. My question is....if that is so...how will science, using its established methods, come to know of an after-life and how will it investigate it?
My question is, if you can't test your ideas about the afterlife, how can you know there is such a thing? You can't. Your ideas about the afterlife are nothing more than guesses.
-
:D :D
You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.
Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?
Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.
And jeremyp....pl don't tell me to shut up. That is not civil language.
-
You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.
*ring ring* Hello, Mr Kettle?...
Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?
Because if it's real there will be effects, and those effects will be measurable or detectable. If it has no measurable or detectable effects, then in what way can it be said to be real?
Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.
Nobody's saying that. You're suggesting that people are using the wrong tool - which is sort of a misattribution, I think what you're aiming for is that we currently don't have the right tools, which is possible. However, you're making the claim, you're saying (as I understand it) that this isn't just possible, this is something that you think actually definitively IS the case, and it's therefore on you in a discussion such as this to spell out how it is that you can elevate a notional possibility to something that you contend is fact.
O.
-
Sriram,
You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.
Irony overload. “We guys” are actually explaining to you where your reasoning fails and in response it’s you who’s just repeating yourself rather than addressing the arguments you’re given.
Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....
No-one says that. Science deals with what science can deal with. Whether there are phenomena it could not deal with even in principle is at this stage at least entirely speculative.
the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?
No, the “question” would then be “how would science know if any phenomenon I posit and then place outwith science’s ability to investigate exists?”. The answer is that it wouldn’t, but it’s non-question. Whether you want to posit after-lifes or leprechauns leaving pots of gold at then ends of rainbows and claim each to be non-material, then it’s your job to find a method to justify your claim(s).
Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.
And a straw man argument. No-one says “I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist'” at all. Rather what people here actually say is “using the only tools available to me I cannot investigate your speculations, so I have no reason to believe they exist. If you think there’s another way to investigate your speculations though, then tell us what it is.”
Can you see the difference now between what’s actually said and your straw man version of it?
-
*ring ring* Hello, Mr Kettle?...
Because if it's real there will be effects, and those effects will be measurable or detectable. If it has no measurable or detectable effects, then in what way can it be said to be real?
Nobody's saying that. You're suggesting that people are using the wrong tool - which is sort of a misattribution, I think what you're aiming for is that we currently don't have the right tools, which is possible. However, you're making the claim, you're saying (as I understand it) that this isn't just possible, this is something that you think actually definitively IS the case, and it's therefore on you in a discussion such as this to spell out how it is that you can elevate a notional possibility to something that you contend is fact.
O.
I am not saying that an after-life is there or not. What I believe is irrelevant for this discussion.
My question is simply.....if science really can investigate and know reality in all its aspects...how will it possibly know about an after-life and how will it investigate that phenomenon?
It simply doesn't have the tools! (you have understood that point correctly). That is all I am saying...
Stop saying ....'your claim so your burden of proof'. I am not making any claim (in this thread). You claim that science can understand and investigate all phenomena. So, you have to establish that science is capable of knowing of an after-life and is capable of investigating it.
-
I am not saying that an after-life is there or not. What I believe is irrelevant for this discussion.
Then I apologise for misrepresenting you.
My question is simply.....if science really can investigate and know reality in all its aspects...how will it possibly know about an after-life and how will it investigate that phenomenon?
By measuring and investigating the observable effects.
It simply doesn't have the tools! (you have understood that point correctly). That is all I am saying...
We don't know if it has the tools, as we don't know anything about a purported 'afterlife'. It may be that we currently don't have the tools, but equally it may be that there is no afterlife. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until there is evidence in support of the idea it's nothing more than a dream.
Stop saying ....'your claim so your burden of proof'. I am not making any claim (in this thread). You claim that science can understand and investigate all phenomena. So, you have to establish that science is capable of knowing of an after-life and is capable of investigating it.
No, no we don't. Science is a method for investigating claims. If 'afterlife' is not your claim, fair enough, but whomever does make the claim needs to point to the evidence that supports the claim, and science can then be used to investigate the evidence around that claim to determine if it's a viable concept. Until some reason to think an afterlife is a valid claim, there is nothing for science to investigate, and no way to determine if we currently have the right tools or if no tools are necessary.
O.
-
Sriram,
My question is simply.....if science really can investigate and know reality in all its aspects..
I just corrected you on this. That's not a claim that science makes. Why do you keep straw manning this?
-
Then I apologise for misrepresenting you.
We don't know if it has the tools, as we don't know anything about a purported 'afterlife'. It may be that we currently don't have the tools, but equally it may be that there is no afterlife. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until there is evidence in support of the idea it's nothing more than a dream.
No, no we don't. Science is a method for investigating claims. If 'afterlife' is not your claim, fair enough, but whomever does make the claim needs to point to the evidence that supports the claim, and science can then be used to investigate the evidence around that claim to determine if it's a viable concept. Until some reason to think an afterlife is a valid claim, there is nothing for science to investigate, and no way to determine if we currently have the right tools or if no tools are necessary.
O.
As I said...I am not making any claim about an after-life (in this discussion).
I am simply pointing out that science does not have the necessary tools nor the scope to come to know of and to investigate any such things as a after-life, if it did exist. That is its limitation. That is all I am saying.
-
As I said...I am not making any claim about an after-life (in this discussion).
I am simply pointing out that science does not have the necessary tools nor the scope to come to know of and to investigate any such things as a after-life, if it did exist.
If it exists, how is it beyond science, which is a technique for investigating observable phenomena and deducing from those observations likely explanations for the phenomena. If an afterlife were real, it would have observable phenomena. If it had no observable phenomena, if it had no discernible impact on existence... how would we say it was real?
That is its limitation. That is all I am saying.
And you're wrong. That's not a limitation of science, it's a limitation of your understanding of the methodology of science.
O.
-
If it exists, how is it beyond science, which is a technique for investigating observable phenomena and deducing from those observations likely explanations for the phenomena. If an afterlife were real, it would have observable phenomena. If it had no observable phenomena, if it had no discernible impact on existence... how would we say it was real?
And you're wrong. That's not a limitation of science, it's a limitation of your understanding of the methodology of science.
O.
Did we know of X rays till Roentgen came along? Did we know of microbes till whoever came along? Did we know of Dark Mater or Dark Energy till recent decades?
Science has to catch up with reality.... ideas have to mature...technology has to be available. Sometimes technology is not enough. Can technology help us see strings or 11 dimensions? They will remain on paper.
Reality could be much more complex than we imagine.
-
Did we know of X rays till Roentgen came along? Did we know of microbes till whoever came along? Did we know of Dark Mater or Dark Energy till recent decades?
Yes we knew about X-rays before Roentgen, he proved the theories about them and came up with reliable ways to generate them, but he started from what we could detect.
The germ theory of disease was around before Pasteur proved it.
We don't know of dark matter or dark energy; those are terms for notional causes for effects that we can detect but can't yet explain.
Afterlife is not even that, we have no observable effect which requires an explanation.
Science has to catch up with reality.... ideas have to mature...technology has to be available.
To investigate what? The NDE's that you talk about have been thoroughly investigated, and the best supported explanations do not come down to 'spirits surviving beyond death.' Science IS investigating the claims of afterlife, and it's finding those claims to be wanting.
Sometimes technology is not enough. Can technology help us see strings or 11 dimensions? They will remain on paper.
Technology moves forward, though; the point of string theory, and the reason it's a theory (and, say, dark matter isn't) is that it's hypothetically testable, we just don't currently have the capacity. Just like the Higg's Boson was when Higg's postulated it, and now we do have the technology to prove it.
Reality could be much more complex than we imagine.
Reality already is more complex than we typically imagine; that doesn't mean that every notion that any crackpot comes up with is as valid as, say, germ theory, or Higgs' Boson or, even, dark matter.
O.
-
Technology moves forward, though; the point of string theory, and the reason it's a theory (and, say, dark matter isn't) is that it's hypothetically testable, we just don't currently have the capacity. Just like the Higg's Boson was when Higg's postulated it, and now we do have the technology to prove it.
String theory is not a theory as it has not be tested. It remains a hypothesis. Calling it a theory devalues the term.
-
Did we know of microbes till whoever came along?
Really bad example to use in an attempt to justify your argument.
Ever since humans have been around they have experienced a common phenomenon - people became ill, experienced a range of symptoms, sometimes they died. Bit like your phenomenon that people report similar experiences during near death scenarios and other extreme stress scenarios.
For centuries these experiences of becoming ill were explained in non physical terms, they must be to do with people being being corrupted by spirits, experiencing the wrath of god, being possessed by the devil etc. There was no evidence for these explanations. Bit like explaining so-called near death experiences as being about a life after death.
Then science was able to ascertain that none of these things were the cause of the phenomenon of feeling ill, but the cause was clearly a real-world material effect of infection with certain microbes - bacteria, viruses etc. The scientific evidence explained the phenomena and was also able to help develop cures etc. A bit like current science which is able to explain the so-called near death phenomena in terms of observed neuronal activity associated with severe physiological stress conditions.
-
String theory is not a theory as it has not be tested. It remains a hypothesis. Calling it a theory devalues the term.
Sorry, you are quite right - the description was right, awaiting testing, but yes that should be an hypothesis.
O.
-
Sriram,
Did we know of X rays till Roentgen came along? Did we know of microbes till whoever came along? Did we know of Dark Mater or Dark Energy till recent decades?
Science has to catch up with reality.... ideas have to mature...technology has to be available. Sometimes technology is not enough. Can technology help us see strings or 11 dimensions? They will remain on paper.
Reality could be much more complex than we imagine.
You keep making the same mistake of conflating your speculations with speculations about phenomena that were later shown to be real. Of course science didn’t tell us about things before science told us about things, but for your analogy to stand you should ask instead what science tells us about leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy. The answer is that same as the answer to what science tells us about a supposed after-life: nothing. So what though?
“Science once didn’t know stuff that it does know now” tells us nothing at all about whether your speculation about an after-life is any more likely to be true than my speculation about leprechauns.
It's such a simple and obvious point that I wonder why you keep getting it wrong?
-
Sriram,
You keep making the same mistake of conflating your speculations with speculations about phenomena that were later shown to be real. Of course science didn’t tell us about things before science told us about things, but for your analogy to stand you should ask instead what science tells us about leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy. The answer is that same as the answer to what science tells us about a supposed after-life: nothing. So what though?
“Science once didn’t know stuff that it does know now” tells us nothing at all about whether your speculation about an after-life is any more likely to be true than my speculation about leprechauns.
It's such a simple and obvious point that I wonder why you keep getting it wrong?
Tiny Irishmen fitting the description and tiny winged people have not been observed and there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to promote Irish tourism and a conspiracy involving millions of parents involving small amounts of money. Which reminds me how is the investigation into people making a wish while blowing out the birthday candles going?
-
:D :D
You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.
No, we are repeating ourselves because you are not getting the point.
You assert all sorts of things about an afterlife and spirituality. It's up to you to provide evidence for your claims, not us.
Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?
You tell us. It's you that proposes the existence of the afterlife.
Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.
We are not insisting that you use a microscope. We are not making any restrictions on what equipment you use (if any). All we ask is that the evidence you provide is verifiable by other people.
And jeremyp....pl don't tell me to shut up. That is not civil language.
I used a fairly common term "put up or shut up". It doesn't mean literally "shut up". I could equally have said "you're all mouth and no trousers".
-
Technology moves forward, though; the point of string theory, and the reason it's a theory (and, say, dark matter isn't) is that it's hypothetically testable, we just don't currently have the capacity. Just like the Higg's Boson was when Higg's postulated it, and now we do have the technology to prove it.
I don't agree on this point. String theory is not a scientific theory. There's no experimental evidence to show it is true (or at least not definitely false). String theory might be a theory in the mathematical sense i.e. a body of mathematical theorems and methods like, for example, graph theory and group theory, but it's somewhat above my pay grade to say if it is or not.
-
Vlad,
Tiny Irishmen fitting the description and tiny winged people have not been observed and there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to promote Irish tourism and a conspiracy involving millions of parents involving small amounts of money.
Just as there’s “overwhelming evidence” for NDEs having nothing to do with a supposed afterlife you mean? Been a while since you tried the black swan fallacy though, so good to see you keep it in your armoury along with all the other fallacies you routinely trot out.
Which reminds me how is the investigation into people making a wish while blowing out the birthday candles going?
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. There’s an irony though given that your entire case for “god” seems to rest on wishful thinking.
Oh, and I see you’ve just run away again from the last set of rebuttals I gave you. ‘twas ever thus I guess – dishonesty and cowardice eh?
-
I don't agree on this point. String theory is not a scientific theory. There's no experimental evidence to show it is true (or at least not definitely false). String theory might be a theory in the mathematical sense i.e. a body of mathematical theorems and methods like, for example, graph theory and group theory, but it's somewhat above my pay grade to say if it is or not.
Accepted - as NS pointed out, I should have defined that as an hypothesis, rather than a theory.
O.
-
Vlad,
Just as there’s “overwhelming evidence” for NDEs having nothing to do with a supposed afterlife you mean? Been a while since you tried the black swan fallacy though, so good to see you keep it in your armoury along with all the other fallacies you routinely trot out.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. There’s an irony though given that your entire case for “god” seems to rest on wishful thinking.
Oh, and I see you’ve just run away again from the last set of rebuttals I gave you. ‘twas ever thus I guess – dishonesty and cowardice eh?
You just tried to claim philosophical empiricism was somehow immune from criticism. Will you take this opportunity to apologise for that and maybe leave the forum for a period of reflection?
-
Vlad,
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. There’s an irony though given that your entire case for “god” seems to rest on wishful thinking.
Hillside, Leprechaunism is a better bet than that paper by Sean Carroll.
-
Well...ok.
This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.
The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced. This of course, requires certain faculties that some people possess. If the faculties are absent these 'hidden' aspects of reality cannot be known.
This can also be linked to Implicit Pattern Learning....which is the ability to unconsciously sense and discern hidden patterns in ones life. This ability leads to a belief in subtle forces that cannot be normally sensed. These are experiential phenomena that are not amenable to normally accepted scientific methods of investigation.
That is all this thread is about. Merely repeating that....'show us the phenomenon through our senses and we will accept it'.... doesn't make sense.
Thanks & Cheers.
Sriram
-
Well...ok.
This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.
The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced. ..
If they can be felt and experienced, that means that they are known to the senses. Experience is derived from sensory information, ultimately.
-
If they can be felt and experienced, that means that they are known to the senses. Experience is derived from sensory information, ultimately.
Surely it's obvious Torridon.
You don't have "certain faculties that some people possess" ::)
You (and I) are obviously defective in some way.
-
The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced.
No, that's not an established fact. That's a claim, and that claim can and should be investigated. If you're suggesting, devoid of any basis, that science is somehow not an appropriate tool, what is your alternative?
This of course, requires certain faculties that some people possess.
Those 'faculties' we have that detect and discern the outside world... those are senses. If we can, as you put it above, 'feel and experience' then it's within the remit of science to investigate.
If the faculties are absent these 'hidden' aspects of reality cannot be known.
Or, alternatively, if some people think they're having experiences that are not related to actual phenomena, perhaps there is some sort of neurological or psychological episode occuring.
This can also be linked to Implicit Pattern Learning....which is the ability to unconsciously sense and discern hidden patterns in ones life.
Pattern recognition is smack in the middle of science's wheelhouse, as any number of machine learning scientists can attest.
This ability leads to a belief in subtle forces that cannot be normally sensed. These are experiential phenomena that are not amenable to normally accepted scientific methods of investigation.
Absolute nonsense, there are any number of 'subtle forces' that we cannot normally sense that are manifestly demonstrated by simple scientific principles; magnetism, x-rays, expansion of the universe...
That is all this thread is about. Merely repeating that....'show us the phenomenon through our senses and we will accept it'.... doesn't make sense.
Merely repeating 'this is beyond science' whilst citing observable phenomena as the basis for your claim just continuously demonstrates your failure to understand the discipline you're attempting to repeatedly dismiss. It is almost certain that there are entire realms of reality outside of our current understanding and ability to detect; it's less clear that there is anything that is fundamentally outside of the scientific method's capacity to investigate, but if that were the case you'd have to explain why it was beyond science, and then come up with some alternative means of demonstrating or investigating the claim, otherwise you're just the guy in the 80's films with the 'End of the World is Nigh' sandwich board - a claim without justification just sort of hanging around in the background and not really achieving anything.
O.
