Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

That there is a reason for the choices we make is ultimately why we could not, would not, would not want,  to have free will in the full sense of the phrase.  Your brain is a biological decision making apparatus that makes wise choices and there would be no point, no benefit, in having that decision making system free of its primary purpose, or free of the constraints of its system of implementation. Decisions that were truly free would be meaningless, random. Choices have to be unfree, in order to be meaningful and useful; they have to satisfy their need.

But there is so much more to our humanity than a biological decision making machine.  Neuroscience will no doubt confirm the workings of the biological bit, but there is much more involved.

Just taking the analogy of the printed word a bit further, you do not discover the meaning of the word by analysing the ink and paper, but if the meaning exists in human consciousness, where does this meaning actually reside in the biological machine?  Is it inside a brain cell?  If so, how is it represented?  Can neuroscience discover the meaning within our physical brain?  Can meaning be defined in physical terms and can we discover where is resides?  Can this analogy throw new light on the profound opening of St John's gospel - In the begining was the word ....

I think we're back at the hard problem of consciousness here, essentially. We can view particles down a microscope and directly inspect how those particles relate to larger structures, to molecules, to cells, to organs, to creatures, to materials.  But we find it much harder to understand how to relate those particles to thoughts, to feelings, to ideas. I see that as a challenge we could rise to, the attempt to understand it. That periodic table on the wall of your school's chemistry class is the starting point for understanding not just organic compounds or smart materials, we have to understand how our periodic table also ultimately gives rise to guilt, to hunger, to equity markets, to horn concertos.  That's an immense intellectual challenge; your answer to that conundrum, is that we need a soul, something 'immaterial' to be able to appreciate the 'immaterial' things of this world. That seems to me not so much like an answer, but an evasion. I think we can look at what we know about and try to figure it out. By positting a soul you are bringing in something for which there is no evidence at all and is itself inexplicable; in other words its an approach which ultimately fogs rather than clarifies. Any details on this soul, what it is made of, where it comes from, how it attaches to a body, how it communicates with a body, all such details are absent, and this lack of detail betrays the whole idea as an evasion pretending to be a solution.  If you go up to a goose and say 'boo' to it, do you really think that it has to have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

[Leonard James]

If you go up to a goose and say 'boo' to it, do you really think that it has to have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

Geese are a bit thin on the ground here, but we have an abundance of pigeons. I have taught my dog to completely ignore them, and now the pigeons have learnt that neither he nor I am a danger to them, and don't take any notice of us even when we are within a few feet of them.

Not an attempt to derail, but just to point out that fear surmountable with a soul or without. 

[Alan Burns]

..... Any details on this soul, what it is made of, where it comes from, how it attaches to a body, how it communicates with a body, all such details are absent, and this lack of detail betrays the whole idea as an evasion pretending to be a solution.  If you go up to a goose and say 'boo' to it, do you really think that it has to have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The goose, like most animals, simply reacts in a very predictable way.  We have no real evidence that it can experience the inner sensation of fear in the same way that humans do.  Also we have no way of telling if non-humans can actually attribute a conscious meaning to what their senses detect, rather than just invoke a predictable reaction.  The human ability to attribute meaning to what is detected by their senses is certainly part of our consciousness, but if consciousness is solely defined by chemical activity in the brain, the meaning of things must also be defined absolutely by chemical activity alone, but is this possible?  The most sophisticated man made computers can only store information internally in binary form which can then be translated to some external form of visual data, but at no point in the process can meaning be attached to anything until it is viewed by a human being.  Meaning only exists in human consciousness and it is not definable by any form of material media.

[ekim]

..... Any details on this soul, what it is made of, where it comes from, how it attaches to a body, how it communicates with a body, all such details are absent, and this lack of detail betrays the whole idea as an evasion pretending to be a solution.  If you go up to a goose and say 'boo' to it, do you really think that it has to have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The goose, like most animals, simply reacts in a very predictable way.  We have no real evidence that it can experience the inner sensation of fear in the same way that humans do.  Also we have no way of telling if non-humans can actually attribute a conscious meaning to what their senses detect, rather than just invoke a predictable reaction.  The human ability to attribute meaning to what is detected by their senses is certainly part of our consciousness, but if consciousness is solely defined by chemical activity in the brain, the meaning of things must also be defined absolutely by chemical activity alone, but is this possible?  The most sophisticated man made computers can only store information internally in binary form which can then be translated to some external form of visual data, but at no point in the process can meaning be attached to anything until it is viewed by a human being.  Meaning only exists in human consciousness and it is not definable by any form of material media.

.... so, what is the meaning of 'soul'?

[jjohnjil]

..... Any details on this soul, what it is made of, where it comes from, how it attaches to a body, how it communicates with a body, all such details are absent, and this lack of detail betrays the whole idea as an evasion pretending to be a solution.  If you go up to a goose and say 'boo' to it, do you really think that it has to have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The goose, like most animals, simply reacts in a very predictable way.  We have no real evidence that it can experience the inner sensation of fear in the same way that humans do.  Also we have no way of telling if non-humans can actually attribute a conscious meaning to what their senses detect, rather than just invoke a predictable reaction.  The human ability to attribute meaning to what is detected by their senses is certainly part of our consciousness, but if consciousness is solely defined by chemical activity in the brain, the meaning of things must also be defined absolutely by chemical activity alone, but is this possible?  The most sophisticated man made computers can only store information internally in binary form which can then be translated to some external form of visual data, but at no point in the process can meaning be attached to anything until it is viewed by a human being.  Meaning only exists in human consciousness and it is not definable by any form of material media.

