Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Dicky Underpants on April 16, 2022, 04:18:46 PM
-
I'm posting this with Alan Burns particularly in mind. Perhaps it has been touched upon in the endless postings in which Alan attempts to explain how the 'soul' interacts with the material body (and is continually rebutted by the non-believers). This distressing psychological condition seems to be related to extreme abuse in childhood, which results in the mind splitting off into separate personalities, each with their own 'free will', and with each personality being aware of some of the others, and sometimes totally ignorant of their existence.
The chances of being cured of this condition seem remote, and the best that can usually be expected is that each will acknowledge the others' existence and that they will learn to get on together. However, there doesn't appear to be any single controlling personality in these cases. Maybe all that can be hoped for is that a single sublimated and integrated individual would appear in an afterlife, but how would such a being have anything to do with these totally differentiated personalities inhabiting one body?
Alan, the floor is yours.....
-
And there's the similar problem for soul advocates with the case of split-brain patients. These are people who have had corpus callosotomy surgery in an effort to deal with epilepsy. The procedure leaves them with literally two distinct brains and a consequence of this is that the two hemispheres tend to develop their own thought patterns and distinct personalities over time and there have been reported cases where one hemisphere became religious whilst the other one became atheist.
So, maybe half the soul goes to heaven whilst the other ends up burning downstairs :D
-
Unless somebody defines what they mean by 'soul', I doubt whether this discussion will get very far. You will be inviting a straw man argument based upon the concept of 'personality'.
-
Unless somebody defines what they mean by 'soul', I doubt whether this discussion will get very far. You will be inviting a straw man argument based upon the concept of 'personality'.
The Christian concept of the 'soul', at least involves the idea of individuality, the 'essence' of a person, which directs the conscious actions of the body (not sure how it's involved in the unconscious ones). And of course, this 'true essence' is supposed to survive death.
I understand that the Hindu concept of soul 'Atman' is different, since it is supposed to be commensurate with Brahman, the universal spirit. This does away with any meaningful concept of individuality, and consequently personality, and is even more confusing than the Christian idea. However, it is perhaps closer to the reality of the situation - which is that 'personality' is a construct, and that we are all to a greater or lesser extent, very 'dividual' indeed - or so it appears to me.
-
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/
************
a newly published paper by one of us posits that dissociation can offer a solution to a critical problem in our current understanding of the nature of reality.
A key problem of physicalism, however, is its inability to make sense of how our subjective experience of qualities—what it is like to feel the warmth of fire, the redness of an apple, the bitterness of disappointment and so on—could arise from mere arrangements of physical stuff.
Physical entities such as subatomic particles possess abstract relational properties, such as mass, spin, momentum and charge. But there is nothing about these properties, or in the way particles are arranged in a brain, in terms of which one could deduce what the warmth of fire, the redness of an apple or the bitterness of disappointment feel like. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness.
constitutive panpsychism has a critical problem of its own: there is arguably no coherent, non-magical way in which lower-level subjective points of view—such as those of subatomic particles or neurons in the brain, if they have these points of view—could combine to form higher-level subjective points of view, such as yours and ours.
The obvious way around the combination problem is to posit that, although consciousness is indeed fundamental in nature, it isn’t fragmented like matter. The idea is to extend consciousness to the entire fabric of spacetime, as opposed to limiting it to the boundaries of individual subatomic particles. This view—called “cosmopsychism” in modern philosophy, although our preferred formulation of it boils down to what has classically been called “idealism”—is that there is only one, universal, consciousness. The physical universe as a whole is the extrinsic appearance of universal inner life, just as a living brain and body are the extrinsic appearance of a person’s inner life.
You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize the obvious problem with this idea: people have private, separate fields of experience. We can’t normally read your thoughts and, presumably, neither can you read ours. Moreover, we are not normally aware of what’s going on across the universe and, presumably, neither are you.
And here is where dissociation comes in. We know empirically from DID that consciousness can give rise to many operationally distinct centers of concurrent experience, each with its own personality and sense of identity. Therefore, if something analogous to DID happens at a universal level, the one universal consciousness could, as a result, give rise to many alters with private inner lives like yours and ours. As such, we may all be alters—dissociated personalities—of universal consciousness.
Insofar as dissociation offers a path to explaining how, under idealism, one universal consciousness can become many individual minds, we may now have at our disposal an unprecedentedly coherent and empirically grounded way of making sense of life, the universe and everything.
*************
-
The Christian concept of the 'soul', at least involves the idea of individuality, the 'essence' of a person, which directs the conscious actions of the body (not sure how it's involved in the unconscious ones). And of course, this 'true essence' is supposed to survive death.
I understand that the Hindu concept of soul 'Atman' is different, since it is supposed to be commensurate with Brahman, the universal spirit. This does away with any meaningful concept of individuality, and consequently personality, and is even more confusing than the Christian idea. However, it is perhaps closer to the reality of the situation - which is that 'personality' is a construct, and that we are all to a greater or lesser extent, very 'dividual' indeed - or so it appears to me.
That's the problem with using the language of mythos. It is not meant to lead to concepts but more to give an analogy of the experience or 'inperience' being communicated. I suspect that this is what the 2nd Commandment is about, which I would paraphrase as 'There is to be no idols nor images of the Divine nether earthly nor subconsciously'. As regards the relationship of 'essence' and 'survival', an analogy might be to consider the essence as water and the totality as an ocean and an individual form as a wave. Even though all wave forms 'die' the essence continues. The Spirit analogy is from the Latin for breath which is seen as air breathed in (inspiration). When the body dies it expires (breaths out) and the air (spirit) continues to survive.
Essence is from the Latin for 'Being' and some Vedanta school use the word 'Sat-cit-ananda' (Being/consciousness/bliss) to try to describe the experience of Brahman. Bliss, bless, blessedness, I believe are related so 'Blessed are the pure in heart'. Be very aware if you decide to become a Christian though. I have seen a lot of gravestones recently with the inscription ' He fell asleep on ....' and can you believe it, they buried him!?!
-
And there's the similar problem for soul advocates with the case of split-brain patients. These are people who have had corpus callosotomy surgery in an effort to deal with epilepsy. The procedure leaves them with literally two distinct brains and a consequence of this is that the two hemispheres tend to develop their own thought patterns and distinct personalities over time and there have been reported cases where one hemisphere became religious whilst the other one became atheist.
So, maybe half the soul goes to heaven whilst the other ends up burning downstairs :D
Hi torridon
The two phenomena do indeed have similar implications, and for both there seems to be little that can be offered by way of a 'cure' - just a compromise is all that can be hoped for. However, the western scientific and philosophical approach does seem to strive towards some kind of ideal, whereby the whole personality is integrated, with one controlling ego dominating the other more disparate elements (In medical terms, I suppose this would mean reinforcing the feedback loops between the pre-frontal cortex and the basal ganglia, and hoping both cerebral hemispheres will act in partnership).
The more oriental approach, which has been alluded to by both ekim and Sriram, recognises all the disparate elements which exist in the most 'normal' of us, but treats them as more or less as an illusion (the maya of Hinduism). The ideal seems to be the dissolution of self into non-dual Brahman. Buddhism has a similar attitude to the everyday self. Some forms of Gnosticism take an even more extreme attitude, regarding the origin of the whole created world in its multitude of different manifestations as a tragic mistake, and our task here is to attempt to escape back to the undifferentiated world of pure spirit, the pleroma.
I think most of us act as if we are individual personalities, and that's the way we get through life, even though we may realise that, on the deepest level, we're just a whirr of atoms. I wish such as Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin might reflect on such things now and again.
-
That's the problem with using the language of mythos. It is not meant to lead to concepts but more to give an analogy of the experience or 'inperience' being communicated. I suspect that this is what the 2nd Commandment is about, which I would paraphrase as 'There is to be no idols nor images of the Divine nether earthly nor subconsciously'. As regards the relationship of 'essence' and 'survival', an analogy might be to consider the essence as water and the totality as an ocean and an individual form as a wave. Even though all wave forms 'die' the essence continues. The Spirit analogy is from the Latin for breath which is seen as air breathed in (inspiration). When the body dies it expires (breaths out) and the air (spirit) continues to survive.
Essence is from the Latin for 'Being' and some Vedanta school use the word 'Sat-cit-ananda' (Being/consciousness/bliss) to try to describe the experience of Brahman. Bliss, bless, blessedness, I believe are related so 'Blessed are the pure in heart'. Be very aware if you decide to become a Christian though. I have seen a lot of gravestones recently with the inscription ' He fell asleep on ....' and can you believe it, they buried him!?!
Ekim
I appreciate what might be termed your 'ecumenical' approach, though I think you sometimes take it too far. Mythos does not have the same precise connotations as Logos, but there are inherent dangers in referring to certain religious stories and tropes as 'myths' (apart from the common interpretation of the word meaning 'untrue'). The myths certainly have to have some common resonance to have meaning to people. The trouble is, they don't have such common interpretations. Some people take them literally and believe them as such, some people take them literally and dismiss them as wrong (Richard Dawkins and LR here ;)). Your instance of the 2nd commandment has had so many interpretations that I would not be keen to suggest that it is supposed to have 'mythical' significance. It strikes me that it was intended to have a literal interpretation for the early Hebrews, whose religion was once henotheistic, and their 'jealous God' wished to lay claim to exclusive worship (the canny insight of those early scribes who realised such an approach would unify the nomadic tribe against the conflicting other tribes).
Etymology is all very well, and may help to get a rounder sense of the meaning of a word, but I don't think it helps to know that 'essence' is related to the Latin 'essere' - to be - in the instance in which I used it. 'Essence' nowadays is used to mean the most important quality of something, the distillation of the strongest components etc. So to move from that use (by which I was trying to grasp what Christians may mean by the individual soul) to talk about the Vedanta experience of non-dual consciousness (Being/consciouness/bliss) seems a bit too much woo for me nowadays, I'm afraid (even though I once thought I'd experienced such a state).
-
You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize the obvious problem with this idea: people have private, separate fields of experience. We can’t normally read your thoughts and, presumably, neither can you read ours. Moreover, we are not normally aware of what’s going on across the universe and, presumably, neither are you.
And here is where dissociation comes in. We know empirically from DID that consciousness can give rise to many operationally distinct centers of concurrent experience, each with its own personality and sense of identity. Therefore, if something analogous to DID happens at a universal level, the one universal consciousness could, as a result, give rise to many alters with private inner lives like yours and ours. As such, we may all be alters—dissociated personalities—of universal consciousness.
Insofar as dissociation offers a path to explaining how, under idealism, one universal consciousness can become many individual minds, we may now have at our disposal an unprecedentedly coherent and empirically grounded way of making sense of life, the universe and everything.
*************
Hi Sriram
Thank you for your quote. I have to say, though, that the last sentence seems hopelessly optimistic " an unprecedentedly coherent and empirically grounded way of making sense of life, the universe and everything". Forsooth! Coherent way?
After centuries of religious, philosophical and scientific speculation, all of which has led to numberless different ideas on how to live one's life and what to believe?
Let's take your quoted analogy a little further: the author finds a parallel between the dissociated consciousness of those afflicted with DID and the supposed dissociated personalities which are the manifestations of the 'universal consciousness'. The key point about the psychological condition of DID is that is the result of extreme trauma
. I may be sounding facetious, but are we supposed to think there was extreme trauma at the moment of creation in the Godhead?
Hinduism would like us to believe that individual consciousness is an illusion of Maya, and seems to suggest it's all our fault, and the law of karma operates so we each receive commensurate rewards of good or ill according to what we have done. How often religions like to suggest "It's all our fault" - Original Sin in Christianity and karma in Hinduism.
How about we start saying it's God's fault (if we chose to believe in such).
Of course, Gnosticism in its various forms did tend to imply this idea - the suggestion that Creation was a mistake, and that each enlightened human's task is to gather up the fragmented elements of pure spirit (by doing good) and return everything to the undifferentiated state of the original pleroma (meaning, I suppose, the end of life, the universe and everything).
The most developed form of this kind of Gnosticism was of course that of Isaac ben Luria, who certainly stated that something went wrong at the moment of creation (The Breaking of the Vessels), but the fault occurred as a result of the deity's overflowing love. I think that's a start, if you must believe in some sort of spirituality - apportioning blame where it's due.
On the other hand, this may all be waffling speculation, and what we all need to do is follow Voltaire's suggestion, and cultivate our garden.
-
Ekim
I appreciate what might be termed your 'ecumenical' approach, though I think you sometimes take it too far. Mythos does not have the same precise connotations as Logos, but there are inherent dangers in referring to certain religious stories and tropes as 'myths' (apart from the common interpretation of the word meaning 'untrue'). The myths certainly have to have some common resonance to have meaning to people. The trouble is, they don't have such common interpretations. Some people take them literally and believe them as such, some people take them literally and dismiss them as wrong (Richard Dawkins and LR here ;)). Your instance of the 2nd commandment has had so many interpretations that I would not be keen to suggest that it is supposed to have 'mythical' significance. It strikes me that it was intended to have a literal interpretation for the early Hebrews, whose religion was once henotheistic, and their 'jealous God' wished to lay claim to exclusive worship (the canny insight of those early scribes who realised such an approach would unify the nomadic tribe against the conflicting other tribes).