-
Vlad,
You just tried to claim philosophical empiricism was somehow immune from criticism. Will you take this opportunity to apologise for that and maybe leave the forum for a period of reflection?
Your near-pathological lying here is undermined by how crap at it you are at doing it. Of course I never tried to claim that. Nor for that matter did I propose, imply or suggest any such thing. You could of course show me to be wrong about that by just citing a post I made in which I did do that, but as we both know there is no such post I suggest instead that you withdraw and apologise for your latest lie.
Your hero Jesus would be appalled by what you do in his name here.
Oh, and once you have withdrawn and apologised for your lie maybe it’s you who should leave the forum for an (ideally extended) period of reflection?
-
Vlad,
Hillside, Leprechaunism is a better bet than that paper by Sean Carroll.
I have never argued for leprechaunism, and I have no idea which paper you're referring to.
More to the point, I've rebutted several times here your various mistakes about philosophical and methodological materialism only for you variously to ignore, straw man and deflect from those rebuttals.
What's the point?
-
This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.
Really?!?
If scientific instrumentation is detection radio-frequency emissions from distant pulsars then in what way is that directly or indirectly known to the senses - our senses are unable to detect at those frequencies. So I guess the furthest you might stretch this is if the scientific instrumentation had an optical read-out that a scientist looked at.
The reality is that science goes way beyond things that we can detect with our senses - that is one of its major strengths, it is able to go way beyond the limitations of our senses.
-
The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced.
Then if they can be felt and experienced then they will leave a measurable input within our physiology. A good example was in the paper today in which the strong bond between a grandmother and grandchild was considered scientifically. In this study brain activity was measured when a grandparent was shown images and video of their grandchild - some where the child was happy, others where the child was sad. The grandmothers typically felt and experienced a strong sense of empathy and bonding with the child through these images/videos - and guess what that feel and experience was clearly associated with predictable alterations in brain activities.
-
If they can be felt and experienced, that means that they are known to the senses. Experience is derived from sensory information, ultimately.
Yes I was wondering about that too. I asked Vlad what he meant by "exploring" ideas. As in how do we know we are exploring something unless we can sense that we are exploring it and detect an experience corresponding to that exploration. I was asking Vlad how he would instruct someone to explore - e.g. what steps would they follow. And if they followed those steps and did not feel what he felt when he followed those steps, what would that signify to him. He has not answered yet.
For example individual morality is often linked by psychologists to involuntary feelings of disgust - a sense of nausea or wanting to expel something from our body in response to the emotion we call disgust - it could be triggered by a thought. Small experiments on volunteer subjects have indicated that feelings of disgust can be controlled and reduced or excited by stimulating a certain part of the brain with an electric current from a magnetic field. This needs to be tested further in bigger trials.
I would be interested to know what is sensed about reality and how Sriram identifies that he is sensing something about reality that other people aren't sensing and what he thinks he is using to sense it?
-
Yes I was wondering about that too. I asked Vlad what he meant by "exploring" ideas. As in how do we know we are exploring something unless we can sense that we are exploring it and detect an experience corresponding to that exploration. I was asking Vlad how he would instruct someone to explore - e.g. what steps would they follow. And if they followed those steps and did not feel what he felt when he followed those steps, what would that signify to him. He has not answered yet.
For example individual morality is often linked by psychologists to involuntary feelings of disgust - a sense of nausea or wanting to expel something from our body in response to the emotion we call disgust - it could be triggered by a thought. Small experiments on volunteer subjects have indicated that feelings of disgust can be controlled and reduced or excited by stimulating a certain part of the brain with an electric current from a magnetic field. This needs to be tested further in bigger trials.
I would be interested to know what is sensed about reality and how Sriram identifies that he is sensing something about reality that other people aren't sensing and what he thinks he is using to sense it?
Absolutely - if we feel and experience something then it must relate to some alteration in our physiology or we wouldn't be feeling or experiencing it.
While there is a lot of work going on in this area, from neuroscience through to behavioural science and neuro-psychology I think we have some way to go before we get close to fully understanding the relationships between what we feel and experience and the underlying biology of feeling and experiencing. But underlying biology there certainly will be.
-
Yes....I am sure there have been brain mapping or other types of research on spiritual experiences. That is not new. But the moment the experience is recorded on some instrument...all atheists jump up and down in glee.... 'See, it is just something in the brain...nothing spiritual or nonphysical about it'.
-
Secondly, 'experience' is not just about some feeling of thrill or joy or whatever. There are lots of other things such as a prior knowledge of events, events happening almost miraculously, the feeling of presence of a superior being and so on. These cannot be researched but only experienced personally.
-
Yes....I am sure there have been brain mapping or other types of research on spiritual experiences. That is not new. But the moment the experience is recorded on some instrument...all atheists jump up and down in glee.... 'See, it is just something in the brain...nothing spiritual or nonphysical about it'.
Firstly I doubt atheists are jumping up and down in glee. However all people interesting in extending and expanding our understanding will be interested in the findings, which demonstrate that the phenomena you describe are associated with alternations in our physiology that we can study and measure. What's not to like in understanding a little more about them ... unless the evidence undermines your prejudged conclusions about what these phenomena are ;)
And whether they are 'spiritual' or not - well frankly Sriran, spiritual is a term created by humans and can have a wide variety of definitions - see VG's list on another thread. If you want to describe them as 'spiritual', that's up to you but I won't use that word about them if that's all the same to you. However if you claim that they are unrelated to physical processes within our bodies, our physiology etc then I'm afraid that the evidence demonstrates that you are wrong. Perhaps that's why you seem to want to ignore the evidence.
-
VG,
Yes I was wondering about that too. I asked Vlad what he meant by "exploring" ideas. As in how do we know we are exploring something unless we can sense that we are exploring it and detect an experience corresponding to that exploration. I was asking Vlad how he would instruct someone to explore - e.g. what steps would they follow. And if they followed those steps and did not feel what he felt when he followed those steps, what would that signify to him. He has not answered yet.
For example individual morality is often linked by psychologists to involuntary feelings of disgust - a sense of nausea or wanting to expel something from our body in response to the emotion we call disgust - it could be triggered by a thought. Small experiments on volunteer subjects have indicated that feelings of disgust can be controlled and reduced or excited by stimulating a certain part of the brain with an electric current from a magnetic field. This needs to be tested further in bigger trials.
I would be interested to know what is sensed about reality and how Sriram identifies that he is sensing something about reality that other people aren't sensing and what he thinks he is using to sense it?
Yes, when they finally run out of road the woo merchants here claim to have special powers that the rest of us lack that enable them to experience their various phenomenological assertions. Vlad claimed something similar here recently, but ran away when questioned about it.
Quite what these magic metaphysical goggles might be and how we’re supposed to test this claim is anyone’s guess – we’re just expected to take their word for it it seems.
-
This will go on forever Prof D. Is it really a 'spiritual' experience? Where does it originate? Is it God who makes it happen?
The point is that those who have such experiences feel fulfilled, happy and full of hope and faith. What it actually is we are not likely to know. It probably doesn't matter.
-
Sriram,
Yes....I am sure there have been brain mapping or other types of research on spiritual experiences. That is not new. But the moment the experience is recorded on some instrument...all atheists jump up and down in glee.... 'See, it is just something in the brain...nothing spiritual or nonphysical about it'.
It’s not atheists, just rationalists – and no-one’s jumping up and down about it. When an experiential phenomenon can be explained with evidence as a physiological event why reject the explanation?
Secondly, 'experience' is not just about some feeling of thrill or joy or whatever. There are lots of other things such as a prior knowledge of events,…
And your evidence for that claim would be?
…events happening almost miraculously,…
Rare and surprising things happen all the time and require no “miracles”. So?
the feeling of presence of a superior being and so on.
A “feeling” of “presence of a superior being” doesn’t mean there is a presence or superior being – just that it feels that way.
These cannot be researched but only experienced personally.
Except of course by “experience” you’re jumping straight to the narrative explanation for the experience with no connecting logic or evidence to get you there.
Apart from all that though…
-
Sriram,
This will go on forever...
It will go on for as long a you continue to refuse to engage with the arguments and learn from your mistakes - which on current evidence may indeed be forever.
-
This will go on forever Prof D. Is it really a 'spiritual' experience? Where does it originate? Is it God who makes it happen?
The point is that those who have such experiences feel fulfilled, happy and full of hope and faith. What it actually is we are not likely to know. It probably doesn't matter.
Actually it does matter - because while you, in a rather PollyAnna-ish fashion have focussed on the good stuff feelings and experiences can be negative too - so for example people can feel fearful, anxious etc etc.
And sometimes positive or negative feelings are detached from an obvious reason - I'm happy because I just got married, I'm fearful because I just lost my job etc etc. And this is often because the physiology which makes us feel these things becomes uncoupled from the triggers that should drive them. And if we understand those links we can begin to help people with depression, chronic anxiety etc etc either through medication that directly target the known physiology or other therapies that can influence that physiology.
And you won't be surprised to learn that I do not consider that it is god who makes it happen as I do not believe that god exists.
-
Yes....I am sure there have been brain mapping or other types of research on spiritual experiences.
I'm not sure 'spiritual' is a term that science would necessarily use - brain mapping involves measuring neurological events, which could be tied to claims of experience, memories and emotions.
That is not new. But the moment the experience is recorded on some instrument...all atheists jump up and down in glee.... 'See, it is just something in the brain...nothing spiritual or nonphysical about it'.
No, it's in the brain and I'm not sure that's in any way been disputed in recent times. The question is about - to perhaps oversimplify a little - how it gets into the brain. The mapping will be compared against previous mapping exercises to see if there's a discernible pattern to identify the likely source of any given activity - what's lacking at the moment is any sort of reliable evidence for something as a source which is outside of established recorded sources.
Secondly, 'experience' is not just about some feeling of thrill or joy or whatever.
Again, you're sort of missing the point in this context; generally, yes, there are people looking at the subjective understanding of the experience to try to identify patterns in the measured activity related to it. In this discussion, though, we're looking for the stimuli that cause both the emotional and neurological responses.
There are lots of other things such as a prior knowledge of events,
For which there is no reliable evidence that such a thing has happened, and in the instances where claimants have been tested they have reliable fared at best no better than chance.
...events happening almost miraculously,
Almost miraculously? Ultimately, even 'actually' miraculously is just an admission that we don't know how it happened. By definition it gives us no idea of the cause; if it did, it wouldn't be a miracle, it'd be an explicable event with a defined cause. 'Miracle' is just an attempt to elevate ignorance to profundity.
...the feeling of presence of a superior being and so on.
Again, easily attributable to the established hereditary benefit of Type II errors for human survival, but even failing that the sense of presence of a superior being is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the actual presence of a superior being, or the existence of a superior being. There are other, more viable explanations.
These cannot be researched but only experienced personally.
No, they can be researched. Even events that have previously been experienced but not, say, recorded can be investigated to a degree, which is part of how we can establish that there is a common neurochemical and behavioural link between people who have certain experiences which are not validated by the observable phenomena - then we can get an understanding that certain conditions are characterised by, say, hallucinations. It's not a guarantee that any given example fits, but it accounts for at least some.
Is it really a 'spiritual' experience?
On the available evidence, probably not. You either need to explain how science could investigate that it is (formulate a testable hypothesis) or you need to come up with an alternative methodology to demonstrate that it is. Otherwise, current convention is that it's most likely just some aberrant brain activity.
Where does it originate? Is it God who makes it happen?
If you want to claim it's from 'god', you need to demonstrate god, or you need to demonstrate a reliable, inextricable link between the activity and the scenario in circumstances that rule out aberrant brain behaviour. Or an alternative methodology.
The point is that those who have such experiences feel fulfilled, happy and full of hope and faith. What it actually is we are not likely to know. It probably doesn't matter.
It does matter. It matters enough to you, for instance, to post about it consistently. It matters to others enough that they'll blow people up over it, they'll shoot schoolchildren because of it, they'll perpetrate genocide on other people who feel just as strongly but ever so slightly differently about it, they'll attempt to restrict the lives of others over it. It has real world consequences because the source of those experiences doesn't intrinsically affect how those people that have the experiences decide to express themselves in response to them.
O.
-
Not sure if this has been posted on this MB before https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives#t-282763
This TED Talk by Jonathan Haidt on a related topic of where morality comes from puts forward the idea on nature vs nurture / innateness by Gary Marcus (Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology at New York University and Director of the NYU Infant Language Centre) that each person's mind already has mechanisms built into the brain at birth, and that these mechanisms are a result of gene coding. Built in does not mean it is not malleable but means it is organised in advance of experience.
So he puts forward the claim that developmental psychology has shown that newborn babies come into the world with their brains already programmed for them to learn certain things and harder to learn others. This is referred to as the first draft of the moral mind. As we grow and experience our environment the nurture side develops to shape our views and our sensory reactions, which goes towards forming our moral values in different situations based on reasoning but also our individual sense of disgust or empathy or anxiety in relation to key issues.
Based on the research across multiple cultures and even across some species, Haidt believes there are 5 key issues that we are all neurologically / biologically programmed to focus on and that shapes our moral mind - our morality, thoughts and behaviour. The 5 issues he came up with are:
1. Harm / care - to bond and care for others and oppose harm
2. Fairness, reciprocity e.g. Golden Rule (although Haidt says there is ambiguous evidence for reciprocity in other animals)
3. Formation of groups and co-operation - tribal psychology
4. Authority, respect - but for humans deference is less based on power and brutality and more based on voluntary deference, love
5. Purity, sanctity - not necessarily sexual purity but could be related to purity around the food you put in your body
Obviously the biology and neurology needs much more thorough investigation before coming to any conclusions, and those conclusions will be subject to revision based on new information.
-
Well...ok.
This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.
Aha. A definition of what you mean by materialism and a fairly reasonable one at that.
The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced.
The senses are the only equipment we have that make it possible to feel or experience things in the wider world. Anything that you experience that does not come to you via your senses is entirely within your own imagination. In other words, when you describe an experience that did not come to you via your senses, there's no reason for anybody else to assume it has any objective reality outside of your head.
-
Really?!?
If scientific instrumentation is detection radio-frequency emissions from distant pulsars then in what way is that directly or indirectly known to the senses - our senses are unable to detect at those frequencies.
Typically the scientific instrument will paint a picture in terms that our senses can detect. For example, it might produce a graph of the radio emissions from the pulsar that we can see with our eyes. I'm pretty sure that that is what Sriram means by "indirectly".
-
Typically the scientific instrument will paint a picture in terms that our senses can detect. For example, it might produce a graph of the radio emissions from the pulsar that we can see with our eyes. I'm pretty sure that that is what Sriram means by "indirectly".
It may just produce numerical data, but I guess that is something that our senses and brain processes.
-
Based on the research across multiple cultures and even across some species, Haidt believes there are 5 key issues that we are all neurologically / biologically programmed to focus on and that shapes our moral mind - our morality, thoughts and behaviour. The 5 issues he came up with are:
1. Harm / care - to bond and care for others and oppose harm
2. Fairness, reciprocity e.g. Golden Rule (although Haidt says there is ambiguous evidence for reciprocity in other animals)
3. Formation of groups and co-operation - tribal psychology
4. Authority, respect - but for humans deference is less based on power and brutality and more based on voluntary deference, love
5. Purity, sanctity - not necessarily sexual purity but could be related to purity around the food you put in your body
Obviously the biology and neurology needs much more thorough investigation before coming to any conclusions, and those conclusions will be subject to revision based on new information.
This seems to make a lot of sense to me and may help explain the universality of fundamental moral principles across many philosophies. However I guess where things become divergent is how individual tribes (as I guess most philosophies and religions have arisen within one culture/tribe) is how these elements are codified and ritualised. And I suspect the codification and ritualisation of the universal moral elements is important in transmission generation to generation and therefore is also evolutionarily important.
-
1. Harm / care - to bond and care for others and oppose harm
2. Fairness, reciprocity e.g. Golden Rule (although Haidt says there is ambiguous evidence for reciprocity in other animals)
3. Formation of groups and co-operation - tribal psychology
4. Authority, respect - but for humans deference is less based on power and brutality and more based on voluntary deference, love
5. Purity, sanctity - not necessarily sexual purity but could be related to purity around the food you put in your body
I suspect these are attributes we'd likely see in other species that require societal cooperation for survival.
In a kind of 'thought experiment' way I've sometimes wondered what moral philosophies might arise were a species that is essentially solitary (except for reproduction, e.g. a snow leopard) to attain the levels of higher consciousness/thought as humans. Now you may argue that they wouldn't as there would be no evolutionary advantage in higher consciousness of that nature, as it is linked to communal and societal living. You might also argue that a solitary animal would simply not see the need for a moral code - but were we to push on this I suspect the super intelligent snow leopard wouldn't see most of these attributes as important at all, certainly not 2-4 and 1 would probably be linked to female care for offspring only.
-
This seems to make a lot of sense to me and may help explain the universality of fundamental moral principles across many philosophies. However I guess where things become divergent is how individual tribes (as I guess most philosophies and religions have arisen within one culture/tribe) is how these elements are codified and ritualised. And I suspect the codification and ritualisation of the universal moral elements is important in transmission generation to generation and therefore is also evolutionarily important.
Yes. Haidt was talking about this in relation to conservatives and liberals and how people within a culture or tribe can be violently divided on issues, partly because they cannot see that opposing approaches can achieve a much needed balance between conservatism and liberalism. His research shows that within tribes some people can take a liberal approach over an issue while others take a conservative approach.
The difference seems to be that both liberals and conservatives score similarly on
1. Harm / care - to bond and care for others and oppose harm
2. Fairness, reciprocity e.g. Golden Rule (although Haidt says there is ambiguous evidence for reciprocity in other animals)
Though liberals score these 2 issues higher than conservatives.
But there is a marked difference between conservatives and liberals on their affinity for:
3. Formation of groups and co-operation - tribal psychology - in-group loyalty
4. Authority, respect - but for humans deference is less based on power and brutality and more based on voluntary deference, love
5. Purity, sanctity - not necessarily sexual purity but could be related to purity around the food you put in your body
This is not a left-right issue as the left can demand in-group loyalty. The left can also be very conservative rather than liberal about purity / sanctity of what goes into our bodies e.g. in relation to food, although they may be liberal in relation to sex.
Haidt thinks the order and sense of security in society (generated by authority, respect) is what is important to conservatives even if it causes harm to some people. Whereas liberals celebrate change (even if it causes chaos) and new ideas and approaches so celebrate individuality.
Haidt's claim seems to be that these 5 issues are part of the brain's programming at birth due to our genetics, similar to how our our other organs and features develop in the womb- a nature thing. Though nurture will go on to influence people's eventual position in the moral matrix.
-
I suspect these are attributes we'd likely see in other species that require societal cooperation for survival.
Yes - though Haidt says the evidence that other species exhibit reciprocity is ambiguous, though they do co-operate and form groups. I have not looked at the evidence or studies. But human brains seem to have developed towards valuing reciprocity and fairness. Of course all this needs much more investigation but it is very interesting.
In a kind of 'thought experiment' way I've sometimes wondered what moral philosophies might arise where a species that is essentially solitary (except for reproduction, e.g. a snow leopard) to attain the levels of higher consciousness/thought as humans. Now you may argue that they wouldn't as there would be no evolutionary advantage in higher consciousness of that nature, as it is linked to communal and societal living. You might also argue that a solitary animal would simply not see the need for a moral code - but were we to push on this I suspect the super intelligent snow leopard wouldn't see most of these attributes as important at all, certainly not 2-4 and 1 would probably be linked to female care for offspring only.
Yes that makes sense.
-
Secondly, 'experience' is not just about some feeling of thrill or joy or whatever. There are lots of other things such as a prior knowledge of events, events happening almost miraculously, the feeling of presence of a superior being and so on. These cannot be researched but only experienced personally.
What does feeling the presence of a superior being feel like - can you or Vlad break it down? What sensations do you physically feel and what do you label those feelings?
-
What does feeling the presence of a superior being feel like - can you or Vlad break it down? What sensations do you physically feel and what do you label those feelings?
I'd imagine it would be similar to experiences that aren't uncommon amongst lots of people but the point is that people interpret them differently. So to me the interesting question isn't necessary 'what do you feel' but how on earth can you know this is the being in the presence of a superior being, rather than merely an internal emotional response. Same point for Sriram's claim that the phenomenon people report in near death experiences and other high physiological stress conditions must be an experience of an after life.
-
These cannot be researched but only experienced personally.
Of course they can be researched and are being researched. Indeed in some cases we know enough about the associated neurological response that we can stimulate the perception of these experiences by using electrostimulation methods that trigger certain areas of the brain.
-
... such as a prior knowledge of events
These are typically confirmed in studies to be no such thing, either actual knowledge, suggestion from a non partial observer, or merely jumping to conclusions where any series of recollections can seem to fit some prior event. I can't remember whether it was Sriram who was fixated by some claims of prior lives, which any objective observed would see through in seconds. 'I wore a hat in my previous life' - no shit Sherlock - the claim being that in the previous life the person was an adult in the 1940s and 50s - pretty well everyone wore a hat. That kind of thing.
events happening almost miraculously ...
This is usually just uncommon occurrences coupled with an innate human predisposition to see patterns. So roll a dice 100 times and get 100 sixes and we will claim that is 'miraculous' but it is no more, nor less, likely than any other series of numbers from 100 dice throws. Yet for most of the others we see no pattern so do not discern a pattern that must be 'miraculous'.
-
I'd imagine it would be similar to experiences that aren't uncommon amongst lots of people but the point is that people interpret them differently. So to me the interesting question isn't necessary 'what do you feel' but how on earth can you know this is the being in the presence of a superior being, rather than merely an internal emotional response. Same point for Sriram's claim that the phenomenon people report in near death experiences and other high physiological stress conditions must be an experience of an after life.
I'm curious about what feelings Vlad and Sriram associate with being in the presence of a superior being. I can't say I've ever felt anything that would make me believe I was in the presence of a superior being.
I don't think they are claiming to know, rather that they believe they are in the presence of a superior being - but I could be wrong so will wait for them to clarify.
-
What does feeling the presence of a superior being feel like - can you or Vlad break it down? What sensations do you physically feel and what do you label those feelings?
Well...its just that. A feeling of being in the presence of a very powerful and loving being. It cannot be explained further without too many personal details. You will know it when you have it.
As far as I am concerned, the presence makes all anxiety disappear instantly and I feel flooded with love and joy. A feeling of being completely fulfilled.
I do claim to actually know!
Now, whether the presence is God Himself or a celestial being or ones own Higher Self is a different matter...... :)
-
I do claim to actually know!
How do you know Sriram - how can you be so certain that what you experience is actually the presence of a very powerful and loving being. How can you sure that you aren't just perceiving that something is there which actually isn't.
-
As far as I am concerned, the presence makes all anxiety disappear instantly and I feel flooded with love and joy. A feeling of being completely fulfilled.
Sounds like an almost text book description of the effects of anandamide which is a neurotransmitter. Sriram you will be interested that its name is derived from sanskrit.
So how can you be sure that what you are experiencing isn't simply due to release of anandamide in your brain, rather than the presence of a deity.
-
It all depends on our fundamental impression of life in general. I am not going to argue on this because it is my personal experience and no way I can take you along....
Thanks...
-
makes all anxiety disappear instantly and I feel flooded with love and joy. A feeling of being completely fulfilled.
I have felt that. When I did a tandem sky-dive for charity when I was an atheist - I was feeling really anxious when I was on the plane and then we jumped and then after the initial drop, which induced a lot more anxiety, the feeling of dropping stopped even though I was still falling and I felt like I was flying and it was exhilarating and joyful and fulfilling and then the instructor released the parachute - and it was pretty boring after that. I have never forgotten that feeling of joy - I have been a passenger on motorbikes and been galloping on a horse - all pretty exhilarating but not as much as that free-fall. Not sure I have felt anything like it since.
In relation to religion - I remember feeling in lots of emotional pain once, and I prayed on the prayer mat articulating my despair in my head and felt the pain immediately being extinguished / leave me and I felt calm and at peace. The best way I can describe it is it was like that scene in the film Towering inferno where explosives burst the water tanks at the top of the tower and all the water goes flooding through and puts out the fire in its path as it goes. Sounds crazy but that's what it felt like.
I do claim to actually know!
Now, whether the presence is God Himself or a celestial being or ones own Higher Self is a different matter...... :)
Ok - maybe you are using the word "know" in a different way from how I would use it. I would not say I know something unless I can prove it to someone else, except in the colloquial sense of I "know" my mother would never cheat on my father. Which essentially means I have absolute faith in my mother not cheating on my father.
-
Yes I was wondering about that too. I asked Vlad what he meant by "exploring" ideas. As in how do we know we are exploring something unless we can sense that we are exploring it and detect an experience corresponding to that exploration. I was asking Vlad how he would instruct someone to explore - e.g. what steps would they follow. And if they followed those steps and did not feel what he felt when he followed those steps, what would that signify to him. He has not answered yet.
I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about God, why for instance they feel that God is the very devil, if that is their case. Do they feel in the least repelled, to examine how they might feel if they found God were true. I am not asking them to examine my feelings but there own, do they feel challenged or resisted or frustrated by God?, do they feel that God might ask them, like the rich person who was asked to sell his belongings, to do something they wouldn't want to do. Why the interest in God?Is there more to it than a handful of peers in the house of Lords?
-
Sriram,
Well...its just that. A feeling of being in the presence of a very powerful and loving being. It cannot be explained further without too many personal details. You will know it when you have it.
As far as I am concerned, the presence makes all anxiety disappear instantly and I feel flooded with love and joy. A feeling of being completely fulfilled.
I do claim to actually know!
Now, whether the presence is God Himself or a celestial being or ones own Higher Self is a different matter...... :)
So you've put the bridgehead of "a feeling of being in the presence of" on one side of the river, and the assertion of there actually being a presence on the other. Where's the bridge though to take you from the feeling to the fact?
Without that bridge, you don't "know" that at all.
-
I'm curious about what feelings Vlad and Sriram associate with being in the presence of a superior being. I can't say I've ever felt anything that would make me believe I was in the presence of a superior being.
I don't think they are claiming to know, rather that they believe they are in the presence of a superior being - but I could be wrong so will wait for them to clarify.
I have tried to relate what it felt like being confronted by God's holiness and my own in comparison and in relation to it, it was disturbing and numbing and the soul matter for me to attend to. When I committed my all to him, my feelings were joy to tears. The best description of this feeling I found was in Isaiah, where the writer talks of feeling 'undone' in God's presence
I think as Sriram has said there are a range of feelings associated with the presence, for me closeness to God, the feeling of an extensive and enfolding love, I have feelings of peace and total and muscular relaxation, in my early days with God there were times when he felt far away and I had feelings of yearning for closeness to him and I get feelings of forgiveness and being accepted as I am. For christian friends, their experiences are quite different. One described being in Church and having a mental picture of a shaft of light into which he stepped and from that moment he believed and trusted with no particularly strong emotional feelings.
Today I'm content for God to stir and affect me as He sees fit.
-
Vlad,
I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about God, why for instance they feel that God is the very devil, if that is their case. Do they feel in the least repelled, to examine how they might feel if they found God were true. I am not asking them to examine my feelings but there own, do they feel challenged or resisted or frustrated by God?, do they feel that God might ask them, like the rich person who was asked to sell his belongings, to do something they wouldn't want to do. Why the interest in God?Is there more to it than a handful of peers in the house of Lords?
I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about leprechauns...etc
Yet again you've reified your premise into fact and gone from there. Some of us no more have "feelings about god" than you have feelings about leprechauns. What we do have though is the reason-based conclusion that the arguments you've attempted so far to justing the claim "god" are crap.
You might in other words want to trouble yourself with putting in some foundations before asking how people feel about the chimney pots.
-
I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about God, why for instance they feel that God is the very devil, if that is their case. Do they feel in the least repelled, to examine how they might feel if they found God were true. I am not asking them to examine my feelings but there own, do they feel challenged or resisted or frustrated by God?, do they feel that God might ask them, like the rich person who was asked to sell his belongings, to do something they wouldn't want to do. Why the interest in God?Is there more to it than a handful of peers in the house of Lords?
What if people don't feel any of those things? What if people feel nothing and have no interest in gods because the concept makes no sense? What if they are only interested in why other people have so much interest in something those people can't prove exists?
-
Vlad,
I have tried to relate what it felt like being confronted by God's holiness and my own in comparison and in relation to it, it was disturbing and numbing and the soul matter for me to attend to. When I committed my all to him, my feelings were joy to tears. The best description of this feeling I found was in Isaiah, where the writer talks of feeling 'undone' in God's presence
I think as Sriram has said there are a range of feelings associated with the presence, for me closeness to God, the feeling of an extensive and enfolding love, I have feelings of peace and total and muscular relaxation, in my early days with God there were times when he felt far away and I had feelings of yearning for closeness to him and I get feelings of forgiveness and being accepted as I am. For christian friends, their experiences are quite different. One described being in Church and having a mental picture of a shaft of light into which he stepped and from that moment he believed and trusted with no particularly strong emotional feelings.
Today I'm content for God to stir and affect me as He sees fit.
And you eliminated the possibility that what you experienced were just physiological phenomena how exactly?
-
I have tried to relate what it felt like being confronted by God's holiness and my own in comparison and in relation to it, it was disturbing and numbing and the soul matter for me to attend to. When I committed my all to him, my feelings were joy to tears. The best description of this feeling I found was in Isaiah, where the writer talks of feeling 'undone' in God's presence
I think as Sriram has said there are a range of feelings associated with the presence, for me closeness to God, the feeling of an extensive and enfolding love, I have feelings of peace and total and muscular relaxation, in my early days with God there were times when he felt far away and I had feelings of yearning for closeness to him and I get feelings of forgiveness and being accepted as I am. For christian friends, their experiences are quite different. One described being in Church and having a mental picture of a shaft of light into which he stepped and from that moment he believed and trusted with no particularly strong emotional feelings.
Today I'm content for God to stir and affect me as He sees fit.
Ok thanks for the details.
Feelings of peace I can relate to or at least feelings of being less burdened during/ after prayer. Belief in the concept of a god, something greater than myself, is beneficial for me as when I pray it's an easy way for me to shift to a different perspective of not feeling that problems are always in my control or that I need to foresee all potential consequences and try to manage them.
I can't say I have ever experienced feeling 'undone'. But we are operating within the limitations of language and what you associate with the word 'undone' may be different from what I associate with it.
Feeling accepted is also not something I can relate to - but I can't say I have a yearning to feel accepted so maybe that's why it is not something I associate with a feeling of peace.
Trust I think I can relate to in that I have felt that.
-
Vlad,
I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about leprechauns...etc
Yes, in your case I would suggest medical involvement in that. I have investigated my feelings and I can say that after years of you promoting them I've become rather fond of the little chaps.
-
Vlad,
Yes, in your case I would suggest medical involvement in that. I have investigated my feelings and I can say that after years of you promoting them I've become rather fond of the little chaps.
And your response to the reification fallacy you just attempted would be what exactly?
Oh, and about you withdrawing and apologising for your most recent lie about a claim I supposedly made about materialism - how's that coming along?
-
I have felt that. When I did a tandem sky-dive for charity when I was an atheist - I was feeling really anxious when I was on the plane and then we jumped and then after the initial drop, which induced a lot more anxiety, the feeling of dropping stopped even though I was still falling and I felt like I was flying and it was exhilarating and joyful and fulfilling and then the instructor released the parachute - and it was pretty boring after that. I have never forgotten that feeling of joy - I have been a passenger on motorbikes and been galloping on a horse - all pretty exhilarating but not as much as that free-fall. Not sure I have felt anything like it since.
In relation to religion - I remember feeling in lots of emotional pain once, and I prayed on the prayer mat articulating my despair in my head and felt the pain immediately being extinguished / leave me and I felt calm and at peace. The best way I can describe it is it was like that scene in the film Towering inferno where explosives burst the water tanks at the top of the tower and all the water goes flooding through and puts out the fire in its path as it goes. Sounds crazy but that's what it felt like.
Ok - maybe you are using the word "know" in a different way from how I would use it. I would not say I know something unless I can prove it to someone else, except in the colloquial sense of I "know" my mother would never cheat on my father. Which essentially means I have absolute faith in my mother not cheating on my father.
Yes...there are lots of things inside us than outside. Investigating and understanding these things is 'spirituality' and requires introspection. Yoga and other methods teach us precisely about the inner layers of the mind and consciousness.
-
Vlad,
And you eliminated the possibility that what you experienced were just physiological phenomena how exactly?
Just too much association of these with this God thing, Hillside, and that has been reinforced by the accounts of the religious contributors on this forum.
Why shouldn't one response to the necessary entity be physiological?