Etymology is all very well, and may help to get a rounder sense of the meaning of a word, but I don't think it helps to know that 'essence' is related to the Latin 'essere' - to be - in the instance in which I used it. 'Essence' nowadays is used to mean the most important quality of something, the distillation of the strongest components etc. So to move from that use (by which I was trying to grasp what Christians may mean by the individual soul) to talk about the Vedanta experience of non-dual consciousness (Being/consciouness/bliss) seems a bit too much woo for me nowadays, I'm afraid (even though I once thought I'd experienced such a state).
I understand what you are saying. To me, much of the problem revolves around verbal communication especially when many of the words used in religions originated thousands of years ago and it is no longer possible to ask the person, who invented or used the word, what they meant. Often the words were recorded by somebody else who may not have understood what was being communicated and then they get translated into best fit words of another language and those words in turn change their meaning over time. If you add to this the difficulty in communicating an inner experience to somebody who has not had that experience, it is not surprising that sites like this seem to go around in repetitive circles. If we take your final comment 'I once thought I'd experienced such a state', are you able to describe that state so that others may understand it and even experience it or was it just a thought?
-
If we take your final comment 'I once thought I'd experienced such a state', are you able to describe that state so that others may understand it and even experience it or was it just a thought?
I don't know if I've time right now to put the matter in context, but it needs to be. I have in fact mentioned the experience either on this forum in the early days or perhaps on the old BBC forum. True to form, Vlad poo-pooed it, and dismissed it as a spoof. (Well Vlad, I did really have the experience, though what it meant, if anything, I'm not sure, even after all these years).
Certainly, I was young at the time - possibly 21 or 22. I definitely had a very religious turn of mind, as well as being highly sexed. But I had at the end of my teens lost any belief in Christianity, except in the broadest 'ecumenical' sense (though I maintained a constant love for music and art from the Christian tradition). I had become very interested in far-eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism primarily, and would often sit meditating cross-legged and chanting mantra to myself, with the familiar "Om" at the top of the list.
On one such occasion, I began to feel particularly at peace with the world and myself, and slowly felt the whole of my consciousness irradiated with light, and a sensation of all-embracing love. I felt no fear, since there was a sense of absolute naturalness about the experience, though I certainly felt all normal human concerns fall away as insignificant. The waves of light continued for quite some time - how long, I can't say. But I do know that when I returned to 'normal' consciousness, tears were running down my face.
Well, for a time, that definitely altered the way I approached life, and the fact that I remember it so well decades later indicate that it was not lightly dismissed from my mind. But it became increasingly evident that such an experience did not really help me get to grips with the everyday realities of life in the western world, and nor did these eastern religions with their structured teachings.
As for what the whole thing meant, I'm naturally inclined to explain it in a very reductive manner nowadays. You could quite easily say "I got what I was looking for - the end was determined by what I was expecting". It's certainly true that by that time , I'd read quite a few accounts of 'expanded consciousness', so it's quite likely that my unconscious mind provided me with one of my own. As for anything profound and universal to be deduced from it, I wouldn't think so.
-
I don't know if I've time right now to put the matter in context, but it needs to be. I have in fact mentioned the experience either on this forum in the early days or perhaps on the old BBC forum. True to form, Vlad poo-pooed it, and dismissed it as a spoof.
] I did? That certainly isn't my position with regard to spiritual experience of any kind now(Well Vlad, I did really have the experience, though what it meant, if anything, I'm not sure, even after all these years).
Certainly, I was young at the time - possibly 21 or 22. I definitely had a very religious turn of mind, as well as being highly sexed. But I had at the end of my teens lost any belief in Christianity, except in the broadest 'ecumenical' sense (though I maintained a constant love for music and art from the Christian tradition). I had become very interested in far-eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism primarily, and would often sit meditating cross-legged and chanting mantra to myself, with the familiar "Om" at the top of the list.
On one such occasion, I began to feel particularly at peace with the world and myself, and slowly felt the whole of my consciousness irradiated with light, and a sensation of all-embracing love. I felt no fear, since there was a sense of absolute naturalness about the experience, though I certainly felt all normal human concerns fall away as insignificant. The waves of light continued for quite some time - how long, I can't say. But I do know that when I returned to 'normal' consciousness, tears were running down my face.
Well, for a time, that definitely altered the way I approached life, and the fact that I remember it so well decades later indicate that it was not lightly dismissed from my mind. But it became increasingly evident that such an experience did not really help me get to grips with the everyday realities of life in the western world, and nor did these eastern religions with their structured teachings.
As for what the whole thing meant, I'm naturally inclined to explain it in a very reductive manner nowadays. You could quite easily say "I got what I was looking for - the end was determined by what I was expecting". It's certainly true that by that time , I'd read quite a few accounts of 'expanded consciousness', so it's quite likely that my unconscious mind provided me with one of my own. As for anything profound and universal to be deduced from it, I wouldn't think so.
-
I don't know if I've time right now to put the matter in context, but it needs to be. I have in fact mentioned the experience either on this forum in the early days or perhaps on the old BBC forum. True to form, Vlad poo-pooed it, and dismissed it as a spoof. (Well Vlad, I did really have the experience, though what it meant, if anything, I'm not sure, even after all these years).
Certainly, I was young at the time - possibly 21 or 22. I definitely had a very religious turn of mind, as well as being highly sexed. But I had at the end of my teens lost any belief in Christianity, except in the broadest 'ecumenical' sense (though I maintained a constant love for music and art from the Christian tradition). I had become very interested in far-eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism primarily, and would often sit meditating cross-legged and chanting mantra to myself, with the familiar "Om" at the top of the list.
On one such occasion, I began to feel particularly at peace with the world and myself, and slowly felt the whole of my consciousness irradiated with light, and a sensation of all-embracing love. I felt no fear, since there was a sense of absolute naturalness about the experience, though I certainly felt all normal human concerns fall away as insignificant. The waves of light continued for quite some time - how long, I can't say. But I do know that when I returned to 'normal' consciousness, tears were running down my face.
Well, for a time, that definitely altered the way I approached life, and the fact that I remember it so well decades later indicate that it was not lightly dismissed from my mind. But it became increasingly evident that such an experience did not really help me get to grips with the everyday realities of life in the western world, and nor did these eastern religions with their structured teachings.
As for what the whole thing meant, I'm naturally inclined to explain it in a very reductive manner nowadays. You could quite easily say "I got what I was looking for - the end was determined by what I was expecting". It's certainly true that by that time , I'd read quite a few accounts of 'expanded consciousness', so it's quite likely that my unconscious mind provided me with one of my own. As for anything profound and universal to be deduced from it, I wouldn't think so.
That's a valid experience DU. Good going! It is considered as the first step towards serious spirituality.
We have two parts to ourselves....what we call the Higher Self and the Lower Self. The Lower Self is what we normally recognize as ourselves. The Higher Self is wiser, more loving and more universal.
When the Higher Self surfaces...it is normally experienced as a light deep within. This light grows over the years and takes over the mind and body and replaces the lower self.
We don't have to be religious for this to happen. Religion is one way but other secular processes will also work. It can happen spontaneously sometimes.
-
On one such occasion, I began to feel particularly at peace with the world and myself, and slowly felt the whole of my consciousness irradiated with light, and a sensation of all-embracing love. I felt no fear, since there was a sense of absolute naturalness about the experience, though I certainly felt all normal human concerns fall away as insignificant. The waves of light continued for quite some time - how long, I can't say. But I do know that when I returned to 'normal' consciousness, tears were running down my face.
Well, for a time, that definitely altered the way I approached life, and the fact that I remember it so well decades later indicate that it was not lightly dismissed from my mind. But it became increasingly evident that such an experience did not really help me get to grips with the everyday realities of life in the western world, and nor did these eastern religions with their structured teachings.
As for what the whole thing meant, I'm naturally inclined to explain it in a very reductive manner nowadays. You could quite easily say "I got what I was looking for - the end was determined by what I was expecting". It's certainly true that by that time , I'd read quite a few accounts of 'expanded consciousness', so it's quite likely that my unconscious mind provided me with one of my own. As for anything profound and universal to be deduced from it, I wouldn't think so.
Your words 'peace, light, love, absolute naturalness, concerns fall away, altered the way I approached life' and the timeless 'how long, I can't say' are expressions that a mystic might come out with. Although I doubt whether those words fully convey the actual experience/in-perience. Apart from following the method to attain it, it seems to be all we have for communication purposes. Then the mind kicks in to reassert its authority by 'reductive explanations'. Although structured methods are probably necessary to eventually sustain that 'absolute naturalness' etc, the dark side of 'structured teachings' is that they can be used as a means of Putin style control rather than a path to freedom. I don't know how old you are, but are you likely to seek out that 'state of being' again or has your mind convinced you it was a one off mission accomplished?
-
I don't know how old you are, but are you likely to seek out that 'state of being' again or has your mind convinced you it was a one off mission accomplished?
Well, the experience occurred five decades ago, so I'm certainly past seeking out such a state of being again, though I continued on the 'meditative' path for a long time afterwards. I don't think I'd reached any state of finality/mission accomplished with it all, and was quite prepared to be 'surprised by joy' at any time.
However, as I said, subsequent experience has been a stern teacher, and I later started to doubt its relevance. I thought back to it most during the worst period of my life, when I was in my mid-thirties. It didn't help - I even turned to Jesus (the old 'no atheists in fox-holes scenario). I can confidently state that this period, whilst not converting me to total atheism, certainly convinced me that Christ does not exist as a cosmic figure (and subsequent critical biblical studies and readings have reinforced that).
I wasn't immediately determined to find a scientific, reductionist explanation then. That came after. I've certainly had quite a few bizarre psychological experiences in my time, and I'm well aware of what the mind is capable of generating when the conditions are right. None of this implies the actions of a divine spirit to me now.
-
Well, the experience occurred five decades ago, so I'm certainly past seeking out such a state of being again, though I continued on the 'meditative' path for a long time afterwards. I don't think I'd reached any state of finality/mission accomplished with it all, and was quite prepared to be 'surprised by joy' at any time.
However, as I said, subsequent experience has been a stern teacher, and I later started to doubt its relevance. I thought back to it most during the worst period of my life, when I was in my mid-thirties. It didn't help - I even turned to Jesus (the old 'no atheists in fox-holes scenario). I can confidently state that this period, whilst not converting me to total atheism, certainly convinced me that Christ does not exist as a cosmic figure (and subsequent critical biblical studies and readings have reinforced that).
I wasn't immediately determined to find a scientific, reductionist explanation then. That came after. I've certainly had quite a few bizarre psychological experiences in my time, and I'm well aware of what the mind is capable of generating when the conditions are right. None of this implies the actions of a divine spirit to me now.
I understand your position. Thank you for your reply.
-
I recently received a private message from Sriram inviting me to read his life's journey and spiritual experiences on his website. I have to say, it is fascinating reading, even though I remain unconvinced by his basic conclusions. However, I urge anyone who is remotely interested to read it, because it is full of fascinating details and insights. No doubt the most hardened atheists will take great issue with his whole approach, but I don't think they would be quite so harsh with him as they regularly are in reply to his postings here. It is always good to see things in context, and his long story certainly does this well, because you see something more of the whole man, which you cannot really do from his posts.
I'm sure he's linked to his website somewhere on this forum, but no doubt he'll provide a link for those interested anyway.
-
I recently received a private message from Sriram inviting me to read his life's journey and spiritual experiences on his website. I have to say, it is fascinating reading, even though I remain unconvinced by his basic conclusions. However, I urge anyone who is remotely interested to read it, because it is full of fascinating details and insights. No doubt the most hardened atheists will take great issue with his whole approach, but I don't think they would be quite so harsh with him as they regularly are in reply to his postings here. It is always good to see things in context, and his long story certainly does this well, because you see something more of the whole man, which you cannot really do from his posts.
I'm sure he's linked to his website somewhere on this forum, but no doubt he'll provide a link for those interested anyway.
Thanks for posting about my blog here....though I didn't expect you to. :)
I have two blogs. The first one has about 45 articles giving my views on things from evolution, anthropic principle, God particle .....to spirituality, mind, consciousness etc. This blog is accessible here by clicking on the icon above my message.
The other blog is about my life experiences and thoughts along the way. It has some amount of personal details. This may not be of interest to everyone. Unless one has a certain background and a certain affinity for such matters they may not be able to relate to it. It also needs a certain cultural matching.