-
Vlad,
And your response to the reification fallacy you just attempted would be what exactly?
Oh, and about you withdrawing and apologising for your most recent lie about a claim I supposedly made about materialism - how's that coming along?
you what?
-
Vlad,
Just too much association of these with this God thing, Hillside, and that has been reinforced by the accounts of the religious contributors on this forum.
Why shouldn't one response to the necessary entity be physiological?
Do you want to unscramble that into a comprehensible thought?
Oh and you just selectively edited out of my post, yet again: about you withdrawing and apologising for your most recent lie about a claim I supposedly made about materialism - how's that coming along?
-
Yes...there are lots of things inside us than outside. Investigating and understanding these things is 'spirituality' and requires introspection. Yoga and other methods teach us precisely about the inner layers of the mind and consciousness.
But what you and VG are describing is textbook description of the effects of anandamide.
Surely the place to start in terms of understanding these experiences isn't 'spirituality' or yoga etc, which may just be triggers for release of anandamide, as may be skydiving. Why not look into the physiology and then try to understand how individuals are able to control that physiology via certain activities. And I'd imagine that sometimes the release may be in effect beyond our control (I suspect VG's was subconscious), but we can almost certainly learn to act in a manner, or choose to repeat activities and practices that result in that release. And I'm sure yoga may be one of those things, communal singing is known to be another.
-
Vlad,
you what?
You reified your belief “god” into a fact that people would apparently explore.
You also flat out lied by claiming I’d said something about materialism being beyond criticism that I hadn’t said at all. I called you out on the lie, and you’ve ignored it. If you can’t justify the claim, you should withdraw and apologise for it.
-
Why shouldn't one response to the necessary entity...
What necessary entity? You haven't got anywhere near to showing that such a thing exists. Your 'arguments' were so full of holes, they were more hole than argument, and you just ignored or deflected all the difficult questions.
You even spent most of one thread running away from making any reference to any version of an argument, as if you could just pretend it into existence.
How about growing an intellectual backbone and actually put up an argument and respond directly to the questions and counterarguments?
-
But what you and VG are describing is textbook description of the effects of anandamide.
Surely the place to start in terms of understanding these experiences isn't 'spirituality' or yoga etc, which may just be triggers for release of anandamide, as may be skydiving. Why not look into the physiology and then try to understand how individuals are able to control that physiology via certain activities. And I'd imagine that sometimes the release may be in effect beyond our control (I suspect VG's was subconscious), but we can almost certainly learn to act in a manner, or choose to repeat activities and practices that result in that release. And I'm sure yoga may be one of those things, communal singing is known to be another.
Yes...you are actually right (finally). Yoga and other practices are designed to induce such a sense of fulfillment.
But the problem is...that is not enough. We need to explain Life, Mind, Consciousness, Death, purpose and so on. That is where a broader philosophical framework becomes necessary.
Chance, random variations, NS and emergence ...are just not good enough.
-
Vlad,
You reified your belief “god” into a fact that people would apparently explore.
I've just suggested that people explore their own feelings about God. Obviously only someone who is so fanatical about philosophical empiricism that they would bet their soul on that would see that as the equivalent of selling one's kidneys.
I wouldn't explore africa or the favelas of colombia Hillside but I am prepared to admit that that is out of fear. If you wont explore your feelings to God perhaps you should explore why not.
I stick to my opinion that you are not prepared to brook criticism of philosophical empiricism. If I called that materialism then that was indeed a mistake.
-
Sriram,
Yes...you are actually right (finally). Yoga and other practices are designed to induce such a sense of fulfillment.
But the problem is...that is not enough. We need to explain Life, Mind, Consciousness, Death, purpose and so on. That is where a broader philosophical framework becomes necessary.
Chance, random variations, NS and emergence ...are just not good enough.
Why not?
-
What necessary entity? You haven't got anywhere near to showing that such a thing exists. Your 'arguments' were so full of holes, they were more hole than argument, and you just ignored or deflected all the difficult questions.
You even spent most of one thread running away from making any reference to any version of an argument, as if you could just pretend it into existence.
How about growing an intellectual backbone and actually put up an argument and respond directly to the questions and counterarguments?
I have done contingency is observed. No contingency without necessity. Is the observable universe contingent yes, Does contingency alone make any sense, no.
Does infinite regress answer any questions no, does it answer the question why something and not nothing, no. The answer to that, the sufficient reason, is therefore the final necessary entity.
Questions and counterarguments answered.
-
Yes...you are actually right (finally). Yoga and other practices are designed to induce such a sense of fulfillment.
Almost certainly they are designed to induce an increase in anandamide serum levels which cross the blood/brain barrier to induce the effects you describe. We know this now, but of course when people were developing yoga and similar practices they didn't now this albeit they felt the effects induced to be important/significant etc etc, but the reality is that the effects are physiological, and pretty well understood physiology now.
But the problem is...that is not enough. We need to explain Life, Mind, Consciousness, Death, purpose and so on. That is where a broader philosophical framework becomes necessary.
These are entirely different questions - we can ruminate all we like on life, death, purpose etc etc, but the effects you've described are almost certainly a simple chemical process in the brain.
Chance, random variations, NS and emergence ...are just not good enough.
Why aren't they enough - if they are able to adequately explain (based on evidence) why you feel as you do when you think god is around, or when I sing in my choir, or when VG goes skydiving, or when someone practices yoga, why do you need to ascribe some greater purpose. Realistically the only 'greater purpose' you need to include is evolutionary benefits as it is pretty easy to see why the release of anandamide, triggered by certain experiences may be beneficial.
-
Vlad,
I've just suggested that people explore their own feelings about God.
And I’ve explained to you that there can be no “feelings about God” without a good reason to think there to be a god in the first place. There can be feelings about your belief "god", but that's a different matter. That’s your reification mistake.
Obviously only someone who is so fanatical about philosophical empiricism that they would bet their soul on that would see that as the equivalent of selling one's kidneys.
No-one does that. Why are you straw manning again?
I wouldn't explore africa or the favelas of colombia Hillside but I am prepared to admit that that is out of fear. If you wont explore your feelings to God perhaps you should explore why not.
What the fuck is wrong with you? I have good reasons to think that Africa and the favelas exist. I have no good reason to think that (your choice of or any other) god exists. Conflating the two categories is committing the fallacy of reification. Just ignoring this no matter how many times it’s explained to you is dishonest.
I stick to my opinion that you are not prepared to brook criticism of philosophical empiricism. If I called that materialism then that was indeed a mistake.
That wasn’t your accusation. Your accusation was: “You just tried to claim philosophical empiricism was somehow immune from criticism” (Reply 19). I made no such claim, so you should withdraw and apologise for the lie.
-
I have done...
Drivel.
...contingency is observed.
Yes.
No contingency without necessity.
Baseless assertion. What's more, when I asked you to logically define and justify necessity, you went on about beer and beer bellies, so an entirely relative concept, which totally contradicted your other assertions about necessary entities.
Thus far, a 'necessary entity' doesn't even have a fixed meaning in your posts.
Is the observable universe contingent yes...
Not obviously, as a whole manifold, no.
Does contingency alone make any sense, no.
Baseless assertion.
Does infinite regress answer any questions no...
Baseless assertion.
...does it answer the question why something and not nothing, no.
Neither does anything you have proposed.
The answer to that, the sufficient reason, is therefore the final necessary entity.
What's the sufficient reason for the "final necessary entity"? That was the last question you ran away from.
Questions and counterarguments answered.
Not even made a start. ::)
-
What if people don't feel any of those things? What if people feel nothing and have no interest in gods because the concept makes no sense? What if they are only interested in why other people have so much interest in something those people can't prove exists?
My advice was for people who have feelings to examine them. A concept that doesn't make sense is evidently not necessarily a bar to having feelings about it. Perhaps they should examine their feelings about something that does make sense to them and maybe if they are fanatical about a certain way of thinking, examine that.
Many people haven't come to terms that they in fact have an actual weltbild.
-
I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about God,
OK.
why for instance they feel that God is the very devil, if that is their case.
I don't because I don't believe that god exists, and nor do i believe that the devil exists.
Do they feel in the least repelled,
Repelled by god - nope don't feel that because I don't believe that god exists so hard to be repelled by something that doesn't exist.
do they feel challenged ...
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
... or resisted
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
... or frustrated by God?
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
, do they feel that God might ask them, like the rich person who was asked to sell his belongings
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
, to do something they wouldn't want to do.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Why the interest in God?
I'm not interested in god - I'm completely indifferent to god because I don't believe that god exists.
Why should this come as surprise to you Vlad - you said you were atheist once, when you don't believe something exists you tend not to be interested in its non-existent attributes, or its non existent interactions with you. Or were you an "atheist" like you idol CS Lewis - angry at god for not existing. If there is ever an attitude that belies a claim to be an atheist that is it.
Is there more to it than a handful of peers in the house of Lords?
Ah you are finally onto something, albeit trivialising matters. I do not believe that god exists but I know that religions exist and religion has impacts on society and the lives of myself and others. While I am indifferent about god I am very far from indifferent about societal and individual perceptions of religious and non-religious people, I am far from indifferent about special privileges for religion, which turned on their head is discrimination against those who are not religious. I am far from indifferent about many aspects of religiously-inspired so-called morality that runs completely counter to my own ethical framework, e.g. justifying discrimination against gay people, against women, against non religious people etc.
-
Almost certainly they are designed to induce an increase in anandamide serum levels which cross the blood/brain barrier to induce the effects you describe. We know this now, but of course when people were developing yoga and similar practices they didn't now this albeit they felt the effects induced to be important/significant etc etc, but the reality is that the effects are physiological, and pretty well understood physiology now.
These are entirely different questions - we can ruminate all we like on life, death, purpose etc etc, but the effects you've described are almost certainly a simple chemical process in the brain.
Why aren't they enough - if they are able to adequately explain (based on evidence) why you feel as you do when you think god is around, or when I sing in my choir, or when VG goes skydiving, or when someone practices yoga, why do you need to ascribe some greater purpose. Realistically the only 'greater purpose' you need to include is evolutionary benefits as it is pretty easy to see why the release of anandamide, triggered by certain experiences may be beneficial.
Well it's kind of difficult to find the time to go sky-diving or galloping on a horse etc. Religion is something that can be easily incorporated into everyday life and it makes sense if religious practices release chemicals.
I find the whole chemical release thing doesn't seem to work as well if I take a higher entity out of the process - not sure about a higher purpose as I am not sure how you can grade spiritual as being higher than non-spiritual - but the concept of the unknown, a greater power than me etc seems core for me for the release of the chemicals in connection with religion. I have also meditated as part of Shaolin kick-boxing training and in that you have concepts such as energy (chi) and connecting with the divine. But I experienced a greater sense of connection with religious rituals relating to Islam than I did with Quigong.
Also religious practice has lots of other benefits - it's a bonding experience with other people, I think social services might have something to say if I had tried to chuck my kids out of a plane to go sky-diving with me regularly...plus my husband is scared of heights.
So I prefer religion as it is a family activity, it's safer than sky-diving or horse-riding and less expensive, it opens up my mind to various philosophical perspectives because there are so many differences of interpretation so I end up reading a lot, I have found various interpretations that have a positive effect on my perspective, I learnt to read Arabic which made me feel good and hopefully developed my cognitive abilities, reciting in Arabic has a calming effect on me, it keeps me out of trouble as while I am busy reciting I am not doing something else more negative. The list of positives is long. Hence I encouraged my children to try it so it could be a shared family activity but I also warned them of some of the dangers of faith and believing things there is no objective evidence for.
-
Vlad,
My advice was for people who have feelings to examine them....
Advice you have shown no sign of taking yourself. Which of the various physiological, non-divine explanations for your experience did you examine, and how were you able to eliminate all of them?
-
OK.
I don't because I don't believe that god exists, and nor do i believe that the devil exists.
Repelled by god - nope don't feel that because I don't believe that god exists so hard to be repelled by something that doesn't exist.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
I'm not interested in god - I'm completely indifferent to god because I don't believe that god exists.
Why should this come as surprise to you Vlad - you said you were atheist once, when you don't believe something exists you tend not to be interested in its non-existent attributes, or its non existent interactions with you. Or were you an "atheist" like you idol CS Lewis - angry at god for not existing. If there is ever an attitude that belies a claim to be an atheist that is it.
Ah you are finally onto something, albeit trivialising matters. I do not believe that god exists but I know that religions exist and religion has impacts on society and the lives of myself and others. While I am indifferent about god I am very far from indifferent about societal and individual perceptions of religious and non-religious people, I am far from indifferent about special privileges for religion, which turned on their head is discrimination against those who are not religious. I am far from indifferent about many aspects of religiously-inspired so-called morality that runs completely counter to my own ethical framework, e.g. justifying discrimination against gay people, against women, against non religious people etc.
I don't suppose you are a big 'feeling' sort of guy, preferring as you do to calling them just a release of certain chemicals. You don't seem to be indifferent to God and even if you were you don't seem to be indifferent to your own weltbild which you obviously find competing with others and that it seems troubles you a bit.
-
My advice was for people who have feelings to examine them. A concept that doesn't make sense is evidently not necessarily a bar to having feelings about it.
Bafflement is probably one of the feelings. How would someone explore bafflement? What would they do first? They have heard people explain their beliefs in gods and it doesn't make sense. So not sure how you think they can explore something that does not make sense. Or why someone would want to when there are so many other more constructive things they could be doing with their limited time.
Perhaps they should examine their feelings about something that does make sense to them and maybe if they are fanatical about a certain way of thinking, examine that.
Many people haven't come to terms that they in fact have an actual weltbild.
Ok. But not sure how this would help them explore feelings about gods if the only feeling they have about gods is bafflement?
-
Vlad,
You don't seem to be indifferent to God...
Fallacy of reification. Again.
-
Vlad,
Advice you have shown no sign of taking yourself. Which of the various physiological, non-divine explanations for your experience did you examine, and how were you able to eliminate all of them?
They are inadequate, Hillside, I have explained this to you. The linguistic framework provided by 2000 years + of Christianity provides the closest fit to my experience, other linguistic frameworks and philosophies don't.
-
Vlad,
They are inadequate, Hillside, I have explained this to you. The linguistic framework provided by 2000 years + of Christianity provides the closest fit to my experience, other linguistic frameworks and philosophies don't.
And the linguistic frameworks from millennia of other faiths in other gods you think not to be real most closely fit the feelings that other people have about those gods too. Does this not even give you pause – that people frequently retro-fit their cultural traditions to validate the narratives they use to explain their experiences no matter what those traditions happen to be?
Something?
Anything?
You’ve explained nothing, other that is than the inadvertent explanation that you’re in thrall to solipsistic wishful thinking.
-
Well it's kind of difficult to find the time to go sky-diving or galloping on a horse etc. Religion is something that can be easily incorporated into everyday life and it makes sense if religious practices release chemicals.
Sure whatever rocks your boat - or rather releases your anandamide.
I find the whole chemical release thing doesn't seem to work as well if I take a higher entity out of the process - not sure about a higher purpose as I am not sure how you can grade spiritual as being higher than non-spiritual - but the concept of the unknown, a greater power than me etc seems core for me for the release of the chemicals in connection with religion. I have also meditated as part of Shaolin kick-boxing training and in that you have concepts such as energy (chi) and connecting with the divine. But I experienced a sense of connection more with religious rituals relating to Islam than I did with Quigong.
I have no doubt that different people will find different experience are better or worse at inducing the effect - and what I would opine is that for you the belief in a higher entity and incorporating this belief into your ritual is the key. I think unlike Sriram and Vlad you aren't claiming that there is definitely a higher entity actually there.
For me engaging in religious activities has the opposite effect - the certainty of believers within a religious worship setting I find really, really irritating such that I want to yell out 'there is no evidence that god even exists and you are talking as if it is absolutely known, certain and accepted' - that would be somewhat inappropriate in the middle of a church service so I tend to avoid them.
For me I guess the equivalents are the feeling I get when in wide open spaces, often mountains and when singing. Interestingly studies have shown that yoga increases anandamide levels by about 20%, yet singing increases it by over 40%. But actually there are similarities between the two in terms of controlled breathing, posture and focus/concentration.
Also religious practice has lots of other benefits - it's a bonding experience with other people, I think social services might have something to say if I had tried to chuck my kids out of a plane to go sky-diving with me regularly...plus my husband is scared of heights.