I though you Dicky, with your background and interest in Indian philosophy, would find it somewhat interesting. That is why I sent you the link.
If anyone else is interested they may please send me a personal message and I will send them the link to the second blog.
Thanks guys.
Sriram
-
I recently received a private message from Sriram inviting me to read his life's journey and spiritual experiences on his website. I have to say, it is fascinating reading, even though I remain unconvinced by his basic conclusions. However, I urge anyone who is remotely interested to read it, because it is full of fascinating details and insights. No doubt the most hardened atheists will take great issue with his whole approach, but I don't think they would be quite so harsh with him as they regularly are in reply to his postings here. It is always good to see things in context, and his long story certainly does this well, because you see something more of the whole man, which you cannot really do from his posts.
I'm sure he's linked to his website somewhere on this forum, but no doubt he'll provide a link for those interested anyway.
I might read it if I get time, but the main issue is that truth claims are in no way influenced by someones 'journey'.
If someone claims the Earth is flat, we rightly disregard the unevidenced claim. You never hear someone say "We cannot reject this fantastic claim until we know this persons journey".
This is because the persons journey is completel irrelevant to the claim.
Surely this is not a contentious thing to say??
-
I might read it if I get time, but the main issue is that truth claims are in no way influenced by someones 'journey'.
If someone claims the Earth is flat, we rightly disregard the unevidenced claim. You never hear someone say "We cannot reject this fantastic claim until we know this persons journey".
This is because the persons journey is completel irrelevant to the claim.
Surely this is not a contentious thing to say??
No, it is not. However, it might be of interest to some people to investigate some of the claimed 'spiritual' experiences and see how they relate to brain activity, hormonal imbalance (or serene 'balance') unusual chemicals released naturally into the blood stream etc. (We all know about the ones unnaturally introduced). These things can be related to life experiences.
I'm sure you know that I am not a believer, but as mentioned above, I can lay claim to a few bizarre mental states. I have had to find my own explanation for these. There are many 'Varieties of Religious Experience' even if the true meaning of all these may not have anything to do with divine influences, life forces or whatever.
-
Of course, peoples views of their experiences are just their interpretations. No doubt about that. It may not represent reality...whatever that is. Philosophical explanations are speculative but that is all that is possible in such cases.
But does anyone have better models or better interpretations, is the question? Very often the experiences are merely glossed over or biological mechanisms are offered as explanations by scientists. Just because these biological explanations fall under 'scientific explanation' it doesn't become correct or meaningful.
-
OK....as Dicky suggested, maybe I should give atheists and skeptics also a chance to read and see my perspective.
Here is the link to the second blog.
https://sriramraot.wordpress.com/
What I have offered are my personal thoughts and perspectives. Most of my ideas and interpretations could be speculative....but that's the way it is!
Please read through the introduction also.
Thanks.
Sriram
BTW....I have devoted almost an entire chapter (Ch 5) to the BBC site, our discussions and atheism. Shows the influence that the discussions here have had on me! :)
-
Of course, peoples views of their experiences are just their interpretations. No doubt about that. It may not represent reality...whatever that is. Philosophical explanations are speculative but that is all that is possible in such cases.
Yes.
But does anyone have better models or better interpretations, is the question? Very often the experiences are merely glossed over or biological mechanisms are offered as explanations by scientists. Just because these biological explanations fall under 'scientific explanation' it doesn't become correct or meaningful.
As people have these experiences in, what we consider to be, a real physical world there will be undoubtedly be physical or biological mechanisms that cause them. That does not mean that there is an "explanation" for them, or that we will ever have enough grasp of the complexity of the brain and mental processes to reliably predict peoples experiences.
In any case, the question misses the essence of these experiences: The mechanism or "explanation" of the experience is of no interest. The value of the experience is in ... experiencing it... the feelings of, and effect on, the person at that moment in time.
-
(apologies for this late response)
Once you can accept the concept of a spiritual entity (the soul) having control over certain functions of a material body, is is feasible that there could be circumstances when a different spiritual entity can somehow take over control of the same body. This would explain many of the "dual personality" features mentioned previously. It is also backed up in the New Testament which describes several examples of a person being possessed by evil spirits. And there is the dangerous practice of Ouija boards which involves inviting other "spirits" to take over the control of our physical bodies. The Roman Catholic Church recognises this danger and forbids its use to members of the church. And exorcism (the casting out of other spiritual entities) is still a recognised religious practice.
-
(apologies for this late response)
Once you can accept the concept of a spiritual entity (the soul) having control over certain functions of a material body, is is feasible that there could be circumstances when a different spiritual entity can somehow take over control of the same body.
Fortunately, since there is no evidence that the premise is true (that a spiritual entity called there soul exists), we can dismiss this statement.
This would explain many of the "dual personality" features mentioned previously. It is also backed up in the New Testament which describes several examples of a person being possessed by evil spirits.
Those were all made up stories by people who didn't understand human biology.
And there is the dangerous practice of Ouija boards which involves inviting other "spirits" to take over the control of our physical bodies. The Roman Catholic Church recognises this danger and forbids its use to members of the church. And exorcism (the casting out of other spiritual entities) is still a recognised religious practice.
The most dangerous thing about these is that there are people who believe they are something more than pure hokum and for whom they can therefore have traumatic consequences. It would be much better to educate people out of their superstitions.
-
Belief in spirits has nothing to do with understanding biology. Understanding the mechanisms of a car do not preclude the role of a driver.
-
Belief in spirits has nothing to do with understanding biology. Understanding the mechanisms of a car do not preclude the role of a driver.
Not sure that is a useful analogy Sriram.
We don't need to have 'belief' that a car exists, nor that its driver exists, nor that one is required for the other to operate (assuming it isn't an autonomous vehicle). Understanding the mechanisms of a car is a useful adjunt but not essential.
Spirits, on the other hand, are entirely different to a car or a driver as there is no evidence for their existence, unlike the car and a driver. Hence the need for belief, which is pound-store 'evidence'.
-
(apologies for this late response)
Once you can accept the concept of a spiritual entity (the soul) having control over certain functions of a material body, is is feasible that there could be circumstances when a different spiritual entity can somehow take over control of the same body. This would explain many of the "dual personality" features mentioned previously. It is also backed up in the New Testament which describes several examples of a person being possessed by evil spirits. And there is the dangerous practice of Ouija boards which involves inviting other "spirits" to take over the control of our physical bodies. The Roman Catholic Church recognises this danger and forbids its use to members of the church. And exorcism (the casting out of other spiritual entities) is still a recognised religious practice.
Hi Alan
Glad you were able to join the conversation.
I think there is a need to amplify the details of the psychological disorder in question. D.I.D., as far as can be ascertained, can almost always be traced back to a period of extreme physical and psychological abuse, most often in childhood. The conventional explanation is that the developing personality retreats from these traumas by developing protective selves, which then can dominate the original person, just in order to allow the organism to function in the world at all (personality A suffers abominably, personality B is cunning, strong and dominant and able to escape from such suffering - and so on with often a nested 'onion' of other personalities). In some cases, it can appear to the outside world that the second or third personality to appear is the real self, for a very long time. The question is: what is happening to the original self, trapped in this cycle of abuse? Can such a self be considered to develop in the way that the rest of us do, in order to make decisions, and to be specific, in a Christian sense, to make one moral choice over another? Or to choose Christ as their saviour? Maybe the original self is now so enfeebled as to be incapable of making any choice; maybe personality B chooses to be a Christian, and personality C will have none of this, and refuses to take any of the steps that B wishes to embark on. I'm just speculating here, but some of the instances of D.I.D appear to be far more bizarre than this.
Well then, let's reflect on some of your suggestions of demonic possession, for the sake of argument. It is bad enough that a loving, all powerful God would allow such prolonged abuse of a child to occur in the first place, but to suggest that such a wounded and suffering individual should then be subjected to invasion by evil spirits, and this again is allowed to happen, does not reflect well upon the deity. To cite your example of people playing around with Ouija boards as inviting trouble for themselves, or perhaps attending 'Spiritualist' seances*, at least suggests that they have put themselves in harms way - but that an innocent child should be attacked in such a way with impunity is really quite a ghastly suggestion IMO.
*The matter of Spiritualist seances is a significant one, with regard to how many different faces a human can present when the conditions are right - and here I speak from personal experience. I did for a short while attend a Spiritualist church, and witnessed a number of bizarre phenomena. One that particularly stuck in my memory was that of a very pleasant, seemingly feminine young medium, whose normal voice was light, high and very female, beginning to talk (when 'possessed') in a deep bass male voice, such as one would not think her larynx and vocal chords were capable of. I can confidently say she was not a natural male in drag and speaking falsetto in her everyday voice :)
-
(apologies for this late response)
Once you can accept the concept of a spiritual entity (the soul) having control over certain functions of a material body,
But why would you accept that assertion unless there is evidence to support it.
... is is feasible that there could be circumstances when a different spiritual entity can somehow take over control of the same body.
But that is based on the unevidenced assertion, so is moot until or unless you can provide evidence to support an assertion of 'a spiritual entity (the soul) having control over certain functions of a material body'.
This would explain many of the "dual personality" features mentioned previously.
But there are much more tenable explanations for dual personalities based on neurology that are supported by evidence.
It is also backed up in the New Testament which describes several examples of a person being possessed by evil spirits.
But people writing 2000-ish years ago had no understanding of how the brain works, so necessarily will rely on 'making stuff up' to explain observations. People have done this countless times e.g. explanations for earthquakes involving giant earth-bearing elephants moving.
And there is the dangerous practice of Ouija boards which involves inviting other "spirits" to take over the control of our physical bodies. The Roman Catholic Church recognises this danger and forbids its use to members of the church. And exorcism (the casting out of other spiritual entities) is still a recognised religious practice.
But these are two sides of the same unevidenced assertion-based approach and are therefore both as dangerous as each other. If someone is considered to be possessed by demons, or spirits the place to go is evidence based clinical practice.
-
But why would you accept that assertion unless there is evidence to support it.
To claim there is no evidence is wrong.
I presume you mean that there is no scientific evidence, and in this you fail to acknowledge the limitations of human scientific discovery.
As I have pointed out many times on this forum, the evidence for the human soul lies in the capabilities of the human mind - which go far beyond what can be achieved or defined within a purely scientific model.
-
Hi Alan
Glad you were able to join the conversation.
I think there is a need to amplify the details of the psychological disorder in question. D.I.D., as far as can be ascertained, can almost always be traced back to a period of extreme physical and psychological abuse, most often in childhood. The conventional explanation is that the developing personality retreats from these traumas by developing protective selves, which then can dominate the original person, just in order to allow the organism to function in the world at all (personality A suffers abominably, personality B is cunning, strong and dominant and able to escape from such suffering - and so on with often a nested 'onion' of other personalities). In some cases, it can appear to the outside world that the second or third personality to appear is the real self, for a very long time. The question is: what is happening to the original self, trapped in this cycle of abuse? Can such a self be considered to develop in the way that the rest of us do, in order to make decisions, and to be specific, in a Christian sense, to make one moral choice over another? Or to choose Christ as their saviour? Maybe the original self is now so enfeebled as to be incapable of making any choice; maybe personality B chooses to be a Christian, and personality C will have none of this, and refuses to take any of the steps that B wishes to embark on. I'm just speculating here, but some of the instances of D.I.D appear to be far more bizarre than this.
Well then, let's reflect on some of your suggestions of demonic possession, for the sake of argument. It is bad enough that a loving, all powerful God would allow such prolonged abuse of a child to occur in the first place, but to suggest that such a wounded and suffering individual should then be subjected to invasion by evil spirits, and this again is allowed to happen, does not reflect well upon the deity. To cite your example of people playing around with Ouija boards as inviting trouble for themselves, or perhaps attending 'Spiritualist' seances*, at least suggests that they have put themselves in harms way - but that an innocent child should be attacked in such a way with impunity is really quite a ghastly suggestion IMO.
*The matter of Spiritualist seances is a significant one, with regard to how many different faces a human can present when the conditions are right - and here I speak from personal experience. I did for a short while attend a Spiritualist church, and witnessed a number of bizarre phenomena. One that particularly stuck in my memory was that of a very pleasant, seemingly feminine young medium, whose normal voice was light, high and very female, beginning to talk (when 'possessed' in a deep bass male voice, such as one would not think her larynx and vocal chords were capable of). I can confidently say she was not a natural male in drag and speaking falsetto in her everyday voice :)
Thanks for your detailed response, DU
I concede that I do not know a lot about DID and there may well be a psychological explanation.
regarding your last paragraph -
I remember reading of people being put under hypnosis who were able to give extraordinary detail about a previous life - details which could be verified as being historically accurate. When the person came out of hypnosis they had no recollection of their apparent previous life. To me this shows further evidence for separate spiritual entities being able to utilise the functionality of the same biological body under certain conditions.