So I prefer religion as it is a family activity, it's safer than sky-diving or horse-riding and less expensive, it opens up my mind to various philosophical perspectives because there are so many differences of interpretation so I end up reading a lot, I have found various interpretations that have a positive effect on my perspective, I learnt to read Arabic which made me feel good and hopefully developed my cognitive abilities, reciting in Arabic has a calming effect on me, it keeps me out of trouble as while I am busy reciting I am not doing something else more negative. The list of positives is long. Hence I encouraged my children to try it so it could be a shared family activity but I also warned them of some of the dangers of faith and believing things there is no objective evidence for.
Sure, each to their own, but I imagine the feelings we are experiencing variously by your skydiving (when you did it) and religious practice, my singing, Sriram's yoga etc etc are actually all just different person-specific triggers for the same physiology and the same 'feeling', and in no case does this actually involve the presence of a god or higher entity, albeit for some people the belief in that presence is all-important.
-
Vlad,
Fallacy of reification. Again.
Reification? Isn't that turning an abstract thing into a concrete thing.
To accept that charge then I would have to agree that God is an abstract thing and hence sign up to YOUR belief. I see what you tried to do there.
-
I don't suppose you are a big 'feeling' sort of guy, preferring as you do to calling them just a release of certain chemicals.
Understanding what causes emotions/feelings etc doesn't mean that you somehow dismiss them as important. A love of music isn't diminished by understanding how a piano works, nor is it enhanced by thinking that music is generated by some mythical, mystical woo.
You don't seem to be indifferent to God ...
How on earth can you know how I feel. Trust me, were religion not to be a thing I doubt I'd give god a second thought. The issue is religion and its impacts, which are very real, not god who I don't believe exists.
and even if you were you don't seem to be indifferent to your own weltbild which you obviously find competing with others and that it seems troubles you a bit.
Not making a lots of sense there Vlad.
-
But the problem is...that is not enough. We need to explain Life, Mind, Consciousness, Death, purpose and so on.
Your problem in a nutshell, Sriram.
-
Vlad,
And the linguistic frameworks from millennia of other faiths in other gods you think not to be real most closely fit the feelings that other people have about those gods too. Does this not even give you pause – that people frequently retro-fit their cultural traditions to validate the narratives they use to explain their experiences no matter what those traditions happen to be?
Something?
Anything?
You’ve explained nothing, other that is than the inadvertent explanation that you’re in thrall to solipsistic wishful thinking.
I have said other frameworks do not fit my experience. It looks like you are having trouble accepting that. What is going on is that you have a weltbild you have committed to and that is it. Anything and everything must be fitted into that. I have no desire to jump into that.
Religious people have periods of doubt, struggle, dark nights and what have you. I don't suppose you let yourself or your weltbild be troubled by anything like that. That would explain why people here bask in your faith. I have not tried to odds anyone else's religious experience on here.
And as for retrofitting to fit culture, you are as they say you are the very model of the modern major atheist.
-
Sure whatever rocks your boat - or rather releases your anandamide.
I have no doubt that different people will find different experience are better or worse at inducing the effect - and what I would opine is that for you the belief in a higher entity and incorporating this belief into your ritual is the key. I think unlike Sriram and Vlad you aren't claiming that there is definitely a higher entity actually there.
Based on how I understand the meaning of the words - no I don't think it makes sense for me to claim that I "know" "definitely" anything is "there" as I can't give you objective evidence and even if I could give you objective evidence it could only lead to a provisional explanation (as in the scientific method) rather than a definite conclusion, and I am not sure what "there" means.
For me engaging in religious activities has the opposite effect - the certainty of believers within a religious worship setting I find really, really irritating such that I want to yell out 'there is no evidence that god even exists and you are talking as if it is absolutely known, certain and accepted' - that would be somewhat inappropriate in the middle of a church service so I tend to avoid them.
Yes I used to feel the same way as an atheist, and I still feel the same way as a theist about many of the beliefs and rituals fellow theists have, including fellow Muslims. Though I am a bit more chilled about it as I get older so not really feeling like yelling out. Arguing yes, but yelling not really.
For me I guess the equivalents are the feeling I get when in wide open spaces, often mountains and when singing. Interestingly studies have shown that yoga increases anandamide levels by about 20%, yet singing increases it by over 40%. But actually there are similarities between the two in terms of controlled breathing, posture and focus/concentration.
Sure, each to their own, but I imagine the feelings we are experiencing variously by your skydiving (when you did it) and religious practice, my singing, Sriram's yoga etc etc are actually all just different person-specific triggers for the same physiology and the same 'feeling', and in no case does this actually involve the presence of a god or higher entity, albeit for some people the belief in that presence is all-important.
Yes. I mean we have no way of knowing if there is a higher entity and if it is actually present as we can't prove any of that, so according to my understanding of the meaning of words I would call it a belief. Unless I use "know" colloquially to mean I have faith.
-
Understanding what causes emotions/feelings etc doesn't mean that you somehow dismiss them as important. A love of music isn't diminished by understanding how a piano works, nor is it enhanced by thinking that music is generated by some mythical, mystical woo.
.
Have you tried thinking that then and found it not to be enhanced or is that assertion based on your beliefs?
-
Vlad,
. I have no good reason to think that (your choice of or any other) god exists.
Do you mean no good reason for you?
If that paper from Sean Carroll touted on this forum constitutes what you mean by ''Good'' reason then i'm afraid I find your claim in this matter a tad laughable.
-
If that paper from Sean Carroll touted on this forum constitutes what you mean by ''Good'' reason then i'm afraid I find your claim in this matter a tad laughable.
What is actually laughable is you, who have totally failed to come up with anything remotely like a sound argument, and just run away from anything at all awkward for you, even to the extent of refusing to define your terms or be explicit about the steps, would criticise Carroll's paper, which is a discussion of possibilities, rather than an argument for a particular answer. It's rather like seeing a kid, who still struggles with "the cat sat on the mat" claiming that Shakespeare was a crap writer or somebody who can't do basic arithmetic saying Einstein was wrong.
-
Have you tried thinking that then and found it not to be enhanced or is that assertion based on your beliefs?
It is my opinion - I'm not really sure that opinions are necessarily always equated to beliefs.
Actually in my opinion understanding how music is generated by instruments and performers enhances the experience, as it allow me to engage in different ways. On the one hand I may choose to close my eyes and simply allow the music to enthall me, move me, excite me etc. But on the other hand I can also choose to watch the performer, or even if i'm listening to a record to be amazed and impressed by the musicianship.
So understanding how the music is generated allows me to engage with the music on more than one level.
But that's my opinion - perhaps you hate music Vlad.
-
It is my opinion - I'm not really sure that opinions are necessarily always equated to beliefs.
Actually in my opinion understanding how music is generated by instruments and performers enhances the experience, as it allow me to engage in different ways. On the one hand I may choose to close my eyes and simply allow the music to enthall me, move me, excite me etc. But on the other hand I can also choose to watch the performed, or even if i'm listening to a record to be amazed and impressed by the musicianship.
So understanding how the music is generated allows me to engage with the music on more than one level.
But that's my opinion - perhaps you hate music Vlad.
I was interested to see whether you experience music as ecstatic both in the sense we can probably agree on but also in the sense of being taken out of oneself, to cease thinking about oneself or to lose oneself.
Secondly If I hated music and I don't, but if I did......so what?
-
Based on how I understand the meaning of the words - no I don't think it makes sense for me to claim that I "know" "definitely" anything is "there" as I can't give you objective evidence and even if I could give you objective evidence it could only lead to a provisional explanation (as in the scientific method) rather than a definite conclusion, and I am not sure what "there" means.
Yes. I mean we have no way of knowing if there is a higher entity and if it is actually present as we can't prove any of that, so according to my understanding of the meaning of words I would call it a belief. Unless I use "know" colloquially to mean I have faith.
Then I think you are being appropriately measured in describing your faith.
However I'm not convinced that Vlad and Sriram think the same - I don't think they are using "know" colloquially to mean they have faith when they claim to know that they are in the presence of god/higher entity. I suspect they are actually in the presence of an anandamide-rush that they perceive to be the presence of something, which isn't actually there.
-
I was interested to see whether you experience music as ecstatic both in the sense we can probably agree on but also in the sense of being taken out of oneself, to cease thinking about oneself or to lose oneself.
Of course I do - in fact music tends to move me in ways that very little else can. And not just in a bliss/ecstatic sense either. Actually as an adult I think music has moved me to cry more than anything else.
Why would you think otherwise Vlad - in your mind are atheists strange mechanistic automatons who are incapable of feelings?
-
Then I think you are being appropriately measured in describing your faith.
However I'm not convinced that Vlad and Sriram think the same - I don't think they are using "know" colloquially to mean they have faith when they claim to know that they are in the presence of god/higher entity. I suspect they are actually in the presence of an anandamide-rush that they perceive to be the presence of something, which isn't actually there.
where?
-
Of course I do - in fact music tends to move me in ways that very little else can. And not just in a bliss/ecstatic sense either. Actually as an adult I think music has moved me to cry more than anything else.
Why would you think otherwise Vlad - in your mind are atheists strange mechanistic automatons who are incapable of feelings?
If I thought that I wouldn't be asking people to explore them. I tend to think atheists would like us to believe that they, and the rest of us, are strange mechanistic automatons.
Have you found music to be transcendant?
-
where?
where, what?
-
where, what?
You said you suspected God wasn't there. Where is there?
-
You said you suspected God wasn't there. Where is there?
In your presence
-
In your presence
And why is that?
-
May I invite contributors to this thread to explore any feelings elicited when seeing or reading the following words.
Religion
Atheism
Science
God
Stephen Pinker
-
And why is that?
Because VG and I were discussing the experience that you, her and Sriram describe as linking to being in the presence of god/higher entity and whether the three of you consider that you know you are in the presence of god, rather than you believe or have faith (or VG considers this to be a colloquial use of know) that you are in the presence of god.
VG will of course speak for herself but my reading of her post is that she believes she is in the presence of god rather than (noncolloqualliy) knows she is in the presence of god. My reading of your posts and Sriram is that you seem to be claiming certainty, in other words that you and Sriram claim to (noncolloqualliy) know you are in the presence of god/higher entity.
-
Because VG and I were discussing the experience that you, her and Sriram describe as linking to being in the presence of god/higher entity and whether the three of you consider that you know you are in the presence of god, rather than you believe or have faith (or VG considers this to be a colloquial use of know) that you are in the presence of god.
VG will of course speak for herself but my reading of her post is that she believes she is in the presence of god rather than (noncolloqualliy) knows she is in the presence of god. My reading of your posts and Sriram is that you seem to be claiming certainty, in other words that you and Sriram claim to (noncolloqualliy) know you are in the presence of god/higher entity.
And you suspect we aren't in the presence of God............ again how so?
From my own point of view if it looks like a duck, sounds like an etc. etc. Again I have said the linguistic framework which best fits the experience is that of Christianity and that has a specific vocabulary. The experience was so profound it's reality overshadows the affectiveness of intellectually assented fact.
I think you are erring toward mistake or madness as the explanation of the phenomenon.
Secondly I think you think all religious experience is suddenly feeling great and happy, but a reading of my previous testimony should disavow you of that.
I think each swerve from God is a response to God.
-
Because VG and I were discussing the experience that you, her and Sriram describe as linking to being in the presence of god/higher entity and whether the three of you consider that you know you are in the presence of god, rather than you believe or have faith (or VG considers this to be a colloquial use of know) that you are in the presence of god.
VG will of course speak for herself but my reading of her post is that she believes she is in the presence of god rather than (noncolloqualliy) knows she is in the presence of god. My reading of your posts and Sriram is that you seem to be claiming certainty, in other words that you and Sriram claim to (noncolloqualliy) know you are in the presence of god/higher entity.
I don't know or believe I was in the presence of God. I believe there is a God and I know I felt at peace when I was in emotional pain after I prayed following the traditional Islamic rituals and at the same time consciously in my mind acknowledging that I had nowhere else to turn (even though I had tried going for a walk to get fresh air and was at my parents' place I didn't want to talk to them as I didn't think it would help). I wasn't expecting it to work but it did - Towering Inferno style.
Other than that I can't say anything about being in the presence of something. I have no idea. But if I am in emotional pain again I intend on praying to try to relieve it.
-
And you suspect we aren't in the presence of God............ again how so?
I suspect you aren't in the presence of god because as an atheist I do not believe that god exists and therefore consistency in opinion leads me to suspect that you aren't in the presence of god (who I don't think exists) even if you think you may be.
How is that so hard to understand - unless atheism is a purely 'true for me' claim then of course an atheist isn't going to think you can be in the presence of god because an atheist doesn't believe god exists.
-
I think you are erring toward mistake or madness as the explanation of the phenomenon.
Non-sense I am erring toward anandamide as the explanation of the phenomenon. And there is plenty of evidence to support this, including research that shows that religious practice amongst the faithful can result in increased levels of anandamide which produce exactly the effects to attribute to god.
I think you are mistaken to attribute these effects to being in the presence of god, for the obvious reason that I don't believe that god exists. I've provided a perfectly reasonable non-god-requiring explanation for these effects, based on actual evidence. You on the other hand attribute these effects to god when there isn't any evidence that god even exists, even less that he/she/it can produce these effects.
-
Secondly I think you think all religious experience is suddenly feeling great and happy, but a reading of my previous testimony should disavow you of that.
No I don't - I'm well aware that religiosity can also be associated with feelings of guilt, fear, anxiety etc. But we were talking about the bliss-like state that some people attribute to the presence of god, but which is textbook anandamide effect.
-
I don't know or believe I was in the presence of God. I believe there is a God and I know I felt at peace when I was in emotional pain after I prayed following the traditional Islamic rituals and at the same time consciously in my mind acknowledging that I had nowhere else to turn (even though I had tried going for a walk to get fresh air and was at my parents' place I didn't want to talk to them as I didn't think it would help). I wasn't expecting it to work but it did - Towering Inferno style.
Other than that I can't say anything about being in the presence of something. I have no idea. But if I am in emotional pain again I intend on praying to try to relieve it.
Gabriella,
The towering inferno event is right. I describe it as a waterfall. We don't have to describe it as God. It is something we don't understand...never mind. It exists and it comes to our aid when we ask for it.
Let me tell you also that it is not just about a 'good feeling'. Not just a 'all is well' feeling. Not just about anxiety getting relieved. Even real events and situations will change suitably. Not just solace but real solutions will also appear.
That is my experience for 50 years.
-
Non-sense I am erring toward anandamide as the explanation of the phenomenon. And there is plenty of evidence to support this, including research that shows that religious practice amongst the faithful can result in increased levels of anandamide which produce exactly the effects to attribute to god.
I think you are mistaken to attribute these effects to being in the presence of god, for the obvious reason that I don't believe that god exists. I've provided a perfectly reasonable non-god-requiring explanation for these effects, based on actual evidence. You on the other hand attribute these effects to god when there isn't any evidence that god even exists, even less that he/she/it can produce these effects.
The release of anandamide as evidence that God does not exist. Interesting but hardly scientific. You have succeeded in portraying the religious as a bunch of Junkeys after their fix.
Still back to music. Do you find it transcendent?
-
The release of anandamide as evidence that God does not exist. Interesting but hardly scientific.
Oh dear, back to your inability to understand science. The release of anandamide produces the effects ascribed to the presence of god in a manner that does not require god to exist. It provide a god-free explanation. And in the absence of any evidence that god does exist data that satisfactorily explain phenomena ascribed to god (but without god) are preferred from a scientific perspective. So it isn't evidence that god does not exist but it undermines claims of blissful religious experience as evidence that god does exist.
You have succeeded in portraying the religious as a bunch of Junkeys after their fix.
Actually yes, and there are lots of articles that do exactly the same. But don't forget that runners, singers, meditators etc etc are also tarred with the same 'natural high' brush. And don't forget that many religions have used imbibing mind-altering drugs within their religious practices, presumable also to induce similar states.
Still back to music. Do you find it transcendent?
I'm not sure I would use the term transcendent as that often has religious overtones and is often used to imply stepping outside of the physical limits. So I don't think music does that - what it does do for me is take me to a different physical state, but not necessarily one that cannot be produced by other means.
-
The release of anandamide as evidence that God does not exist. Interesting but hardly scientific. You have succeeded in portraying the religious as a bunch of Junkeys after their fix.
What's wrong with being a junkie after their fix? Many people are - not just the religious.
Are you having delusions of grandeur? ;)
-
If we shower love on a baby....oxytocin (or whatever other chemical) gets released........that does not mean that the baby does not exist or that you don't actually love the baby.
The chemical is just a physical component and a product of the situation. It does not create the situation. The situation generates the chemical.
-
Vlad,
Reification? Isn't that turning an abstract thing into a concrete thing.
Close – it’s treating an “abstract thing” such as a belief about something as if the object of the belief had been shown to be real. That’s why you can no more ask people about their feelings about “god” than I can ask you about your feeling about leprechauns. (See also the idiocy of “goddodging”.)
To accept that charge then I would have to agree that God is an abstract thing and hence sign up to YOUR belief. I see what you tried to do there.
Wrong again – it’s the opposite of that. Leaving aside for now that – so far at least – you’ve never provided the slightest hint of a reason to think that belief isn’t all you have, by asking other people to consider their feelings about “god” you’re trying to get them to sign up to your belief too a priori.
-
Oh dear, back to your inability to understand science. The release of anandamide produces the effects ascribed to the presence of god in a manner that does not require god to exist. It provide a god-free explanation.
But science always gives god free explanations doesn't it? God isn't in at the start. And in the absence of any evidence that god does exist data that satisfactorily explain phenomena ascribed to god (but without god) are preferred from a scientific perspective.
Yes so it factors out God but puts the release of anandamide down to er, the release of Anandamine. So it isn't evidence that god does not exist but it undermines claims of blissful religious experience as evidence that god does exist.[/quote]I don't think so since we have to account for the reason this is occuring in religious contexts
Actually yes, and there are lots of articles that do exactly the same. But don't forget that runners, singers, meditators etc etc are also tarred with the same 'natural high' brush. And don't forget that many religions have used imbibing mind-altering drugs within their religious practices, presumable also to induce similar states.
I'm not sure I would use the term transcendent as that often has religious overtones
and that will never do and is often used to imply stepping outside of the physical limits. So I don't think music does that - what it does do for me is take me to a different physical state, but not necessarily one that cannot be produced by other means.
But I think you are just analysing an experience in physicalist terms after the event.
I think we all assume that if we all ran, meditated or sang we'd get a fix of anandamine, however doing religious things does not so guarantee a release.
So are you saying that anandenine creates the illusion of God or what? Since an encounter with God need not elicit any anandenine. Eg. Goddodging or anger at the mention of God.
I am interested in whether you think anandanine might be released in the presence of an eminent atheist, I have heard of an actress who nearly fainted when meeting Dawkins when he appeared in the Doctor who studio or perhaps having Dr Krauss performing the laying of hands on one?
-
Yes so it factors out God but puts the release of anandamide down to er, the release of Anandamine.
Nope - it explains phenomena of blissfulness that some people associate with the presence of god as being caused by the release of anandamide. Do keep up Vlad.
-
Vlad,
I have said other frameworks do not fit my experience. It looks like you are having trouble accepting that. What is going on is that you have a weltbild you have committed to and that is it. Anything and everything must be fitted into that. I have no desire to jump into that.
Evasion isn’t helping you here. Each person from each religious tradition finds that his most proximate religious cultural narrative “fits their experience”. If the Romans “sensed a presence” it was Poseidon; if the Norse did it was Thor; for you, the most proximate religious narrative just happens to be the Christian god. So what?
Religious people have periods of doubt, struggle, dark nights and what have you. I don't suppose you let yourself or your weltbild be troubled by anything like that. That would explain why people here bask in your faith. I have not tried to odds anyone else's religious experience on here.
Irrelevant, untrue and a straw man to boot.
And as for retrofitting to fit culture, you are as they say you are the very model of the modern major atheist.
Then how else do you explain every society across time and geography finding that its gods “best fit their experience” too, just as you do?
Oh, and you seem to have forgotten to withdraw an apologise for your assertion that I claimed something about materialism I didn’t claim at all. Why is that?
-
I don't think so since we have to account for the reason this is occuring in religious contexts
But it doesn't just occur in religious contexts does it - the same phenomena and the same explanation of anandamide occur in context that have nothing to do with religion - e.g. singing, running and a range of other activities. So the phenomena and its explanation are causally decoupled from religion/god. That you can also trigger these effects via religious practice is neither relevant nor surprising.
-
Vlad,
Close – it’s treating an “abstract thing” such as a belief about something as if the object of the belief had been shown to be real. That’s why you can no more ask people about their feelings about “god” than I can ask you about your feeling about leprechauns. (See also the idiocy of “goddodging”.)
That's just intellectual totalitarian wankfantasy on your part.
Wrong again – it’s the opposite of that. Leaving aside for now that – so far at least – you’ve never provided the slightest hint of a reason to think that belief isn’t all you have, by asking other people to consider their feelings about “god” you’re trying to get them to sign up to your belief too a priori.
People have hidden fears and suppress things all the time even from themselves this is why we have psychiatrists and psychologists. Secondly I think you fear my presence on this board. Why is this? what is the cause of your Vlobsession?(Vlad Obsession).
-
So are you saying that anandenine creates the illusion of God or what?
Yes that's about the long and short of it, when the experience is associated with those bliss-type feelings, which are textbook anandenine. Believers presumably perceive these effects as god.
-
Vlad,
Do you mean no good reason for you?
No - by "no good reason" I mean no reason that isn't logically false. Given your total reliance of logically false arguments to justify your assertion "god" (or your reliance on no arguments at all) you should understand this by now.
If that paper from Sean Carroll touted on this forum constitutes what you mean by ''Good'' reason then i'm afraid I find your claim in this matter a tad laughable.
SC seems to be your new unrequited bromance object around here these days. Unless you can cite the paper and tell us where you think he went wrong, this is just white noise.
-
But it doesn't just occur in religious contexts does it
sometimes it doesn't happen in religious contexts, Secondly I definitely experience emotions in religious contexts differently than in secular situations so work that one out. I think you are trying to be quantitative where it isn't appropriate - the same phenomena and the same explanation of anandamide occur in context that have nothing to do with religion - e.g. singing, running and a range of other activities. So the phenomena and its explanation are causally decoupled from religion/god. That you can also trigger these effects via religious practice is neither relevant nor surprising.
I think you are mistaking an anandamine hit with the presence of God here.
-
Vlad,
No - by "no good reason" I mean no reason that isn't logically false. Given your total reliance of logically false arguments to justify your assertion "god" (or your reliance on no arguments at all) you should understand this by now.
SC seems to be your new unrequited bromance object around here these days. Unless you can cite the paper and tell us where you think he went wrong, this is just white noise.
Ah yes you've just reminded me you are a ''you offer no arguments and those you do offer are wrong''sort of person as well as a ''using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason'' man.
-
Vlad,
That's just intellectual totalitarian wankfantasy on your part.
No, it's the definition of the term. As so often when you've been schooled and have run out of road to reply, you descend into abuse so as to cover your escape.
People have hidden fears and suppress things all the time even from themselves this is why we have psychiatrists and psychologists. Secondly I think you fear my presence on this board. Why is this? what is the cause of your Vlobsession?(Vlad Obsession).
Why would I fear a pathologically mendacious avoider of the arguments that undo him, and in any case what relevance has that to the point you responded to?
Oh, and as you have judiciously edited it out again: why still haven't you withdrawn and apologised for your assertion that I claimed something about materialism I didn’t claim at all?
-
Vlad,
Ah yes you've just reminded me you are a ''you offer no arguments and those you do offer are wrong''sort of person as well as a ''using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason'' man.
No. I'm the sort of person who explains to you why your attempts at arguments are wrong and invites you to respond to the corrections you're given, only for you to straw man, lie about or ignore them instead. Take your latest screw up re reification for example - why not try at least to deal with the problem rather than throw abuse at it in the hope no-one will notice?
-
I think you are mistaking an anandamine hit with the presence of God here.
Then prove me wrong - prove to me that god exists and that the presence of god can induce these bliss like feelings without the release of anandamine. Good luck with that one.
Meanwhile the rest of us will trundle along with good old fashioned research that will provide evidence and explanations for these phenomena.
-
...''using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason''...
And your endless repetition of this latest piece of foolishness, is just further evidence that you don't understand how to make an argument, and just repeat things that have already been dealt with without even bothering to attempt to address the answers you've already had.
How are you getting on with answering the question of what the sufficient reason for your "necessary entity" is?
-
Then prove me wrong - prove to me that god exists and that the presence of god can induce these bliss like feelings without the release of anandamine. Good luck with that one.
I don't recall claiming that. I don't see though why the presence of God and the release of anandamine should be mutually exclusive or an either/or.
Meanwhile the rest of us will trundle along with good old fashioned research that will provide evidence and explanations for these phenomena.
The trouble with that is if atheists see themselves as beyond research of which the danger is real.
-
Vlad,
No. I'm the sort of person who explains to you why your attempts at arguments are wrong and invites you to respond to the corrections you're given, only for you to straw man, lie about or ignore them instead. Take your latest screw up re reification for example - why not try at least to deal with the problem rather than throw abuse at it in the hope no-one will notice?
I never throw abuse in the hope no one will notice. You cannot get away from treating God as an abstract, true for whoever affair.
until God is proved to be so and until he is disproved, the accusation of reification is unsafe.
-
I don't see though why the presence of God and the release of anandamine should be mutually exclusive or an either/or.
That is true, but until you can actually demonstrate that god exists the notion that god is triggering your anandamine release is a rather futile exercise don't you think Vlad. So off you trundle and prove that god exists and then when/if you do that we can have a look at he/she/its ability to trigger anandamine release.
But I guess we might as well use our time usefully while we wait (likely to be a very, very long wait) so we can gain more evidence of the link between activities that trigger the bliss response, anandamine release and the feelings we experience as a result. And I suspect we won't be finding a big god-shaped hole in our understanding of the link one to the other.
-
The trouble with that is if atheists see themselves as beyond research of which the danger is real.
Eh :o Firstly I don't think you should be generalising about atheists who are a rather diverse group of people whose only collective feature is that they don't believe god/gods exist. But also this particular atheist (and I suspect most of the others on this MB) doesn't see myself as beyond research, whatever that means. I'm incredible strongly committed to research which is why I am a professional researcher.
-
But it doesn't just occur in religious contexts does it - the same phenomena and the same explanation of anandamide occur in context that have nothing to do with religion - e.g. singing, running and a range of other activities. So the phenomena and its explanation are causally decoupled from religion/god. That you can also trigger these effects via religious practice is neither relevant nor surprising.
I would not describe it as the same experience. I think trying to simplify it the way you do misses the complexity of individual human thought, genetics, neurology, and emotions that make every situation different for each person in that situation.
Sky-diving was great but it wasn't the same feeling as when I pray and certainly not the same as that moment in my parents' home. Sky-diving was the wind rushing past me, feeling like I was flying, not feeling like I was falling anymore (which had been a really scary feeling) - I would describe it as exhilarating but I am limited by language as I cannot put all the feelings I had at that moment into words. And I doubt that I felt the same as the people who were sky-diving with me - there might be some similarities but also lots of differences because we each had our own thoughts e.g memories, associations, fears, expectations that would affect our feelings during any experience.
I also remember the day I was told I'd passed the interview to get my first job after university - I felt pure joy.
The feeling when I prayed at my parents' was not what I associate with exhilaration and joy and I have not felt it in any other context. It wasn't like the warm relaxing feeling of alcohol or codeine. It was like a sudden wave going through my body - like water from a rain shower but on the inside - and it washed away or extinguished the emotional pain. And prayer wasn't something I was expecting to work - I prayed assuming it would be a waste of time but felt obligated to at least give it a try, given I was a Muslim.
So I have no evidence that the feelings from prayer could be replicated by doing something else instead. Also of course I haven't seen any evidence that what I felt was caused by anandamide, so will wait and see what research and studies have been done or will be done to investigate that.
-
I would not describe it as the same experience. I think trying to simplify it the way you do misses the complexity of individual human thought, genetics, neurology, and emotions that make every situation different for each person in that situation.
It wasn't my intention to imply that the experiences were the same - how could I, they are your experiences. And you are of course right that the same people will experience greater or lesser expressions of the same broad feelings triggered by different activities and also the same activity at different times. And different people will have those experiences triggered by different event - so I largely hate running, but still do it sometimes - I've never felt that bliss type feeling when running, but I know others do and research has shown it to be linked to anandamide. I suspect I get that feeling quite often when cycling and certainly when singing (and I cycle to my choir rehearsal, so double hit!!). But of course other people might get nothing from singing, and I have times when I experience it more or less - typically less when I'm not 'in the zone' - in other words struggling to get the music right.
Another really interesting aspect of the effects of anandamide and other endocannabinoids is that they induce a feeling of connectedness.That may be one of the reasons why there is such a strong response with communal and harmony singing, because there is a real physical connectedness which is further reinforced by anandamide. But also this sense of connectedness may be perceived by someone engaging in a solo activity as the presence of something or someone.
So I have no evidence that the feelings from prayer could be replicated by doing something else instead. Also of course I haven't seen any evidence that what I felt was caused by anandamide, so will wait and see what research and studies have been done or will be done to investigate that.
Of course I cannot say for certain that the feelings you experience when you pray are due to heightened levels of anandamide, because I doubt you've had your levels measured in a study. However how you describe those feelings is textbook anandamide effect and there is research that shows that prayer raises anandamide levels, as does yoga, as does meditation, as does singing etc. So I think I would be pretty confident that were we to measure your anandamide levels during a prayer-induced experience as you describe it, then we'd find those levels to be raised.
-
It wasn't my intention to imply that the experiences were the same - how could I, they are your experiences. And you are of course right that the same people will experience greater or lesser expressions of the same broad feelings triggered by different activities and also the same activity at different times. And different people will have those experiences triggered by different event - so I largely hate running, but still do it sometimes - I've never felt that bliss type feeling when running, but I know others do and research has shown it to be linked to anandamide. I suspect I get that feeling quite often when cycling and certainly when singing (and I cycle to my choir rehearsal, so double hit!!). But of course other people might get nothing from singing, and I have times when I experience it more or less - typically less when I'm not 'in the zone' - in other words struggling to get the music right.
Another really interesting aspect of the effects of anandamide and other endocannabinoids is that they induce a feeling of connectedness.That may be one of the reasons why there is such a strong response with communal and harmony singing, because there is a real physical connectedness which is further reinforced by anandamide. But also this sense of connectedness may be perceived by someone engaging in a solo activity as the presence of something or someone.
Of course I cannot say for certain that the feelings you experience when you pray are due to heightened levels of anandamide, because I doubt you've had your levels measured in a study. However how you describe those feelings is textbook anandamide effect and there is research that shows that prayer raises anandamide levels, as does yoga, as does meditation, as does singing etc. So I think I would be pretty confident that were we to measure your anandamide levels during a prayer-induced experience as you describe it, then we'd find those levels to be raised.
I think this line of argument is akin to saying God makes Christians smile in pentecostal services and Mickey Mouse makes people smile. Therefore that undermines God.
Leaving the quality of the smile out of it, it is as argu.ents go fairly weak.
A more promising line of argument was the holy helmet. An electromagnetic device which could induce religious feelings.
You never hear of it now probably because it wasn't a productive line of enquiry. I do hope the electromagnetic helmet survives though as the "phrenology bust" of religious neuroscience.
-
Another really interesting aspect of the effects of anandamide and other endocannabinoids is that they induce a feeling of connectedness.That may be one of the reasons why there is such a strong response with communal and harmony singing, because there is a real physical connectedness which is further reinforced by anandamide. But also this sense of connectedness may be perceived by someone engaging in a solo activity as the presence of something or someone.
Is it the view that anadamide is a stimulus which causes a response of joy or does it suppress or break the connection with all other distracting emotions and thoughts so that consciousness of an inner state of bliss is revealed?
I believe that some Eastern religions would describe these event as glimpses of what lies beyond and that the objective is to always be conscious of that state. Within some schools of Hindu philosophy the term anandamaya kosha which represents that state as an inner sheath, which also has to be transcended.
-
Vlad,
I never throw abuse in the hope no one will notice.
I assume that’s some attempt at humour? Throwing abuse in the hope no-one will notice (that you’re thereby avoided the arguments that undo you) is exactly what you do. Over and over again in fact. Here for example in Reply 242 I took the time to explain reification to you.
“Close – it’s treating an “abstract thing” such as a belief about something as if the object of the belief had been shown to be real. That’s why you can no more ask people about their feelings about “god” than I can ask you about your feeling about leprechauns. (See also the idiocy of “goddodging”.)”