-
As I have pointed out many times on this forum, the evidence for the human soul lies in the capabilities of the human mind - which go far beyond what can be achieved or defined within a purely scientific model.
That isn't evidence of a human soul - any more than earthquakes are evidence of giant earth-bearing elephants. Come back when you actually understand what evidence is Alan.
-
That isn't evidence of a human soul - any more than earthquakes are evidence of giant earth-bearing elephants. Come back when you actually understand what evidence is Alan.
There is a valid scientific explanation for earthquakes.
There is no valid scientific definition of what comprises conscious awareness, or how it manifests from material reactions alone.
There is no valid scientific explanation for human free will - other than the assertion that it does not exist (but our ability to assert is evidence that it does exist)
-
There is no valid scientific explanation for human free will - other than the assertion that it does not exist (but our ability to assert is evidence that it does exist)
No, that is merely evidence of the exercise of will. but not that it is 'free' of something.
-
There is a valid scientific explanation for earthquakes.
Yes
There is no valid scientific definition of what comprises conscious awareness, or how it manifests from material reactions alone.
Agreed, although there has been valuable scientific progress on how consciousness relates to brain activity. But, so what? That still doesn't signify one iota of evidence that there is such a thing as a 'soul, which was the point you were supposed to be addressing.
There is no valid scientific explanation for human free will - other than the assertion that it does not exist (but our ability to assert is evidence that it does exist)
There is no evidence that 'free will'(at least in the form that you seem to favour) actually exists, just as there is no evidence that it is controlled in some way by some sort of vague and unevidenced entity called 'the human soul'. Our ability to assert things is simply evidence that, at that precise moment, our minds have decided on that course of action. nothing more.
-
Belief in spirits has nothing to do with understanding biology. Understanding the mechanisms of a car do not preclude the role of a driver.
The point is simple. Explaining phenomena only in terms of their mechanisms is not good enough.
-
Come back when you actually understand what evidence is Alan.
I can assure you that I have all the evidence I need to give me unshakeable knowledge of the reality of God's existence and of my own spiritual nature.
You appear to have a very narrow view of what comprises evidence.
-
Not sure that is a useful analogy Sriram.
We don't need to have 'belief' that a car exists, nor that its driver exists, nor that one is required for the other to operate (assuming it isn't an autonomous vehicle). Understanding the mechanisms of a car is a useful adjunt but not essential.
Spirits, on the other hand, are entirely different to a car or a driver as there is no evidence for their existence, unlike the car and a driver. Hence the need for belief, which is pound-store 'evidence'.
You seem to have missed the point.
The driver has the power to choose which direction to go.
The car, being mechanistic, has no choice - it just reacts to its controls.
-
....
There is no valid scientific explanation for human free will - other than the assertion that it does not exist (but our ability to assert is evidence that it does exist)
Let us take the condition referred to by Torridon in the second post in this thread. The operation to sever the corpus callosum in the brain can result in two separate personalities analogous to the situation in D.I.D. Torridon cites an instance where the personality of one hemisphere became a Christian*, whereas the other became atheist.
Where is human freewill in such a situation? Would you say that the hemisphere that became Christian was exercising free will, whereas the other was possessed by a demon after the operation?
*Torridon uses the word 'religious', but his final comment indicates that he had Christian or Muslim in mind.
-
I can assure you that I have all the evidence I need to give me unshakeable knowledge of the reality of God's existence and of my own spiritual nature.
What an incredibly arrogant and conceited comment ... and dangerous too.
I'm a professional scientist and I and the rest of my profession never claim we have all the evidence and all the knowledge. Our profession is completely based on the view that we never know everything and we should always strive to know more, to obtain more evidence. And in doing so we constantly reassess what we previously thought we knew. If those prior assumptions still stand up in the face of new evidence we continue to accept those theories as the best explanations. If not we reassess and change those theories. And we are basing knowledge on evidence, not assertion/belief.
Why is it dangerous - well because the mindset that has an 'unshakable' belief in something not backed up by evidence can develop unshakable beliefs in anything, however unethical.
-
I can assure you that I have all the evidence I need to give me unshakeable knowledge of the reality of God's existence and of my own spiritual nature.
No you don't Alan - you have an unshakable belief - belief and knowledge are not the same thing. If there was evidence you would be able to provide that evidence in a manner that would be compelling to anyone. But you can't and nor can any theist as there is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods. And religions know this, which is why they are couched in the language of belief and/or faith, not knowledge.
The difference between faith/belief and knowledge is evidence - the former aren't evidence based, the latter must be. Belief in god is just that, unevidenced belief.
-
Fortunately, since there is no evidence that the premise is true (that a spiritual entity called there soul exists), we can dismiss this statement.
Those were all made up stories by people who didn't understand human biology.
The most dangerous thing about these is that there are people who believe they are something more than pure hokum and for whom they can therefore have traumatic consequences. It would be much better to educate people out of their superstitions.
Are you saying that consciousness and/also known as the soul is mechanistic because the nervous connections which make the brain are mechanistic?
-
You seem to have missed the point.
The driver has the power to choose which direction to go.
Which is a product of the neuronal complexities of the human brain. And understanding the mechanistic relationships between neuronal complexity, human behaviours and decision making is an extremely interesting topic for neuroscience research and an area where we have a lot more to learn.
The car, being mechanistic, has no choice - it just reacts to its controls.
Not so if the car is an autonomous vehicle with sophisticated AI embedded. In which case the car is also able to make its own decisions about which direction to go in.
-
Which is a product of the neuronal complexities of the human brain. And understanding the mechanistic relationships between neuronal complexity, human behaviours and decision making is an extremely interesting topic for neuroscience research and an area where we have a lot more to learn.Not so if the car is an autonomous vehicle with sophisticated AI embedded. In which case the car is also able to make its own decisions about which direction to go in.
I think we need to learn if there is a leap from mechanistic neuronal activity to mechanistic consciousness first.
-
There is a valid scientific explanation for earthquakes.
Classic god of the gaps non-sense.
Sure we have a valid scientific explanation, but we didn't always have one. At one stage in our history we didn't know how earthquakes happened and we made stuff up that was wrong. Your argument seems to be that if we don't know something we should accept any old non-sense without evidence. Affectively that earthquakes really did used to be generated by the movement of giant elephants. That wasn't true then and it isn't true now. The difference is that we now have a pretty good understanding (albeit not exhaustive) of how earthquakes work.
And of course we actually have some pretty good and rapidly developing knowledge on the relationships between neural complexity, consciousness, behaviour and decision making. We, of course, need to know more (as we always should strive to), but you seem to be arguing that because we don't know everything we should accept the equivalent of giant elephants.
-
I think we need to learn if there is a leap from mechanistic neuronal activity and consciousness first.
Actually we need to define consciousness first and then understand the links. And of course there has been a huge amount of research and published results linking neuronal activity and consciousness over the past few decades.
-
... mechanistic consciousness first.
What on earth do you mean by mechanistic consciousness.
-
Not so if the car is an autonomous vehicle with sophisticated AI embedded. In which case the car is also able to make its own decisions about which direction to go in.
The AI in the car does not happen through random variation. It happens through intelligent intervention, intent and deliberate design. Evolution (of cars and AI) is also a part of the process btw.
-
What on earth do you mean by mechanistic consciousness.
Which aspect are you having trouble with here mechanistic or consciousness?
By mechanistic consciousness we mean a physical system comprised of parts, physically connected.
-
Which aspect are you having trouble with here mechanistic or consciousness?
By mechanistic consciousness we mean a physical system comprised of parts, physically connected.
But consciousness is a state of awareness - the mechanistic part is the physical elements that are required for consciousness to exist, i.e. the mechanistic neuronal activity - hence add ing a second mechanistic is totally redundant. It implies that there is consciousness that is the result of mechanistic elements and consciousness that is independent of any mechanistic elements. And of course you have no evidence for the latter, albeit there is huge amounts of evidence for the former, albeit there is much more we need to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
-
The AI in the car does not happen through random variation. It happens through intelligent intervention, intent and deliberate design. Evolution (of cars and AI) is also a part of the process btw.
But the point about the AI is that the car, as designed, has no ability to make those decisions - it learns to do so. So, in effect, its decision making ability evolves by itself, without a directed intelligent intervention.
-
But the point about the AI is that the car, as designed, has no ability to make those decisions - it learns to do so. So, in effect, its decision making ability evolves by itself, without a directed intelligent intervention.
What do you mean 'without a directed intelligent intervention'...?! The AI is designed by human intelligence as also its learning ability.... The Free will, learning and independence is all part of the design and intent of humans. ::)
-
What do you mean 'without a directed intelligent intervention'...?! The AI is designed by human intelligence as also its learning ability.... The Free will, learning and independence is all part of the design and intent of humans. ::)
But the level of intelligence attained is significantly beyond that imbued by the designer, for example through machine learning. The point being that complexity (more intelligence) arises within the system from a more simple (less intelligent) state. This counters the argument that anything complex must be designed by something more complex still.
And a further point is that the AI autonomous vehicle will be able to make decisions about the direction to take and therefore this type of decision making is not limited to humans (or living things) alone.
-
But the level of intelligence attained is significantly beyond that imbued by the designer, for example through machine learning. The point being that complexity (more intelligence) arises within the system from a more simple (less intelligent) state. This counters the argument that anything complex must be designed by something more complex still.
And a further point is that the AI autonomous vehicle will be able to make decisions about the direction to take and therefore this type of decision making is not limited to humans (or living things) alone.
That is the intent....that complexity should arise through a learning process. It is part of the design.....
-
But consciousness is a state of awareness
And is that mechanistic? - the mechanistic part is the physical elements that are required for consciousness to exist,
But those are not conscious. Are you saying that the whole of consciousness is mechanistic I ask this because you have mentioned the mechanistic part of consciousness i.e. the mechanistic neuronal activity - hence add ing a second mechanistic is totally redundant. It implies that there is consciousness that is the result of mechanistic elements and consciousness that is independent of any mechanistic elements. And of course you have no evidence for the latter, albeit there is huge amounts of evidence for the former, albeit there is much more we need to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
Then what is this mechanistic 'part' of yours? It seems you are saying there is a non mechanistic part.
Secondly I wonder if you understand emergence here since the mechanistic parts you describe are not conscious of themselves.
Are you saying that consciousness itself is mechanistic If so, give us some physical units which describe it.
-
And is that mechanistic?
It is a term we ascribe to something we perceive - the notion of whether it, of itself, is mechanistic or not isn't the issue as that makes no sense. The issue is whether this perception could be achieve through somethings that is not mechanistic. There is no evidence it could.
-
It is a term we ascribe to something we perceive - the notion of whether it, of itself, is mechanistic or not isn't the issue as that makes no sense. The issue is whether this perception could be achieve through somethings that is not mechanistic. There is no evidence it could.
I'll take that, given how evasive you have been on previous issues and here changing 'consciousness' into 'perception', as a yes, consciousness is a physical mechanism. You will be able then to give the physical units I have asked for then.
-
I'll take that, given how evasive you have been on previous issues and here changing 'consciousness' into 'perception', as a yes, consciousness is a physical mechanism. You will be able then to give the physical units I have asked for then.
Nope - that isn't what I said - I didn't morph consciousness into perception - I said that consciousness is the name we humans give to a particular type of perception, specifically sentience or awareness. It is a human-ascribed thing, and as such the notion of mechanistic or non-mechanistic isn't relevant. The point is that we have no evidence that what we call consciousness can be derived except through mechanistic means.
And if you want to shift from what we call consciousness itself (the human derived term) through to the mechanisms that we know underpin it then sure you can provide all sorts of units, as these will be the units associated with the range of hugely complex neuronal and associated sensory interactions that occur in our nervous system and sensory cells. So for example we can start with membrane 'action' potential, which is the key mechanistic element that allows neuronal signals to transmit signals. Action potentials, like other potential differences, are measured in Volts.
-
To claim there is no evidence is wrong.
I presume you mean that there is no scientific evidence, and in this you fail to acknowledge the limitations of human scientific discovery.
No. He means there is no evidence. He's right, otherwise you would have presented the evidence instead of trying to pretend there is a distinction between evidence and scientific evidence in this context.
As I have pointed out many times on this forum, the evidence for the human soul lies in the capabilities of the human mind - which go far beyond what can be achieved or defined within a purely scientific model.
What capabilities of the human mind require the existence of a soul?
-
No. He means there is no evidence. He's right, otherwise you would have presented the evidence instead of trying to pretend there is a distinction between evidence and scientific evidence in this context.
Indeed - and the whole point that theism and religion are based on faith/belief demonstrates the lack of evidence. If you have evidence you don't need faith/believe as you have actual knowledge.
-
Nope - that isn't what I said - I didn't morph consciousness into perception - I said that consciousness is the name we humans give to a particular type of perception, specifically sentience or awareness. It is a human-ascribed thing, and as such the notion of mechanistic or non-mechanistic isn't relevant. The point is that we have no evidence that what we call consciousness can be derived except through mechanistic means.