It’s a perfectly clear explanation, but rather than engage with it you thought is appropriate to reply with:
“That's just intellectual totalitarian wankfantasy on your part.” (Reply 247).
No reasoning, no argument, no content of any kind – just throw a misplaced insult and then run away. That’s your typical MO, so why even try to deny it?
You cannot get away from treating God as an abstract, true for whoeveraffair.
Of course I can “get away with” that because it’s true. What’s more, it’ll remain true until and unless someone finally makes an argument to justify the claim of an objectively true god that isn’t false.
…until God is proved to be so and until he is disproved, the accusation of reification is unsafe.
Why is it that, no matter how many times I and others school you on the burden of proof principle, you still get it wrong even now? The issue here is when you ask people how they feel “god”, accuse them of goddodging” etc you’re treating the claim “god” as concretised for them rather than just a subjective faith claim for you. When your audience don’t believe in your god (because we have no reason to do so) then we can no more have feelings about, dodge etc your god claim than you can have feelings about, dodge etc my faith claim about leprechauns.
This isn’t difficult to understand (or shouldn’t be) so you have no excuse for getting it so consistently wrong.
Oh, and as you’ve judiciously edited it out yet again: why still haven't you withdrawn and apologised for your assertion that I claimed something about materialism that I didn’t claim at all?
-
I think this line of argument is akin to saying God makes Christians smile in pentecostal services and Mickey Mouse makes people smile. Therefore that undermines God.
Leaving the quality of the smile out of it, it is as argu.ents go fairly weak.
A more promising line of argument was the holy helmet. An electromagnetic device which could induce religious feelings.
You never hear of it now probably because it wasn't a productive line of enquiry. I do hope the electromagnetic helmet survives though as the "phrenology bust" of religious neuroscience.
You obviously haven't a clue what kind of feelings people get while singing.
Not much of a clue about the feelings other people get in different faith situations either. But, of course, your experience is 'better' than theirs, so it justifies your own faith position. Including, bizarrely, the intellectual gymnastics involved in the doctrine of the Trinity.
-
You obviously haven't a clue what kind of feelings people get while singing.
I have been in several choirs. Are you claiming that your singing is a better road to experience than my singing?Not much of a clue about the feelings other people get in different faith situations either. But, of course, your experience is 'better' than theirs,
I have not tried to odds anyone's religious experience on this forum unlike the many atheists so it justifies your own faith position.
I know there are intense feelings to be had in other religions but for me it isn't a Great British ''feeling off'' in Including, bizarrely, the intellectual gymnastics involved in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Intellectual gymnastics aren't a feeling , that just makes the reader think you are chucking in the Kitchen sink. Besides the intellectual gymnastics involved cannot be as spectacular as the atheist cosmologist who has built a career on basically the principle of sufficient reason who is now trying to push the doctrine of Brute fact where the former does not help his atheist agenda but the latter does.
-
Besides the intellectual gymnastics involved cannot be as spectacular as the atheist cosmologist who has built a career on basically the principle of sufficient reason who is now trying to push the doctrine of Brute fact where the former does not help his atheist agenda but the latter does.
You're both misrepresenting the situation and being a hypocrite.
Yet again: what is the sufficient reason for your proposed god?
-
You're both misrepresenting the situation and being a hypocrite.
Yet again: what is the sufficient reason for your proposed god?
Look this has already been answered several times. There is a necessary entity The necessary necessary entity is the answer to several questions
If the universe is contingent what is it contingent on?
If the universe is the necessary entity what is it which is necessary about it?(The necessary entity)
How come there is something rather than nothing? There must be a sufficient explanation and this must be the final explanation and that explanation is the necessary entity. Whatever is the necessary entity, that is what we call God.
What are the properties of the necessary entity, It is not contingent, it is not conditioned by anything else, it is not dependent on anything else, it is self directing.
-
Look this has already been answered several times.
No, it has not.
There is a necessary entity The necessary necessary entity is the answer to several questions
If the universe is contingent what is it contingent on?
If the universe is the necessary entity what is it which is necessary about it?(The necessary entity)
How come there is something rather than nothing? There must be a sufficient explanation and this must be the final explanation and that explanation is the necessary entity. Whatever is the necessary entity, that is what we call God.
Even ignoring the baseless assertions and ridiculous labelling as 'god' at the end, none of this tells us what the sufficient reason for this "necessary entity" is. And it certainly doesn't get us anywhere near answering why there is something rather than nothing.
Basically, you're applying the principle of sufficient reason until you get to what you want and then ignoring it, which is exactly what you keep on accusing others of doing.
You're using a brute fact, the "necessary entity", just as much as anybody else has suggested. It's like you think that just calling it 'necessary' magically gets you out of the the principle you keep on insisting every other possibility has to follow all the time.
It's hypocritical and laughable.
-
Vlad,
Look this has already been answered several times. There is a necessary entity The necessary necessary entity is the answer to several questions
If the universe is contingent what is it contingent on?
If the universe is the necessary entity what is it which is necessary about it?(The necessary entity)
How come there is something rather than nothing? There must be a sufficient explanation and this must be the final explanation and that explanation is the necessary entity. Whatever is the necessary entity, that is what we call God.
What are the properties of the necessary entity, It is not contingent, it is not conditioned by anything else, it is not dependent on anything else, it is self directing.
Are you not understanding the question or are you deliberately avoiding it?
It’s simple enough: if you assert there to be a necessary entity for the universe that isn’t the universe itself, how is it then that the necessary entity you’ve inserted (“god”) doesn’t itself require a necessary entity?
We know already that this is the point you resort to “it’s magic innit” (or the theological euphemism for the same thing: “mystery”) but the price you pay for that is that you’ve merely relocated the same question and answered nothing.
Tell you what – I’ll simplify the question even further for you to just two words: why god?
Do you get it now?
-
No, it has not.
Even ignoring the baseless assertions and ridiculous labelling as 'god' at the end, none of this tells us what the sufficient reason for this "necessary entity" is. And it certainly doesn't get us anywhere near answering why there is something rather than nothing.
Basically, you're applying the principle of sufficient reason until you get to what you want and then ignoring it, which is exactly what you keep on accusing others of doing.
You're using a brute fact, the "necessary entity", just as much as anybody else has suggested. It's like you think that just calling it 'necessary' magically gets you out of the the principle you keep on insisting every other possibility has to follow all the time.
It's hypocritical and laughable.
I'm not using Brute fact. The reason or explanation for why something rather than nothing is the final reason as it were there can in effect be no further question or entity since the next step is zilch which has never answered anything.
You see the necessary being has sufficient reason.
Brute fact as exemplified by Bertrand Russell's 'solution' is ''this being exists and there's an end to it''. So Russell and his admirers Dawkins and Carroll are the ones who want the principle until it doesn't suit them and you are guilty of trying to disprove the principle by claiming there is insufficient reason for it. I have stated why it is the necessary entity and that supplies sufficient reason.
We call it God because it is the origin of everything, it is not contingent that is it is not dependent on or conditioned by anything else and it is totally self directing.
-
Vlad,
I'm not using Brute fact.
Yes you are - you're asserting "god" to be a brute fact.
Once again: why god?
-
Vlad,
Are you not understanding the question or are you deliberately avoiding it?
It’s simple enough: if you assert there to be a necessary entity for the universe that isn’t the universe itself, how is it then that the necessary entity you’ve inserted (“god”) doesn’t itself require a necessary entity?
The universe or the part we observe plus the rest of the universe I think you hope to be there if it is there is going to be contingent unless we find something that is the necessary entity. Now,
that entity is necessary for the universe but it is not dependent on the universe or conditioned by the universe. In other words it is not contingent on nature. If you then say that this entity is dependent on nature then you just extend nature back so we have to ask why nature is the necessary entity (which would require a sufficient reason) or if it is itself contingent to which we must ask ''on what?''
We know already that this is the point you resort to “it’s magic innit” (or the theological euphemism for the same thing: “mystery”)
I don't.... I resort to the final question as it were ''How come there is something rather than nothing'' That will have a sufficient reason which will be the final reason and so we have arrived at the necessary entity but the price you pay for that is that you’ve merely relocated the same question and answered nothing.
No, that is anybody who relies on either Brute fact or infinite regress.
You see we have arrived at the necessary entity and as Aquinus finishes off ''and that is what we call God''. No insertion there and no brute fact because we have arrived at something which has sufficient reason.
-
I'm not using Brute fact. The reason or explanation for why something rather than nothing is the final reason as it were there can in effect be no further question or entity since the next step is zilch which has never answered anything.
Which just makes it a brute fact.
You see the necessary being has sufficient reason.
So what is the sufficient reason?
I have stated why it is the necessary entity and that supplies sufficient reason.
You have not stated why it is necessary - or even how that is logically possible in that sense - and neither have you given a sufficient reason for its existence.
-
Vlad,
The universe or the part we observe plus the rest of the universe I think you hope to be there if it is there is going to be contingent unless we find something that is the necessary entity.
That unqualified assertion is just you trying the fallacy of composition again, but it wasn’t the question in any case. Even if your guess about that was to be correct, why god rather than not god?
Now,that entity is necessary for the universe because it is not dependent on the universe or conditioned by the universe. In other words it is not contingent on nature. If you then say that this entity is dependent on nature then you just extend nature back so we have to ask why nature is the necessary entity (which would require a sufficient reason) or if it is itself contingent to which we must ask ''on what?''
Stop digging. If you want to assert the universe necessarily to be contingent on something else, why isn’t the same true for the “something else” you insert to fill the gap – ie, “god”?
I don't I resort to the final question as it were ''How come there is something rather than nothing'' That will have a sufficient reason which will be the final reason and so we have arrived at the necessary entity
Still digging then? Again – why a supposed “final entity” rather than not a final entity?
No, that is anybody who relies on either Brute fact or infinite regress.
Wrong again – you’re the one requiring ”god” to be a brute fact remember because you’re entirely unable to answer any of the question about it that you ask about the universe.
You see we have arrived at the necessary entity and as Aquinus finishes off ''and that is what we call God''. No insertion there and no brute fact because we have arrived at something which has sufficient reason.
You see, we absolutely flat out haven’t. You’ve just done the equivalent of me answering the question “why rainbows” with “leprechauns”.
It’s ok – you can say it. Your answer to the question “why god” is, “I have no idea” isn’t it. So why then do you think adding another don’t know to an existing don’t know has any explanatory value at all? You’re just rehashing the stupidity of the cosmological argument here, and it’s doing you no good at all.
Game over. You lost.
-
Which just makes it a brute fact.
So what is the sufficient reason?
The sufficient reason is there is no other possible question therefore it contains it's own raison d'etre. It is because it is the last reason there can be in the chain and that is what lifts it out of the category of Brute fact which states that ''something is and there's an end to it.
You have not stated why it is necessary - or even how that is logically possible in that sense - and neither have you given a sufficient reason for its existence.
I have stated why it is necessary, because there can be no other further reasons which condition it or on which it is dependent and I have stated why it is necessary for the something. It answers why there is not nothing.
-
Vlad,
That unqualified assertion is just you trying the fallacy of composition again, but it wasn’t the question in any case. Even if your guess about that was to be correct, why god rather than not god?
Stop digging. If you want to assert the universe necessarily to be contingent on something else, why isn’t the same true for the “something else” you insert to fill the gap – ie, “god”?
Still digging then? Again – why a supposed “final entity” rather than not a final entity?
Wrong again – you’re the one requiring ”god” to be a brute fact remember because you’re entirely unable to answer any of the question about it that you ask about the universe.
You see, we absolutely flat out haven’t. You’ve just done the equivalent of me answering the question “why rainbows” with “leprechauns”.
It’s ok – you can say it. Your answer to the question “why god” is, “I have no idea” isn’t it. So why then do you think adding another don’t know to an existing don’t know has any explanatory value at all? You’re just rehashing the stupidity of the cosmological argument here, and it’s doing you no good at all.
Game over. You lost.
No you have, God is the necessary entity. Are you saying the necessary entity does not exist if so you do not understand the implications of observed contingency.
Are you trying to say that the brute fact proponents or the infinite regress proponents are closer to satisfying the principle of sufficient reason? Then that is a perverted joke.
-
No you have, God is the necessary entity.
Do you have any evidence that your god exists or that he is a necessary entity?
No?
Game over.
-
The sufficient reason is there is no other possible question therefore it contains it's own raison d'etre.
How is it possible for something to be its own reason? How does this differ from being a brute fact or logically the same as being contingent on itself, i.e. the sort of cyclic contingency that you rejected before?
It is because it is the last reason there can be in the chain and that is what lifts it out of the category of Brute fact which states that ''something is and there's an end to it.
Saying "it is the last reason there can be in the chain" is logically exactly the same as saying "something is and there's an end to it". Your "necessary entity" (as you've described it) does not differ in any way from a brute fact.
It answers why there is not nothing.
In exactly the same way as a brute fact.
-
Vlad,
No you have, God is the necessary entity. Are you saying the necessary entity does not exist if so you do not understand the implications of observed contingency.
Are you trying to say that the brute fact proponents or the infinite regress proponents are closer to satisfying the principle of sufficient reason? Then that is a perverted joke.
So Vladdism comprises:
1. Making various unqualified and un-evidenced claims about the characteristics of the universe; and
2. Inserting “god” to answer them but special pleading away the same unqualified and un-evidenced assertions so they don’t apply to that god too.
Or, to put it another way:
https://imgur.com/gallery/ApzhVFj
-
Are you trying to say that the brute fact proponents or the infinite regress proponents are closer to satisfying the principle of sufficient reason? Then that is a perverted joke.
Again: there is no logical difference between what you've described as a 'necessary entity' and a brute fact. Neither satisfy the principle of sufficient reason because you can't give a sufficient reason for the necessary entity's existence. All you've done is just assert that it has one in itself, without the slightest attempt at saying how that is even logically possible. You've also made a series of baseless assertions about such an entity's characteristics, i.e. you haven't given sufficient reason to believe that these are the characteristics of the proposed 'necessary entity'. And the identification with god is just a joke.
Neither have you given sufficient reason to think the principle of sufficient reason applies to existence itself. And, no, that isn't a contradiction or a joke, sufficient reason in a logical argument context is not the same as sufficient reason for physical existence. It is also the case that all logical constructs or arguments start with brute facts (premises or axioms) that haven't been argued for in themselves.
-
Do you have any evidence that your god exists or that he is a necessary entity?
No?
Game over.
The necessary entity is what we call God, So you accept a necessary entity which is not contingent, creative and self directing by logic but you need scientific evidence confirming it. Is that where you are.
Secondly....what is it you think you've won?
-
How is it possible for something to be its own reason? How does this differ from being a brute fact or logically the same as being contingent on itself, i.e. the sort of cyclic contingency that you rejected before?
Saying "it is the last reason there can be in the chain" is logically exactly the same as saying "something is and there's an end to it". Your "necessary entity" (as you've described it) does not differ in any way from a brute fact.
In exactly the same way as a brute fact.
But I am saying there is a last question namely ''why something and not nothing.'' To which going by the principle of sufficient reason, the answer is the necessary entity. There can be no further questions and therefore reasons since any other question would be non sequitur. That is the sufficient reason.
Brute fact just says something is with no explanation or need. Read Carroll on the differences between the principle of sufficient reason and Brute fact. You are saying that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason, that is absurd.
Russell says the universe just is and there's an end to it. There is insufficient reason, obviously, but you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker and hypocritically, since you have accused me of insufficient reason but lauded Russell merely because he said what you wanted to hear.
-
Vlad,
So Vladdism comprises:
1. Making various unqualified and un-evidenced claims about the characteristics of the universe; and
2. Inserting “god” to answer them but special pleading away the same unqualified and un-evidenced assertions so they don’t apply to that god too.
Or, to put it another way:
https://imgur.com/gallery/ApzhVFj
Sorry, but the argument from contingency, the principle of sufficient reason and the answer to the final question are all more elegant than brute fact or infinite regression. Did I say more elegant? I meant deliciously elegant.
I think you'll find the attributes of the necessary entity are anathema to naturalism and atheism. You did raise one point why only one necessary entity, good question but I think parsimony comes into it and it does raise another question ''why two?'' the answer to which could lie in neither, there would be a problem if one conditioned another or they both conditioned each other since that renders them contingent beings.
-
But I am saying there is a last question namely ''why something and not nothing.'' To which going by the principle of sufficient reason, the answer is the necessary entity. There can be no further questions and therefore reasons since any other question would be non sequitur. That is the sufficient reason.