And if you want to shift from what we call consciousness itself (the human derived term) through to the mechanisms that we know underpin it then sure you can provide all sorts of units, as these will be the units associated with the range of hugely complex neuronal and associated sensory interactions that occur in our nervous system and sensory cells. So for example we can start with membrane 'action' potential, which is the key mechanistic element that allows neuronal signals to transmit signals. Action potentials, like other potential differences, are measured in Volts.
Still doesn't help us. The problem is that you could have all the Action potentials elegantly laid out and still not have awareness. There is of course no need for awareness. Secondly what is the evidence for awareness? That is evidence which would be satisfactory to science.
Of course we could get Into the "illusion" shtick.
-
Indeed - and the whole point that theism and religion are based on faith/belief demonstrates the lack of evidence. If you have evidence you don't need faith/believe as you have actual knowledge.
The evidence is human wrong doing measurement by counting the number of contrary behaviours.
As normal I can recognise any scientific evidence you can.
-
Who defines contrary behaviour?
In fact, as you posited contrary behaviour, why don't you define it?
-
Not so if the car is an autonomous vehicle with sophisticated AI embedded. In which case the car is also able to make its own decisions about which direction to go in.
You miss the point again
The embedded AI derives choices from the human mind that designed the vehicle. The car does not make its own decisions - they were all pre programmed by its maker.
-
... - belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
I fully agree - which is precisely why I use the word "knowledge" rather than "belief".
I cannot just believe in an entity with whom I have a personal relationship.
No doubt you will try to claim that I must be deluded, but you do not see inside my mind.
-
Let us take the condition referred to by Torridon in the second post in this thread. The operation to sever the corpus callosum in the brain can result in two separate personalities analogous to the situation in D.I.D. Torridon cites an instance where the personality of one hemisphere became a Christian*, whereas the other became atheist.
Where is human freewill in such a situation? Would you say that the hemisphere that became Christian was exercising free will, whereas the other was possessed by a demon after the operation?
*Torridon uses the word 'religious', but his final comment indicates that he had Christian or Muslim in mind.
Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone. Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.
-
Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone. Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.
How do you determine which one is which?
-
Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone. Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.
This reads as if a corpus callosotomy procedure consists of severing the connection between the soul and the brain. This is not the case, there is no soul connection that could be severed.
All mammals (that includes us of course) have two brains that are bridged by a small amount of connective tissue that allows communication so they act effectively as a single brain With that connection gone, you end up with two distinct brains not communicating directly with each other.
This is an instance of real world biology showing up ideas of immaterial souls to be no more than naïve magical thinking.
-
Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone. Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.
It is not reasonable to assume anything of the sort. What you claim is a completely bonkers assertion for which you have not one iota of evidence.
-
I fully agree - which is precisely why I use the word "knowledge" rather than "belief".
I cannot just believe in an entity with whom I have a personal relationship.
No doubt you will try to claim that I must be deluded, but you do not see inside my mind.
All sorts of people have unshakable belief in things that are simply untrue, including, of course, claims of relationships with invisible friends or gods. At best, all this indicates is a kind of subjective 'true for me' claim - in other words god is subjectively true for me as I believe it. It doesn't have any credence in an objective sense - i.e. that god actually exists for everyone in an objective manner.
So no Alan - you do not have knowledge of god in any objective sense - what you have is belief. And as I pointed out previously if religions and theists actually had knowledge they wouldn't couch their religions and theism in the language of faith and belief - if you really did all have knowledge their would be no need for faith or belief would there.
-
This reads as if a corpus callosotomy procedure consists of severing the connection between the soul and the brain. This is not the case, there is no soul connection that could be severed.
All mammals (that includes us of course) have two brains that are bridged by a small amount of connective tissue that allows communication so they act effectively as a single brain With that connection gone, you end up with two distinct brains not communicating directly with each other.
This is an instance of real world biology showing up ideas of immaterial souls to be no more than naïve magical thinking.
Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.
The brain is just a complex biological machine - every atom and molecule within this machine is replaceable. What is not replaceable is the conscious entity which is accountable and from which all thoughts, words and actions are invoked
-
Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.
Good question - and gets to the heart of what defines a person. The consensus seems to settle on higher neurological function, hence brain death being considered to define the death of the person even if other organs can be maintained.
But there is also the consideration of neural continuity - in other words a person is someone with a unique and continuing neurological function. So I'm not you can make such a glib 'I think' not answer.
Let's try a slightly more relevant sophisticated thought experiment - Imagine someone is brain dead (call this person A), but all other organs are functioning. You remove the dead brain and replace it with two half brains from two separate people (call them persons B and C). Let's assume there is no connectivity between each half of the brain as percorpus callosotomy, but that each half brain is now able to interact with the rest of the body so we have a living body that is no longer brain dead.
Who is the person or persons thus derived - it is person A - I wouldn't think so as their brain is dead and gone.
Why would we think this is person B rather than C, or C rather than B - surely both B and C are equally present. Or is it person D.
-
Let us imagine that you are siting inside a robot. That robot has certain software, memories and data loaded into it. You are functioning with that.
Assume that the hard disk or microprocessor or software of the robot is suddenly changed such that the old memories are replaced with some others and the data is now different. Obviously your functioning and experience with the new memories and software will be different to the earlier ones.
But you still remain the same.
-
Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.
But this is what the experience of people who have undergone this procedure reveals - what was previously a single locus of identity, perception and experience becomes two and the two grow more distinct over time, developing their own personalities, preferences, cognitive abilities and so forth. So how would a single soul map to this new reality ?
-
Good question - and gets to the heart of what defines a person. The consensus seems to settle on higher neurological function, hence brain death being considered to define the death of the person even if other organs can be maintained.
But there is also the consideration of neural continuity - in other words a person is someone with a unique and continuing neurological function. So I'm not you can make such a glib 'I think' not answer.
Let's try a slightly more relevant sophisticated thought experiment - Imagine someone is brain dead (call this person A), but all other organs are functioning. You remove the dead brain and replace it with two half brains from two separate people (call them persons B and C). Let's assume there is no connectivity between each half of the brain as percorpus callosotomy, but that each half brain is now able to interact with the rest of the body so we have a living body that is no longer brain dead.
Who is the person or persons thus derived - it is person A - I wouldn't think so as their brain is dead and gone.
Why would we think this is person B rather than C, or C rather than B - surely both B and C are equally present. Or is it person D.
I would expect B and C together
-
You miss the point again
The embedded AI derives choices from the human mind that designed the vehicle. The car does not make its own decisions - they were all pre programmed by its maker.
No they weren't. The human programmers can't possibly program every possible decision an AI self driving system has to make.
-
Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.
Why not? It seems obvious to me that two individuals (with reduced function, of course) would exist after such an operation.
-
No they weren't. The human programmers can't possibly program every possible decision an AI self driving system has to make.
They program the logic, which makes the AI just an extension of the programmer's own abilities to consciously interact with this world.
-
They program the logic, which makes the AI just an extension of the programmer's own abilities to consciously interact with this world.
This is state of the art computing from about 40 years ago. The logic in an AI comes not from programmers, but from its own learning process. This is why it is called 'machine learning'.
-
They program the logic, which makes the AI just an extension of the programmer's own abilities to consciously interact with this world.
Nope. Frequently, AIs make surprising (and sometimes good) decisions that even their creators don't understand. They often consist of artificial neural networks that are trained by the programmers but there isn't necessarily explicit logic in there to perform a task.
-
This is state of the art computing from about 40 years ago. The logic in an AI comes not from programmers, but from its own learning process. This is why it is called 'machine learning'.
And the "learning process" is entirely derived from the programmer's logic embedded within the software. Any AI is derived from human intelligence. And I should add that human intelligence is entirely derived from the intelligence of our Creator.
-
The brain is just a complex biological machine - every atom and molecule within this machine is replaceable. What is not replaceable is the conscious entity which is accountable and from which all thoughts, words and actions are invoked
So, in a split-brain patient, you now have to ask, which conscious entity is accountable for the words, thoughts and actions, given that there are now two of them.
-
And the "learning process" is entirely derived from the programmer's logic embedded within the software.
No more than human intelligence is derived from the coding in the simple molecule of DNA.
And I should add that human intelligence is entirely derived from the intelligence of our Creator.
Yawn - unevidenced assertion. Nope, human intelligence is derived from the evolutionary process as it confers a survival advantage.
-
And the "learning process" is entirely derived from the programmer's logic embedded within the software. Any AI is derived from human intelligence. And I should add that human intelligence is entirely derived from the intelligence of our Creator.
But you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that your "Creator" exists or that human intelligence arises from it. Furthermore, if intelligence needs something to program it e.g. a human or a god, then we must conclude that something programmed God and so on ad infinitum.
Presumably you are going to argue that God needed no programmer, but in that case, why would humans need programmers?
You really haven't thought this through properly.
-
Nope. Frequently, AIs make surprising (and sometimes good) decisions that even their creators don't understand. They often consist of artificial neural networks that are trained by the programmers but there isn't necessarily explicit logic in there to perform a task.
Take away the programmers and there is no AI
Take away God and there is no existence
-
Yawn - unevidenced assertion. Nope, human intelligence is derived from the evolutionary process as it confers a survival advantage.
You seem to be suggesting that anything which is seen to confer survival advantage must have been due to an evolutionary process - presumably driven by unguided events.
Do you see any possible flaw in this line of thought?
-
So, in a split-brain patient, you now have to ask, which conscious entity is accountable for the words, thoughts and actions, given that there are now two of them.
The conscious entity which is he human soul is not able to split.
The literature I have seen on the split brain syndrome appears to suggest that some functions of the body seem to have a mind of their own - not under the control of the conscious entity.
-
Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning -
That suggests that the soul can only "control" the physical brain in a fixed way through predetermined physical neural pathways.
Do you think that is correct?
-
Take away the programmers and there is no AI
Take away God and there is no existence
Baseless assertion courtesy of dodgy analogy
-
You seem to be suggesting that anything which is seen to confer survival advantage must have been due to an evolutionary process - presumably driven by unguided events.
Do you see any possible flaw in this line of thought?
Nope - I think you are misunderstand or misrepresenting evolution by natural selection.
Firstly all traits we have as humans are generated by evolution, as they were not present in earlier stages of the evolutionary process, all the way back to the emergence through evolution of the very first life forms.
Secondly the point about evolution is that random and unguided events happen all the time. Some confer survival advantage, some are completely neutral in terms of survival and some are detrimental to survival. If an individual possesses a trait that confers survival advantage then is is ... more likely to survive to a point where it can produce offspring. If that trait is hereditable it will be passed on those offspring and they will have greater chance of survival. Over time the trait becomes becomes more and more common in the population, eventually to the extend that a new variety, strain or even species emerges where this trait is dominant.
Of course if a trait is detrimental it will disappear as it make the individual less likely to survive. Neutral traits, may or may not survive.
Evolution becomes more complication when, firstly, some traits are co-inherited with others and also when a change in environmental conditions occurs. The latter may reveal a trait to be beneficial (or detrimental) when is wasn't so under previous environmental conditions. So if a species of fresh water organism has a trait that confers survival under high salinity conditions it may be neutral in freshwater. But if there is a storm surge or change in sea levels that means its environment becomes contaminated with sea water, only those organisms with the salinity-resistant trait will survive.
That's evolution by natural selection, and, no, there is no flaw in this line of thought, albeit I think there is a major flaw in your thinking in that you seem to think that the random process of variation/mutation etc only produces positive traits - it doesn't - it produces positive, negative and neutral traits. The point is that those positive traits are retained if hereditable.
-
You are missing the point about phenotypic plasticity and the ability of organisms to adapt to specific environmental requirements.....
-
You are missing the point about phenotypic plasticity and the ability of organisms to adapt to specific environmental requirements.....
Which is, in itself, an evolutionary trait - and a very useful one under certain circumstances. In many cases this is just controlled be standard genomic approaches - so genes being turned on or turned off, or proteins being active or inactivated under particular environmental challenge.
But in other cases this is achieved by epigenetic mechanisms by which either DNA or histones are methylated and/or acetylated. But the enzymes that actually do the methylated and/or acetylated (or the reverse) are coded for in the DNA. And if their promoters may be regulated themselves by external factors - e.g. pH, osmotic conditions, temperature, you then end up with a situation in which a change in environmental conditions drives epigenetic changes in DNA. Of course this will only be selected for if that trait confers survival advantage.
So the whole notion of what you call phenotypic plasticity whether by epigenetics or more standard control of genome function is a product of good old fashioned evolution by natural selection.
-
I fully understand what you are saying about evolutionary theory.
My contention is with your statement:
human intelligence is derived from the evolutionary process as it confers a survival advantage
which suggests that the fact that it gives survival advantage is sufficient reason for it to have been a result of the evolutionary process.
In order to justify this statement, you need to show that human intelligence - involving the conscious manipulation of thought processes - can be generated from the consequences of physical mutations alone. It comes down to the question of human free will - which I see as a necessary attribute for the guidance of intelligent thought processes to occur and which is impossible to define in purely material terms.
-
My contention is with your statement:which suggests that the fact that it gives survival advantage is sufficient reason for it to have been a result of the evolutionary process.
You seem to be confused again about the process - and you keep folding into 'reason' indicating a desire or intent or direction. The point is that changes happen randomly - some confer a survival advantage and if hereditable these survive and if sufficiently advantageous become so dominant that there is a wholesale shift in the phenotype of the organism sufficient for us to say there is a new strain, variant, species etc. Other random changes don't provide an advantage and may linger within the gene pool or even vanish. So a mutation that renders an individual to be sterile is going to vanish pretty darned quickly.
In order to justify this statement, you need to show that human intelligence - involving the conscious manipulation of thought processes - can be generated from the consequences of physical mutations alone. It comes down to the question of human free will - which I see as a necessary attribute for the guidance of intelligent thought processes to occur and which is impossible to define in purely material terms.
Of course it can. Everything you describe are features of our incredible complex neurology, which has arisen by the self same evolutionary process. For a social animal species such as humans, the ability to communicate, empathise, teach, learn etc etc are incredibly important for survival. So when randomly a trait emerges that makes that better - for example synaptic remodelling that allows memory - then those traits, provided they are hereditable, will be retained and if particularly advantageous will become dominant.
And why is this 'impossible' to define in purely material terms - I think it is perfectly possible, albeit we don't know enough yet about the full mechanisms. To argue that it is impossible implies there must be something non-material and as much as you really, really, really want this to be true you haven't got one iota of evidence to support any alternative assertion.
-
You seem to be confused again about the process - and you keep folding into 'reason' indicating a desire or intent or direction. The point is that changes happen randomly - some confer a survival advantage and if hereditable these survive and if sufficiently advantageous become so dominant that there is a wholesale shift in the phenotype of the organism sufficient for us to say there is a new strain, variant, species etc. Other random changes don't provide an advantage and may linger within the gene pool or even vanish. So a mutation that renders an individual to be sterile is going to vanish pretty darned quickly.
Of course it can. Everything you describe are features of our incredible complex neurology, which has arisen by the self same evolutionary process. For a social animal species such as humans, the ability to communicate, empathise, teach, learn etc etc are incredibly important for survival. So when randomly a trait emerges that makes that better - for example synaptic remodelling that allows memory - then those traits, provided they are hereditable, will be retained and if particularly advantageous will become dominant.
And why is this 'impossible' to define in purely material terms - I think it is perfectly possible, albeit we don't know enough yet about the full mechanisms. To argue that it is impossible implies there must be something non-material and as much as you really, really, really want this to be true you haven't got one iota of evidence to support any alternative assertion.
We eagerly await that day when conscious awareness can be separated from intelligence. The problem is that self awareness seems only limited to er, self
and self witness is not accepted as testimony or evidence.
-
We eagerly await that day when conscious awareness can be separated from intelligence. The problem is that self awareness seems only limited to er, self
and self witness is not accepted as testimony or evidence.
Not really true - psychologists have plenty of ways of looking at conscious awareness, which often involves correlation of subjective stated perception (or other behaviours from non human species) and objective assessment of neural activity. And conscious awareness and intelligence aren't the same thing at all. Intelligence relies on humans setting out specific questions, the correct answers to which confer intelligence. It is a human-centric measure, unlike conscious awareness.
On the issue of it being 'self' and testimony etc, again you are simplifying - if a person claims something associated with their conscious awareness that isn't discounted, and certainly not if it correlated with objective measurement. However that doesn't mean it is objectively true, rather than just subjectively perceived. So conscious awareness can result in 'true for me' perceptions, that don't translate into 'true for everyone'.
-
And why is this 'impossible' to define in purely material terms - I think it is perfectly possible, albeit we don't know enough yet about the full mechanisms. To argue that it is impossible implies there must be something non-material and as much as you really, really, really want this to be true you haven't got one iota of evidence to support any alternative assertion.
The impossibility arises from the conscious awareness of thought processes being unable to exert influence or control of the neurological events which have already occurred. In the physically driven material scenario there can be no conscious control of our thoughts - yet we have the ability to draw verifiable conclusions.
I make no apology for repeating this - but it is in answer to your assertion that there is not one iota of evidence to support the power of the human soul to give us the freedom we need to think things out.
-
Not really true - psychologists have plenty of ways of looking at conscious awareness, which often involves correlation of subjective stated perception (or other behaviours from non human species) and objective assessment of neural activity. And conscious awareness and intelligence aren't the same thing at all. Intelligence relies on humans setting out specific questions, the correct answers to which confer intelligence. It is a human-centric measure, unlike conscious awareness.
On the issue of it being 'self' and testimony etc, again you are simplifying - if a person claims something associated with their conscious awareness that isn't discounted, and certainly not if it correlated with objective measurement. However that doesn't mean it is objectively true, rather than just subjectively perceived. So conscious awareness can result in 'true for me' perceptions, that don't translate into 'true for everyone'.
There is still the problem that a mere machine gaining perception and information from light, sound, chemical, temperature and pressure sensors can yield the same kind of correlations with electrical activity inside the machine without the need of conscious awareness. We await confirmation of your idea that such methods will unearth conscious awareness. The real proof will be the ability to transfer consciousness in the same way that empirical data is transmitted In my opinion.
-
The impossibility arises from the conscious awareness of thought processes being unable to exert influence or control of the neurological events which have already occurred. In the physically driven material scenario there can be no conscious control of our thoughts - yet we have the ability to draw verifiable conclusions.
Except that what we describe as conscious awareness (actually redundancy of wording here as conscious is self awareness) is just that - a term humans ascribe to our perception of a complex process of neurological activity. There is no 'conscious awareness' in a truly objective sense, merely a term we use to describe someone that is objective - a certain type of complex neuronal action. As an analogy - we may describe 'seeing' something - but 'see' is merely a human-derived term to describe the process of light sensing by sensory cells in a visual organ and they transference of that sensing into electrical impulses that are then processed within the brain - the resulting process we describe as seeing.
I make no apology for repeating this - but it is in answer to your assertion that there is not one iota of evidence to support the power of the human soul to give us the freedom we need to think things out.
There is not one iota of evidence that the human soul actually exists (beyond its colloquial use to describe emotion). You try to work in the world of evidence - but if you want to play that game you need to have evidence for your starting assertion, namely that the soul exists - and of could you have no evidence for this.
-
Take away the programmers and there is no AI
Take away God and there is no existence
Take away God’s creator and there is no God.
-
Take away God’s creator and there is no God.
Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.
-
Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.
You need to establish THAT God is, before you can deduce that God 'just' is.
The universe manifestly is. God, not so much.
O.
-
You need to establish THAT God is, before you can deduce that God 'just' is.
The universe manifestly is. God, not so much.
O.
Exactly.
-
Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.
But if we look at the evidence, surely a more reasonable conclusion is that god just isn't.
-
You need to establish THAT God is, before you can deduce that God 'just' is.
The universe manifestly is. God, not so much.
O.
Sorry Jeremy assumed that if there was a god that God needs a creator. Yet he has elsewhere allowed for the universe to just be. That is at least special pleading.
-
But if we look at the evidence, surely a more reasonable conclusion is that god just isn't.
Look at the evidence for what exactly?
-
Look at the evidence for what exactly?
For a god surely?
You have concluded there is a god.
Did you do that by evidence?
-
Sorry Jeremy assumed that if there was a god that God needs a creator. Yet he has elsewhere allowed for the universe to just be. That is at least special pleading.
No; he was just adopting the implications of Alan's causative argument to expose its hollowness.
The special pleading is Alan's and yours.
-
Look at the evidence for what exactly?
But that't the whole point - there isn't any evidence. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does mean that until or unless such evidence arises (noting that people have been failing to provide any evidence of the existence of god for millennia) then it makes no sense to try to explain things we don't understand from a first principle assumption (or assertion) that god exists. This is, of course, the approach that both you Vlad and AB cannot help them selves but do.
-
But that't the whole point - there isn't any evidence. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does mean that until or unless such evidence arises (noting that people have been failing to provide any evidence of the existence of god for millennia) then it makes no sense to try to explain things we don't understand from a first principle assumption (or assertion) that god exists. This is, of course, the approach that both you Vlad and AB cannot help them selves but do.
Almost totally agree. I think that in certain situations and absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
-
For a god surely?
You have concluded there is a god.
Did you do that by evidence?
And what evidence for god are you proposing? God, like philosophical empiricism is unfalsifiable.
In terms of concluding there is a God I will say that the christian wordframework more adequately describes my experience than anything else on offer.
-
No; he was just adopting the implications of Alan's causative argument to expose its hollowness.
The special pleading is Alan's and yours.
No the special pleading is Jeremy's as he appears to insist that a God has a creator but elsewhere suggests that the universe just is. That is the special pleading.
Alan's causative argument? what's that? I should perhaps state that I am chiefly on here for pleasure so i'm not here to fault Alan but to be all over atheist nonsense.
-
Almost totally agree. I think that in certain situations and absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
Example?
-
Example?
If you make a claim like there is a dragon in my garage. Then we would expect to see a dragon if we go into the garage. If we don't, then this is evidence against your claim.
Another trivial example, is when the fire service are called to put out a fire. When do they leave?
When there is no evidence of a fire surely.
This is just another way of stating the first example. If there were a fire you would expect to see A,B,C etc. If you do not see A or B or C then this is evidence of the absence of fire, and so they can leave the scene.
-
If you make a claim like there is a dragon in my garage. Then we would expect to see a dragon if we go into the garage. If we don't, then this is evidence against your claim.
Another trivial example, is when the fire service are called to put out a fire. When do they leave?
When there is no evidence of a fire surely.
This is just another way of stating the first example. If there were a fire you would expect to see A,B,C etc. If you do not see A or B or C then this is evidence of the absence of fire, and so they can leave the scene.
Yes, that's correct.
I think the notion of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence best applies to situations where people have not attempted to obtain evidence, or that that attempt isn't exhaustive. So we couldn't conclude there was no dragon if we hadn't looked even though at that point we have no evidence for a dragon in the garage.
But that isn't really the case with god as people over thousands of years have been trying to provide evidence for god, yet they have all failed to provide any credible evidence for the existence of god. So it is rather more akin to someone claiming that the dragon exists even after the garage has been searched high and low - and then claiming that the reason that there is no evidence for that dragon (despite exhaustive search) is that the dragon is invisible/not responsive to material assessment/only appears to certain people who really, really, really want it to be true/that the search party aren't the right type of people etc, etc (delete as applicable).
-
Yes, that's correct.
I think the notion of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence best applies to situations where people have not attempted to obtain evidence, or that that attempt isn't exhaustive. So we couldn't conclude there was no dragon if we hadn't looked even though at that point we have no evidence for a dragon in the garage.
But that isn't really the case with god as people over thousands of years have been trying to provide evidence for god, yet they have all failed to provide any credible evidence for the existence of god. So it is rather more akin to someone claiming that the dragon exists even after the garage has been searched high and low - and then claiming that the reason that there is no evidence for that dragon (despite exhaustive search) is that the dragon is invisible/not responsive to material assessment/only appears to certain people who really, really, really want it to be true/that the search party aren't the right type of people etc, etc (delete as applicable).
I totally agree. Once the garage door is open, then the excuses begin.
-
If you make a claim like there is a dragon in my garage. Then we would expect to see a dragon if we go into the garage. If we don't, then this is evidence against your claim.
As a free standing example I would agree and the reason is I would expect to see a big lizard thing which at least smells of burning and/or has wings. In short that there is a dragon in your garage is a falsifiable claim.....and I expect that is your criterion. As an example to use as against the existence of God it obviously falls apart and assumes it's rightful place as a horses laugh argument.
-
As a free standing example I would agree and the reason is I would expect to see a big lizard thing which at least smells of burning and/or has wings. In short that there is a dragon in your garage is a falsifiable claim.....and I expect that is your criterion. As an example to use as against the existence of God it obviously falls apart and assumes it's rightful place as a horses laugh argument.
If you have concluded there is a god, then presumably you used evidence. Can we see the evidence that confirmed its existence. Or is it invisible like the dragon in my garage.
Do you have evidence, or excuses for lack of evidence?
-
As a free standing example I would agree and the reason is I would expect to see a big lizard thing which at least smells of burning and/or has wings. In short that there is a dragon in your garage is a falsifiable claim.....and I expect that is your criterion. As an example to use as against the existence of God it obviously falls apart and assumes it's rightful place as a horses laugh argument.