But "the necessary entity" in that sentence is meaningless, it might as well be "lizqonwuv67". All you're saying is the must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing and that reason has no further explanation, so it's logically identical to a brute fact.
Unless you can provide sufficient reason for the necessary entity's existence, and why it is what it is, that goes beyond "there is something rather than nothing, so there must be a reason for that", then it's just a brute fact.
Brute fact just says something is with no explanation or need.
Which is exactly what you've just done about the "necessary entity". Just giving it the name "necessary" doesn't magically provide a sufficient reason.
You are saying that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason, that is absurd.
It isn't, for the two reasons I already explained and you ignored.
Russell says the universe just is and there's an end to it. There is insufficient reason, obviously, but you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker and hypocritically, since you have accused me of insufficient reason but lauded Russell merely because he said what you wanted to hear.
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what other people say? Or is it that you still haven't understood the burden of proof? I am not putting forward a solution here, you are. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. I criticised you about sufficient reason because it's you who said it must always apply. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be something else that goes over your head.
I'm making two points:
- I don't see a way in which a necessary entity can make logical sense. As it points out in the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02231.pdf) "...as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed." I agree, so I'm sceptical of the idea but open to being convinced if some credible argument is put forward.
- You have definitely got nowhere near making such an argument and your description of a "necessary entity" is logically identical to a brute fact, for which you have given no sufficient reason, hence contradicting your own insistence that PSR must be applied in this case.
-
Vlad,
Sorry, but the argument from contingency, the principle of sufficient reason and the answer to the final question are all more elegant than brute fact or infinite regression. Did I say more elegant? I meant deliciously elegant.
Whether you think them “more elegant” is a matter for you, but they remain wrong nonetheless for the reasons I and others give you and you just ignore. Yet again:
1. You have no idea whether or not everything in the universe is contingent on something else (your black swan mistake).
2. Even if you did know that, you have no idea whether characteristics of the components of the universe must also apply to the universe as a whole (you fallacy of composition mistake).
3. Even if you could resolve 1 & 2, you then rely on magic/mystery to get you off the hook of addressing exactly the same questions about your supposed cause (your special pleading mistake).
Well done though – you’ve achieved the trifecta of fallacious reasoning here. Quite a feat!
I think you'll find the attributes of the necessary entity are anathema to naturalism and atheism.
Well yes – “it’s magic innit” is anathema to any reason-based position.
You did raise one point why only one necessary entity,…
No I didn’t. What I actually raised was the question of why one god rather that not one god. I even reduced it to two words for you (“why god?”) so you could grasp it. So far though you’ve shown no intention of even trying to answer that.
… good question but I think parsimony comes into it and it does raise another question ''why two?'' the answer to which could lie in neither, there would be a problem if one conditioned another or they both conditioned each other since that renders them contingent beings.
Ironically, the principle of parsimony is what undoes your unqualified assertion of a necessary god in the first place. We already have one don’t know about some fundamental questions about the universe, and adding another don’t know regarding the same questions about a supposed cause of the universe adds nothing at all of explanatory use.
In short, even by your dismal standards you’ve managed a pretty epic fail here.
-
But "the necessary entity" in that sentence is meaningless, it might as well be "lizqonwuv67". All you're saying is the must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing and that reason has no further explanation, so it's logically identical to a brute fact.
Unless you can provide sufficient reason for the necessary entity's existence, and why it is what it is, that goes beyond "there is something rather than nothing, so there must be a reason for that", then it's just a brute fact.
Which is exactly what you've just done about the "necessary entity". Just giving it the name "necessary" doesn't magically provide a sufficient reason.
It isn't, for the two reasons I already explained and you ignored.
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what other people say? Or is it that you still haven't understood the burden of proof? I am not putting forward a solution here, you are. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. I criticised you about sufficient reason because it's you who said it must always apply. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be something else that goes over your head.
I'm making two points:
- I don't see a way in which a necessary entity can make logical sense. As it points out in the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02231.pdf) "...as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed." I agree, so I'm sceptical of the idea but open to being convinced if some credible argument is put forward.
- You have definitely got nowhere near making such an argument and your description of a "necessary entity" is logically identical to a brute fact, for which you have given no sufficient reason, hence contradicting your own insistence that PSR must be applied in this case.
The argument from contingency supplies the sufficient reason.
In terms of the something rather than nothing argument. There is a reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That reason must be the fundemental entity which exists independent from what it is responsible for and without it there would be nothing and that explains why it is necessary. That is different from saying ''it just is'' which is the definition. Anything further than why something rather than nothing (I cannot think of any other pertinent line or continuation of questioning)is non sequitur.
As I say you misunderstand the term Brute fact, in which there is no explanation.
-
Vlad,
Whether you think them “more elegant” is a matter for you, but they remain wrong nonetheless for the reasons I and others give you and you just ignore. Yet again:
1. You have no idea whether or not everything in the universe is contingent on something else (your black swan mistake).
2. Even if you did know that, you have no idea whether characteristics of the components of the universe must also apply to the universe as a whole (you fallacy of composition mistake).
3. Even if you could resolve 1 & 2, you then rely on magic/mystery to get you off the hook of addressing exactly the same questions about your supposed cause (your special pleading mistake).
Well done though – you’ve achieved the trifecta of fallacious reasoning here. Quite a feat!
Well yes – “it’s magic innit” is anathema to any reason-based position.
No I didn’t. What I actually raised was the question of why one god rather that not one god. I even reduced it to two words for you (“why god?”) so you could grasp it. So far though you’ve shown no intention of even trying to answer that.
Ironically, the principle of parsimony is what undoes your unqualified assertion of a necessary god in the first place. We already have one don’t know about some fundamental questions about the universe, and adding another don’t know regarding the same questions about a supposed cause of the universe adds nothing at all of explanatory use.
In short, even by your dismal standards you’ve managed a pretty epic fail here.
No, parsimony doesn't mean bowdlerising something so that it fits.
Occam's razor demands that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity therefore if the universe is contingent then we are entitled to ask on what.
If there is something about the universe which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is. You are also talking about the fundamental questions about the universe plural, What you are doing here is changing the goalpost away from the single fundamental question is it contingent or necessary. Asking us to now focus on what science wants to know about the universe is you wanting to go back to the universe just is and that's that (brute fact) now let's talk about science. That is an attempt to avoid the issues (God dodging)
There is no magic involved since argument from contingency is a bottom up argument throwing Dennett with his skyhook accusation completely under the bus.
-
The argument from contingency supplies the sufficient reason.
Just asserting it, does not make it so.
In terms of the something rather than nothing argument. There is a reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That reason must be the fundemental entity which exists independent from what it is responsible for and without it there would be nothing and that explains why it is necessary.
So, if there was nothing, then the necessary entity wouldn't exist, so you've now made it contingent on there being something rather than nothing and set up a cycle of contingency of the sort that you already rejected.
It's still basically a brute fact, and it still tells us absolutely nothing about what sort of thing it might be.
That is different from saying ''it just is'' which is the definition.
But all you've done is say exactly that; it just is because otherwise there wouldn't be anything. You still haven't given a reason why there is something (and hence the necessary thingy) rather than nothing.
You're just tying yourself in linguistic knots to avoid the blindingly obvious.
As I say you misunderstand the term Brute fact, in which there is no explanation.
Irony overload. You still haven't given an explanation for why the 'necessary entity' exists, rather than nothing.
-
Just asserting it, does not make it so.
So, if there was nothing, then the necessary entity wouldn't exist, so you've now made it contingent on there being something rather than nothing and set up a cycle of contingency of the sort that you already rejected.
It's still basically a brute fact, and it still tells us absolutely nothing about what sort of thing it might be.
But all you've done is say exactly that; it just is because otherwise there wouldn't be anything. You still haven't given a reason why there is something (and hence the necessary thingy) rather than nothing.
You're just tying yourself in linguistic knots to avoid the blindingly obvious.
Irony overload. You still haven't given an explanation for why the 'necessary entity' exists, rather than nothing.
It isn't asserted, the argument from contingency is a bottom up fully outlined argument, whether I reflect that or not doesn't in the long run matter at all. The logic of it doesn't depend on you marking my homework. Ditto the principle of sufficient reason. If you think brute fact and the principle of sufficient reason end up in the same place I suggest you read the Carroll paper again.
As I said the necessary being must exist from the implications of the argument from contingency which also describes the universe as contingent since there is no evidence within it of necessity. The conclusion of the argument from contingency is a necessary entity which is provided with sufficient reason by the argument.
The argument from the fundamental question why something rather than nothing is that there must be an answer or reason for this and that reason must be non contingent since there is nothing which can direct it. There is no further question demanding a reason that is not non sequitur and that is the sufficient reason.
-
It isn't asserted, the argument from contingency is a bottom up fully outlined argument, whether I reflect that or not doesn't in the long run matter at all. The logic of it doesn't depend on you marking my homework.
If you can't reflect it yourself, then reference a version that isn't full of holes, like the last reference you gave. I've never seen a version that actually explains why there is something rather than nothing and how something can be its own reason to exist. See the comment from Hume #285 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18857.msg841041#msg841041).
Ditto the principle of sufficient reason. If you think brute fact and the principle of sufficient reason end up in the same place I suggest you read the Carroll paper again.
I don't. It's just that the argument from contingency doesn't follow the PSR itself, except in the trivial "it's magic, innit?" way.
As I said the necessary being must exist from the implications of the argument from contingency which also describes the universe as contingent since there is no evidence within it of necessity.
How would we know if you can't tell us what would make something necessary and what its characteristics would be?
The conclusion of the argument from contingency is a necessary entity which is provided with sufficient reason by the argument.
This appears to be nothing but blind faith that somebody, somewhere has made this argument in a way that isn't obviously unsound, either because the reasoning is faulty, the premises are highly questionable, or both. As I said, I've never seen such an argument and I've certainly never seen one that explains how it's logically possible for a necessary entity to have sufficient reason in itself and hence not be the same as a brute fact.
The argument from the fundamental question why something rather than nothing is that there must be an answer or reason for this and that reason must be non contingent since there is nothing which can direct it.
Which is just a brute fact, unless you can provide a reason for its existence.
There is no further question demanding a reason that is not non sequitur and that is the sufficient reason.
You're simply saying that PSR does not apply. ::)
It's just like the first cause arguments that demand everything has a cause until they get to their god, who just magically doesn't need one.
-
The necessary entity is what we call God
Well anybody can apply a label to something. What is the thing you are applying thew label "God" to?
You don't know.
, So you accept a necessary entity which is not contingent, creative and self directing by logic but you need scientific evidence confirming it. Is that where you are.
No. I need evidence that this hypothetical necessary entity exists, is not the Universe but is the Christian god.
Secondly....what is it you think you've won?
The freedom not to believe in the homicidal insane entity that you posit as being God.
-
It isn't asserted, the argument from contingency is a bottom up fully outlined argument, whether I reflect that or not doesn't in the long run matter at all.
Any argument is asserted until it is proven. You have not proven your argument and therefore something that remains just an assertion, and indeed an assertion that despite it having been around for centuries has never come close to being proven.
-
No you have, God is the necessary entity. Are you saying the necessary entity does not exist if so you do not understand the implications of observed contingency.
Blimey - several giant and completely unevidenced leaps in those assertions Vlad.
First there is no convincing evidence that there even is a necessary entity. Secondly there is no evidence whatsoever that god exists. And here you are putting together two strands, neither of which has a strong evidence base to claim that one is the other.
-
Vlad,
No, parsimony doesn't mean bowdlerising something so that it fits.
But it does mean that inserting a don’t know to answer a prior don’t know (“why god?” rather than “why universe?”) is a dead end remember?
Occam's razor demands that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity therefore if the universe is contingent then we are entitled to ask on what.
And IF my auntie Doris had bollocks she’d be my uncle Derek. You need to demonstrate your “if” before telling us what you’re entitled to ask about it remember?
If there is something about the universe which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is.
And the answer remains “don’t know”. However: if there is something about “god” which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is too. What’s your answer to that?
You are also talking about the fundamental questions about the universe plural, What you are doing here is changing the goalpost away from the single fundamental question is it contingent or necessary.
No I’m not. Asking a question about the origin of the universe also begets other questions, like whether that question even makes sense remember?
Asking us to now focus on what science wants to know about the universe is you wanting to go back to the universe just is and that's that (brute fact) now let's talk about science. That is an attempt to avoid the issues (God dodging)
Lying about this won’t help you here, and again if you want to reject the brute fact of the universe point how after all these times of asking would you address the same challenge about your (supposed) god also being a (supposed) brute fact too?
There is no magic involved since argument from contingency is a bottom up argument throwing Dennett with his skyhook accusation completely under the bus.
Of course there is. That’s all you have whenever you’re asked the same questions about your speculation “god” as you ask about the universe. “It’s magic innit” (or “mystery” as you put it) is your only answer, which is when you collapse in a heap.
Look, I know you never answer questions but unless you at least try to all you have is a set of very dodgy assertions. Here they are again for you:
1. You claim everything in the universe to be contingent. How do you avoid the black swan fallacy to justify your claim?
2. You claim that all the components of the universe (supposedly) being contingent must mean that the universe itself must be contingent. How do you avoid the fallacy of composition to justify your claim?
3. You claim that your speculation “god” is not answerable to the same questions you ask about the universe. How to you avoid the fallacy of special pleading to justify that assertion too?
We both know that this is the point at which you always run away as fast as your little legs will carry you, but these questions remain major problems for you even though you’ll never address them.
-
Vlad,
But it does mean that inserting a don’t know to answer a prior don’t know (“why god?” rather than “why universe?”) is a dead end remember?
And IF my auntie Doris had bollocks she’d be my uncle Derek. You need to demonstrate your “if” before telling us what you’re entitled to ask about it remember?
And the answer remains “don’t know”. However: if there is something about “god” which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is too. What’s your answer to that?
No I’m not. Asking a question about the origin of the universe also begets other questions, like whether that question even makes sense remember?
Lying about this won’t help you here, and again if you want to reject the brute fact of the universe point how after all these times of asking would you address the same challenge about your (supposed) god also being a (supposed) brute fact too?
Of course there is. That’s all you have whenever you’re asked the same questions about your speculation “god” as you ask about the universe. “It’s magic innit” (or “mystery” as you put it) is your only answer, which is when you collapse in a heap.
Look, I know you never answer questions but unless you at least try to all you have is a set of very dodgy assertions. Here they are again for you:
1. You claim everything in the universe to be contingent. How do you avoid the black swan fallacy to justify your claim?
2. You claim that all the components of the universe (supposedly) being contingent must mean that the universe itself must be contingent. How do you avoid the fallacy of composition to justify your claim?
3. You claim that your speculation “god” is not answerable to the same questions you ask about the universe. How to you avoid the fallacy of special pleading to justify that assertion too?
We both know that this is the point at which you always run away as fast as your little legs will carry you, but these questions remain major problems for you even though you’ll never address them.
Don't know is no answer.
-
Vlad,
Don't know is no answer.
Though it's sometimes the only one we have. It's also by the way the only answer YOU have to the same question asked about the universe redirected to "god", namely "why god rather than not god?" rather than "why the universe rather than not the universe?".
Oh, and I see you've managed a pretty epic avoidance swerve even by your dismal standards. Once again then here are the questions you just ran away from:
1. You claim everything in the universe to be contingent. How do you avoid the black swan fallacy to justify your claim?
2. You claim that all the components of the universe (supposedly) being contingent must mean that the universe itself must be contingent. How do you avoid the fallacy of composition to justify your claim?
3. You claim that your speculation “god” is not answerable to the same questions you ask about the universe. How to you avoid the fallacy of special pleading to justify that assertion too?
-
Don't know is no answer.
'Don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer when it can be concluded that more information is required/awaited. Of course, that assumes that the question to which 'don't know' is the provisional answer is coherent in the first place.
-
Don't know is no answer.
It's better, and far, far more rational than making shit up just because you like it.
-
Don't know is no answer.
Well, predictably, you've been truly roasted for that one.
"Don't know" is a fine answer if the alternative is making shit up. It's also the first step on the way to finding out. Everything we know about the World we know because somebody was honest enough to admit that they don't know.
-
Well, predictably, you've been truly roasted for that one.
"Don't know" is a fine answer if the alternative is making shit up. It's also the first step on the way to finding out. Everything we know about the World we know because somebody was honest enough to admit that they don't know.
Absolutely - if we do not know we should first accept that we don't know and then work hard to find out so that in due course we don't need to say that we don't know. But that is, of course, how science operates.