If you make an unfalsifiable claim, then I am not at all interested.
-
If you have concluded there is a god, then presumably you used evidence.
Experience and argument is what leads me to where I am. I think that that qualifies neither as evidence nor conclusion in your empirical criteria for evidence or criteria.
Also you have foisted the term conclude on me in a sleight of hand......Very dirty.
-
If you make an unfalsifiable claim, then I am not at all interested.
Then you have a philosophy which leads you to that stance. And that philosophy is more than likely unfalsifiable.
If it doesn't come with curry sauce then I am not interested.
-
Sorry Jeremy assumed that if there was a god that God needs a creator. Yet he has elsewhere allowed for the universe to just be. That is at least special pleading.
Not really, the universe is a background of physical laws, whereas you are positing the unprompted, unwarranted, immediate existence of a complex, coordinated intelligence. Vastly, vastly different claims, even if you accept that the notion of a god is justified in the first instance.
O.
-
Experience and argument is what leads me to where I am.
Exactly the same approach that lead people to think the sun went round the earth, that the earth was flat and that earthquakes were due to the moving of the giant elephants who held up the world.
Experience and argument get you no-where - evidence does. And you have none to back up you assertion that god exists Vlad.
-
Experience and argument is what leads me to where I am. I think that that qualifies neither as evidence nor conclusion in your empirical criteria for evidence or criteria.
Also you have foisted the term conclude on me in a sleight of hand......Very dirty.
If you believe in a god, you must be convinced that it exists.
I just wonder why you are convinced and what was the evidence that convinced you. If it is personal revelation, I am not interesed, as that is personal.
-
Then you have a philosophy which leads you to that stance. And that philosophy is more than likely unfalsifiable.
If it doesn't come with curry sauce then I am not interested.
I think you are now in avoidance and excuse mode.
If you cannot provide evidence for the god you believe, just admit it.
-
Then you have a philosophy which leads you to that stance. And that philosophy is more than likely unfalsifiable.
If it doesn't come with curry sauce then I am not interested.
Indeed philosophies are unfalsifiable, but they are accepted to be subjective 'true for me' stuff, not as something objectively true.
So if you want to argue that god exists only in a subjective manner - in other word only exists in the minds of people who believe he/she/it exists, but doesn't exist in any objective manner, then fine by me. But I don't think that's what most theists think at all - they think that god exists ... objectively ... for everyone.
-
Indeed philosophies are unfalsifiable, but they are accepted to be subjective 'true for me' stuff, not as something objectively true.
Look, the notion that the only things that exist are those which can be empirically evidenced......or, alternatively the only things that exist are physical are, if true, true for everybody so that rather scuppers your argument.
-
If you believe in a god, you must be convinced that it exists.
I just wonder why you are convinced and what was the evidence that convinced you. If it is personal revelation, I am not interesed, as that is personal.
Convinced or scientifically concluded?....make your mind up. I've already told you I am persuaded by experience and argument.
At least you have not actually claimed to be right. Interest waxes and wanes doesn't it?
-
Convinced or scientifically concluded?....make your mind up. I've already told you I am persuaded by experience and argument.
At least you have not actually claimed to be right. Interest waxes and wanes doesn't it?
If you believe in a god, you must be convinced.
I just wonder what was the evidence that convinced you.
Personal experience is not interesting, as other have personal experience that leads them to other god or no gods.
Arguments are okay up to a point, but they must have evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just fantasy.
-
Look, the notion that the only things that exist are those which can be empirically evidenced.....
If they are claimed to be objectively true then sure they should be able to subject to verification through evidence. There are, of course, other things which exist in a subjective manner (e.g. my preferences, which are true for me but not necessarily true for you) and also things which are perception based but not really objective - so we humans ascribe certain emotional reactions responses etc as 'love' and while that is incredibly important to us it cannot be considered to be objectively true as other species etc may have completely different behavioural features which means other emotions are incredibly important. However the underlying physiology that drives what we call love (endocrine, neuronal) can be verified via evidence to be objectively true.
But the point is that theists, and particularly christians, typically seem clear that god objectively exists - he/she/it isn't just the external description of an internal feelings, nor just a subjective 'true for me' but actually, really objectively exists and indeed always existed so the notion of god in relation to humans who have only been around for a blink of an eye in cosmic time seems completely irrelevant. If god exists as described in an objective sense then god would similarly exist regardless of relations with people and indeed would still objectively exist even if humans never existed.
-
Personal experience is not interesting, as other have personal experience that leads them to other god or no gods.
Spot on - and people can, of course, have exactly the same experience and interpret it in different ways.
So I used the example of the sun going round the earth and vice verse. Each is based on the same experience of seeing the sun and planets rise, traverse across the sky and then set. But some people interpreted this as the sun and panets going around the earth, others as the earth and planets going around the sun. But this isn't a 'true for me' thing as for the sun/earth/planets relationship either one or the other (or neither) are objectively true. Both interpretations cannot be correct.
Arguments are okay up to a point, but they must have evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just fantasy.
Absolutely - the reason why we now recognise that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around isn't about experience (the experiences underlying the interpretations are the same) and it isn't really about argument as once the 'argument' of the sun going around the earth prevailed (but wasn't true). The issue is evidence - it is evidence, not argument, or experience, that leads us to the truth.
-
No the special pleading is Jeremy's as he appears to insist that a God has a creator but elsewhere suggests that the universe just is. That is the special pleading.
Alan's causative argument? what's that? I should perhaps state that I am chiefly on here for pleasure so i'm not here to fault Alan but to be all over atheist nonsense.
I don't know how we got to this rather tired old style of argumentation on this thread at all. All these matters have pretty much been done to death elsewhere, and the dead horse will probably continue to be flogged as long as the forum lasts. But preferably elsewhere.
I'll make one last ditch attempt to steer the conversation back to where the thread started - to the medical phenomena mentioned by myself and torridon. You and Alan would appear to be convinced that your controlling self is what Christians call the soul, which in some sense will continue to exist beyond death. The self and the phenomena which torridon and myself referred to are the starting point for any enquiry, before any waffle about God can begin (I think Pope wrote a rather famous poem on the subject).
I'm contending that what you call your self or soul is all too easily fragmented. Alan (and perhaps you) seems to believe that his identity remains forever intact, he will remain Alan in all his Alan-ness (and you in your Vladness) for all eternity.
The Soul Vlad, what is the Soul?
-
Spot on - and people can, of course, have exactly the same experience and interpret it in different ways.
So I used the example of the sun going round the earth and vice verse. Each is based on the same experience of seeing the sun and planets rise, traverse across the sky and then set. But some people interpreted this as the sun and panets going around the earth, others as the earth and planets going around the sun. But this isn't a 'true for me' thing as for the sun/earth/planets relationship either one or the other (or neither) are objectively true. Both interpretations cannot be correct.
Absolutely - the reason why we now recognise that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around isn't about experience (the experiences underlying the interpretations are the same) and it isn't really about argument as once the 'argument' of the sun going around the earth prevailed (but wasn't true). The issue is evidence - it is evidence, not argument, or experience, that leads us to the truth.
The part about the now false belief that the sun orbits the Earth, reminds me of something I heard many years ago by James Burke, remarking about this he said
"But imagine what it would have looked like".
-
I don't know how we got to this rather tired old style of argumentation on this thread at all.
Fallacy of antiquity All these matters have pretty much been done to death elsewhere, and the dead horse
There is no dead horse. The final word of opposition seems to be the universe just is and in that the argument is unsatisfactorily terminated with the delicious revelation that those who think it just is so shut up are fucking hypocrits will probably continue to be flogged as long as the forum lasts. But preferably elsewhere.
I'll make one last ditch attempt to steer the conversation back to where the thread started - to the medical phenomena mentioned by myself and torridon. You and Alan would appear to be convinced that your controlling self is what Christians call the soul, which in some sense will continue to exist beyond death. The self and the phenomena which torridon and myself referred to are the starting point for any enquiry, before any waffle about God can begin (I think Pope wrote a rather famous poem on the subject).
I'm contending that what you call your self or soul is all too easily fragmented. Alan (and perhaps you) seems to believe that his identity remains forever intact, he will remain Alan in all his Alan-ness (and you in your Vladness) for all eternity.
The Soul Vlad, what is the Soul?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. As far as I am concerned you only have eternal life if you are resurrected although obviously not in your old physical body.
The soul is the self dear boy. Now I am quite prepared for this to be an emergent thing FROM or OUT OF complex physical systems but do not insist on this only operating in physical terms. If you are insisting on it itself being a complex physical system then it is down to you to elucidate that and show complete working out.
-
If they are claimed to be objectively true then sure they should be able to subject to verification through evidence. There are, of course, other things which exist in a subjective manner (e.g. my preferences, which are true for me but not necessarily true for you) and also things which are perception based but not really objective - so we humans ascribe certain emotional reactions responses etc as 'love' and while that is incredibly important to us it cannot be considered to be objectively true as other species etc may have completely different behavioural features which means other emotions are incredibly important. However the underlying physiology that drives what we call love (endocrine, neuronal) can be verified via evidence to be objectively true.
But the point is that theists, and particularly christians, typically seem clear that god objectively exists - he/she/it isn't just the external description of an internal feelings, nor just a subjective 'true for me' but actually, really objectively exists and indeed always existed so the notion of god in relation to humans who have only been around for a blink of an eye in cosmic time seems completely irrelevant. If god exists as described in an objective sense then god would similarly exist regardless of relations with people and indeed would still objectively exist even if humans never existed.
Christians would say that if God is real then God is the kind of thing that would be real for everyone. Just the same as if philosophical naturalism were true it would be true for everyone. The Christian God especially out of most religions doesn't lend itself as a ''true for me'' notion because of it's claims of a vital link with the world ''Creator'' and the historical claims of an incarnation...in my opinion.
-
Christians would say that if God is real then God is the kind of thing that would be real for everyone. Just the same as if philosophical naturalism were true it would be true for everyone. The Christian God especially out of most religions doesn't lend itself as a ''true for me'' notion because of it's claims of a vital link with the world ''Creator'' and the historical claims of an incarnation...in my opinion.
I don't know what that means.
Are you saying the god you believe in is only true for you but not for me?
-
Christians would say that if God is real then God is the kind of thing that would be real for everyone.
... The Christian God especially out of most religions doesn't lend itself as a ''true for me'' notion because of it's claims of a vital link with the world ''Creator'' and the historical claims of an incarnation...in my opinion.
Which confirms my thoughts above. Now of course if god is merely 'true for me', but not necessarily 'true for you' - in other words a manifestation of an individual's perception, opinion etc then I guess I and others would have no issue. That's fine your belief in god makes him/her/it subjectively true for you - my lack of belief in god makes god not true for me. We are both correct and we can live happily ever after.
But this isn't your view - you think god really exists in an objective sense - and therefore true for me regardless of whether I believe or not. Hence all the notion of goddodging (which makes no sense if god is subjective) etc. But if god really is objectively true then you should be able to provide evidence to demonstrate this. Of course if god is just subjective the only evidence you need is 'because I believe it to be so' - but if objective then you need objective evidence.
Just the same as if philosophical naturalism were true it would be true for everyone.
Nope poor analogy - philosophy is an opinion, not something that can every be demonstrated to be objectively true or not true. Philosophies help us to understand the world, to make decisions ourself but they don't objectively exist in any meaningful sense, nor are they designed to be able to be demonstrated to be true beyond being 'true for me' - i.e. that I find that philosophy compelling, just as I might find the music of Mozart compelling. In neither case does this mean that you must also find this philosophy/music compelling and certainly not that I can prove this philosphy or music to be compelling in an objective sense.
-
Nope poor analogy - philosophy is an opinion, not something that can every be demonstrated to be objectively true or not true. Philosophies help us to understand the world, to make decisions ourself but they don't objectively exist in any meaningful sense, nor are they designed to be able to be demonstrated to be true beyond being 'true for me' - i.e. that I find that philosophy compelling, just as I might find the music of Mozart compelling. In neither case does this mean that you must also find this philosophy/music compelling and certainly not that I can prove this philosphy or music to be compelling in an objective sense.
Not really, Both Philosophical naturalism and theism are both philosophies about how the cosmos is, what it is. Philosophical naturalism is not hot on why there is a universe but each covers broadly the same territory, both are unfalsifiable. both if true would be true for everyone.
To equate theism with music is ridiculous. Don't give up your day job.
-
If you believe in a god, you must be convinced.
I just wonder what was the evidence that convinced you.
Personal experience is not interesting, as other have personal experience that leads them to other god or no gods.
Arguments are okay up to a point, but they must have evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just fantasy.
The last sentence limits us to one philosophy. Philosophical empiricism....which unfortunately doesn't have the empirical evidence to back it up.
-
The last sentence limits us to one philosophy. Philosophical empiricism....which unfortunately doesn't have the empirical evidence to back it up.
Obfuscation.
-
Not really, Both Philosophical naturalism and theism are both philosophies about how the cosmos is, what it is.
Theism isn't a philosophy - it is merely a belief that god exists. It is no more a philosophy than atheism, a lack of belief that god exists. Sure there are theist philosophies, but they need to go way further than merely asserting that god exists - they need to posit some kind of philosophical position that flows from that existence in god.
All theism is is a statement of the existence of an entity, god, and therefore should be subject to the need for evidence for that claim as would be the case in any other situation where someone claims that something exists. If that claim relates to an objective 'true for everyone' god then objective evidence needs to be provided to support that claim. This is nothing like a philosophical claim which is an opinion not a claimed statement of fact.
-
To equate theism with music is ridiculous. Don't give up your day job.
I didn't - I compared philosophies with music - both are matters of subjective opinion, in neither case can a preference for a particular type of music or a particular philosophy be proved to be correct in an objective sense.
And as I pointed out theism isn't a philosophy, nor is it like a philosophy if the claim is for the existence of god in a 'true for everyone' objective sense. There is a binary objective claim - either god exists or god does not exist and this should be subject to evidential verification in the same manner as any other claim that something objectively exists, e.g. black swans. And as Popper points out it may be impossible to prove that something does not exist - particularly if (unlike our dragon in the garage) it may exist in an almost infinite number of places, many of which are inaccessible. However the claims are easily falsifiable by bring forward a black swan or compelling evidence for god. In the latter case this has never happened despite people claiming god exists for thousands of years.
-
Theism isn't a philosophy - it is merely a belief that god exists.
That, as you know, isn't a proper definition of theism which is that God is responsible for the existence and governing of the universe...and that notion is of itself philosophical It is no more a philosophy than atheism, a lack of belief that god exists.
If atheism opposes theism then it to is philosophical and a philosophy Sure there are theist philosophies, but they need to go way further than merely asserting that god exists
They do and your definition of theism falls short.
-
I didn't - I compared philosophies with music - both are matters of subjective opinion, in neither case can a preference for a particular type of music or a particular philosophy be proved to be correct in an objective sense.
Poor analogy, since philosophies are about the way things are in and for the universe. Music has nothing to say on that score.
Try comparing philosophy with brands of beans.
-
That, as you know, isn't a proper definition of theism which is that God is responsible for the existence and governing of the universe...and that notion is of itself philosophical
Non-sense - theism is a belief that god exists, nothing more, nothing less. Theism per se is completely silent on the nature of that god, how that god may or may not interact with the universe, how that god may or may not dictate moral rules for people etc.
Sure there are plenty of theist philosophies, but that is a different matter - theism per se is a claim for the existence of a thing (god) and if this is a claim of objective, rather than subjective 'true for me, but not necessarily you' existence then it is subject to objective true/not true verification. This is entirely different from the claims of philosophy which are subjective opinions and cannot be proven objectively to be true/not true.
-
Not really, Both Philosophical naturalism and theism are both philosophies about how the cosmos is, what it is.
To avoid confusion it might be better to call it theology rather than theism.
-
Non-sense - theism is a belief that god exists, nothing more, nothing less.
Boy, when you're wrong you really commit, don't you. Let's try to lead you out of this.
First of there's theism and deism. Theism states that there is a god who created the universe and maintains it. Deism says that God doesn't have anything to do with the universe it created. There we have several propositions already including a declaration that theism is not merely the belief that God exists.
Secondly look up the definition of theism.
Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.
-
Poor analogy, since philosophies are about the way things are in and for the universe. Music has nothing to say on that score.
Beethoven would have disagreed (not saying I agree, but I ain't B).
btw The existence of Mozart is one of the strongest non-philosophical 'arguments' in the theists' weaponry, so don't shoot yourself in the foot. The fact that M existed kept me in the theist camp when other experience and argument had led me out of it.
Err - about the soul, anybody?
-
Boy, when you're wrong you really commit, don't you. Let's try to lead you out of this.
First of there's theism and deism. Theism states that there is a god who created the universe and maintains it. Deism says that God doesn't have anything to do with the universe it created. There we have several propositions already including a declaration that theism is not merely the belief that God exists.
Blimey Vlad - you really are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Yes I am well aware of what deism is, but it appears that you do not understand what the strict definition of theism is - see below.
Secondly look up the definition of theism.
Yup, you mean like this one - I trust you consider the Cambridge Dictionary to be authoritative:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theism
'belief in the existence of a god or gods'
Now I know that some definitions add some exemplars of the type of god, but that isn't part of the strict definition at all and is both superfluous and also confusing. So theism (see definition) is belief in the existence of god or gods. Deism is a sub-category of theism in which the god is non-interventionist. But a deism believes in the existence of that non interventionalist god and is therefore also theist.
And you can see the non-sense of trying to define theism in the context of a particular type of god alone when you look at the flip-side of theism, which is of course atheism. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of god or gods, not someone who does not believe in a god who created the universe and maintains it, but believes in a god that does not maintain the world.
So image someone who fervently believes that there is a god, but that although that god created the world, having done so that god does not intervene in the world. That person isn't atheist, that person is clearly theist (as they believe in the existence of that god) but also deist.
Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.
Show me exactly in the definition of theism I quote above the part that described the type of god ... of yes, there isn't one.
-
.....
Secondly look up the definition of theism.
Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.
These definitions are all so much white noise. They might have a bit more relevance if the belief system involved were specified. Is Hinduism a theism? Is gnosticism? They have very different views of God from the one you've described. No doubt you're suggesting theism is the superior concept (it's from the Greek, innit, and the uvver's only from the Latin)
-
[quote author=Walt Zingmatilder link=topic=19003.msg846172#msg846172 date=165183120
.....
Secondly look up the definition of theism.
Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.
These definitions are all so much white noise. They might have a bit more relevance if the belief system involved were specified. Is Hinduism a theism? Is gnosticism? They have very different views of God from the one you've described. No doubt you're suggesting theism is the superior concept (it's from the Greek, innit, and the uvver's only from the Latin)
Indeed - what Vlad is trying to do is cherry pick the gods that he thinks are part of theism and ignore other gods. Theism applies to all gods, not just some.
So I mentioned the deist creator but non-interventionist god - if you believe in that god then you are theist (and deist).
But there are also non-creator gods in many polytheist traditions - if you believe in that god you are also theist (but not deist). I accept that theism is often used as a kind of byword for people who believe in the judo-christian kind of god, but it doesn't have to. Believe in one or more gods (of any flavour) and you are theist.
-
Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.
Yes, but if God just is then it destroys Alan's argument that intelligence needs a creator.
-
Blimey Vlad - you really are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Yes I am well aware of what deism is, but it appears that you do not understand what the strict definition of theism is - see below.
Yup, you mean like this one - I trust you consider the Cambridge Dictionary to be authoritative:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theism
'belief in the existence of a god or gods'
I derived mine from the Oxford Dictionary. There is still the question whether the proposition ''God exists'' isn't a philosophical position.
I believe that the Cambridge dictionary derives it's meaning as the opposite of atheism. Again isn't 'God does not exist' a philosophical proposition?
Now I know that some definitions add some exemplars of the type of god, but that isn't part of the strict definition at all and is both superfluous and also confusing. So theism (see definition) is belief in the existence of god or gods. Deism is a sub-category of theism in which the god is non-interventionist. But a deism believes in the existence of that non interventionalist god and is therefore also theist.
And you can see the non-sense of trying to define theism in the context of a particular type of god alone when you look at the flip-side of theism, which is of course atheism. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of god or gods, not someone who does not believe in a god who created the universe and maintains it, but believes in a god that does not maintain the world.
So image someone who fervently believes that there is a god, but that although that god created the world, having done so that god does not intervene in the world. That person isn't atheist, that person is clearly theist (as they believe in the existence of that god) but also deist.
Show me exactly in the definition of theism I quote above the part that described the type of god ... of yes, there isn't one.
We need your full thesis on how theism is not a philosophical proposition given that many, many philosophical positions are beliefs rather than established facts.
-
Philosophical naturalism is not hot on why there is a universe
Neither is theism. Theists definitely have opinions on why there is a universe, but they have no way to verify if their opinions are correct.
-
I derived mine from the Oxford Dictionary.
Interesting that you don't actually provide that definition ... hmmm, wonder why that might be.
So let me help you out - this from my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary:
Theism: Belief in god(s), esp, in one God as creator and supreme ruler of universe.
Note esp. meaning especially - note not exclusively. As as I pointed out theism is often, more colloquially, associated with the judo-christian god, but the Oxford definition is clear that it doesn't have to be. So as both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries confirm - if you believe in a god or gods you are a theist.
-
Interesting that you don't actually provide that definition ... hmmm, wonder why that might be.
So let me help you out - this from my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary:
Theism: Belief in god(s), esp, in one God as creator and supreme ruler of universe.
Note esp. meaning especially - note not exclusively. As as I pointed out theism is often, more colloquially, associated with the judo-christian god, but the Oxford definition is clear that it doesn't have to be. So as both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries confirm - if you believe in a god or gods you are a theist.
This is taken from the current Online Oxford Dictionary:
theism
[ˈθiːɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.Compare with deism.
"there are many different forms of theism".
But whichever way one cuts it these are still philosophical propositions and within the definition of theism so there is no ''merely'' about it IMV.
You continue flip flopping between focussing on whether theism is merely belief in God or whether it constitutes a world view or philosophy if you like.
-
Neither is theism. Theists definitely have opinions on why there is a universe, but they have no way to verify if their opinions are correct.
Which is also true of any opinion on why there is a universe.
-
This is taken from the current Online Oxford Dictionary:
theism
[ˈθiːɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.Compare with deism.
"there are many different forms of theism".
Link please, because that isn't what I see on the online Oxford English Dictionary (which is a sign-in). This is what I get:
theism, n.1
Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).
(a) gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. (b) Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n. (c) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n. (d) esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.
So the general definition is as I've described - believe in god (described in this definition as deities) - there are some narrower definitions, one of which is about monotheism. A further one is clear that deism can be considered to be theism, and final a more limited definition that distinguishes theism from deism and from the general definition - again using especially, not specifically or exclusively.
You seem to be focusing only on (d) which is no more relevant than (c) but definitely less relevant than the general definition.
-
This is taken from the current Online Oxford Dictionary:
theism
[ˈθiːɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.Compare with deism.
"there are many different forms of theism".
But I much prefer the other definition of theism - also from the Oxford English Dictionary:
theism, n.2
A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart
-
But I much prefer the other definition of theism - also from the Oxford English Dictionary:
theism, n.2
A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart
Oops - missed out the last bit:
...caused by excessive tea-drinking.
-
theism, n.1
Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).
(a) gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. (b) Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n. (c) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n. (d) esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.
Interesting linguistic point re Voltaire - can the distinction which Vlad wishes to make only be made in English (the language of God, of course)? The OED refers to Voltaire as a théiste - which I suppose we would translate as a deist. Mais il était théiste.
-
Which is also true of any opinion on why there is a universe.
But only religionists claim to know their opinions are true without evidence.
-
But only religionists claim to know their opinions are true without evidence.
Seems a bit sweeping.
-
Seems a bit sweeping.
But it is the critical point. Lots of scientists have speculated about why there's a universe rather than not, but none of them claim that they know their opinions are the truth.
-
But it is the critical point. Lots of scientists have speculated about why there's a universe rather than not, but none of them claim that they know their opinions are the truth.
Professionally scientists should of course focus on science but more than once have scientists been caught focusing on their atheism. Dawkins, Carroll ,Krauss....the usual suspects.
-
Professionally scientists should of course focus on science but more than once have scientists been caught focusing on their atheism. Dawkins, Carroll ,Krauss....the usual suspects.
So what? Are scientists not allowed to talk about non science?
-
You continue flip flopping between focussing on whether theism is merely belief in God or whether it constitutes a world view or philosophy if you like.
No I don't - theism in its standard meaning (belief that god or gods exist) isn't a philosophy, merely an assertion that something exists. And if this claim is objective, i.e. exists for everyone not merely in the minds of believers, then it needs to be backed up with evidence as it will be either objectively true or objectively false. As such the existence or non-existence of god/gods isn't a matter of opinion it is an objective fact.
The point with philosophies is that the aren't something that can be proved to be objectively true of objectively false - that's the whole point, they are opinions/ideas etc that help us understand the world, but aren't objectively true or false.
There are, of course, theistic philosophies, but they are distinct from theism itself albeit a theistic philosophy would be based on a presumption of the existence of god. In themselves those philosophies cannot be proved right or wrong, and indeed don't really rely on god actually existing, but on those positing them to believe that god exists.
-
So what? Are scientists not allowed to talk about non science?
Apparently not - I'd better shut up then.
-
Apparently not - I'd better shut up then.
1. Yes of course they are allowed.
2.You said it.