Incredulity is, as Torridon has pointed out, a very bad indicator of the truth.  It leads to the incredulous  inventing an entity which cannot be investigated in any way - a lazy and useless get out of jail card.

In my opinion, it has held back scientific research by at least 1500 years, the Church fathers being mainly responsible.  They came down on anyone who challenged the idea that God created everything as is.  This meant that only the very bravest would put forward new ideas and usually they were then suppressed in very brutal ways!  Even Darwin was too afraid of putting forward one of the most forward thinking theories ever - and that was less than 2 centuries ago!

It amazes me that anyone in the 21C still clings to these obsolete and stifling ideas.
 

[Alan Burns]

.... so, what is the meaning of 'soul'?

for a definition, take your pick from dictionary.com:
noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:
arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person:
He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.
6.
high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.

The above is just pixel patterns on a computer screen.  They do not define meaning in themselves.  Meaning is perceived when a human being reads and interprets the pixel patterns.  But is this meaning fully defined by the chemical activity going on in your brain, or is meaning attributed by something which can perceive this chemical activity?

[Leonard James]

.... so, what is the meaning of 'soul'?

for a definition, take your pick from dictionary.com:
noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:
arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person:
He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.
6.
high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.

The above is just pixel patterns on a computer screen.  They do not define meaning in themselves.  Meaning is perceived when a human being reads and interprets the pixel patterns.  But is this meaning fully defined by the chemical activity going on in your brain, or is meaning attributed by something which can perceive this chemical activity?

The first three definitions are those imagined by people given to believing such stuff. The remaining three are the factual ones.

[Alan Burns]

It amazes me that anyone in the 21C still clings to these obsolete and stifling ideas.
 

I am merely highlighting the fact that science has come up with nothing to contradict what civilised human beings have been aware of for thousands of years - that we are not just flesh and blood, and that we have an immortal soul.

Scientific discoveries have barely scratched the surface of true reality.  With every new advancement in science we seem to uncover more mysteries.  To try to extrapolate from what science has discovered to date in order to predict the reality of our existence is most definitely not good science.

[jjohnjil]

It amazes me that anyone in the 21C still clings to these obsolete and stifling ideas.
 

I am merely highlighting the fact that science has come up with nothing to contradict what civilised human beings have been aware of for thousands of years - that we are not just flesh and blood, and that we have an immortal soul.

Scientific discoveries have barely scratched the surface of true reality.  With every new advancement in science we seem to uncover more mysteries.  To try to extrapolate from what science has discovered to date in order to predict the reality of our existence is most definately not good science.

What you mean is you have a need to think there is more to life than your humdrum existence - a very common need throughout the ages.
Science has enabled you to sit at your computer and rubbish all the hard work scientists have put in to enable you to do that - no god had any hand in it! 

Of course every new advancement in science throws up more mysteries, that's the beauty of it!  You would rather grovel in the long out-dated thinking of millenia dead Israeli fishermen than look for yourself at the wonders of this planet!
 
Get your head out of the sand and look around you, Alan, there is more to life than the musings of ancient desert nomads! 

[Sebastian Toe]

I am merely highlighting the fact that science has come up with nothing to contradict what civilised human beings have been aware of for thousands of years - that we are not just flesh and blood, and that we have an immortal soul.

and you know for a fact that it is immortal because.........?

[SusanDoris]

jjohngil

Very much agree with your posts.

[Alan Burns]

What you mean is you have a need to think there is more to life than your humdrum existence - a very common need throughout the ages.
Science has enabled you to sit at your computer and rubbish all the hard work scientists have put in to enable you to do that - no god had any hand in it! 

Of course every new advancement in science throws up more mysteries, that's the beauty of it!  You would rather grovel in the long out-dated thinking of millenia dead Israeli fishermen than look for yourself at the wonders of this planet!
 
Get your head out of the sand and look around you, Alan, there is more to life than the musings of ancient desert nomads!

I am not discrediting scientific achievements.  I greatly admire the advances being made and I find them fascinating, but I also recognise the limitations of human scientific achievement.  It is easy to get carried away with these advances and presume that we are approaching a time when science will have a valid explanation for everything, but we are still very far from being able to explain how human beings became aware of their own existence.  There is certainly more to life than we can ever imagine.

[ippy]

A quote from Alan Burns:

"Meaning only exists in human consciousness and it is not definable by any form of material media!".

Answer, yet.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Going back to the title of the thread, people search for God in different ways.

I found this interesting

http://www.jesuit.org/blog/index.php/2011/09/searching-for-god-at-ground-zero/

Thanks for this Rose,  a very moving testimony.

[jjohnjil]

What you mean is you have a need to think there is more to life than your humdrum existence - a very common need throughout the ages.
Science has enabled you to sit at your computer and rubbish all the hard work scientists have put in to enable you to do that - no god had any hand in it! 

Of course every new advancement in science throws up more mysteries, that's the beauty of it!  You would rather grovel in the long out-dated thinking of millenia dead Israeli fishermen than look for yourself at the wonders of this planet!
 
Get your head out of the sand and look around you, Alan, there is more to life than the musings of ancient desert nomads!

I am not discrediting scientific achievements.  I greatly admire the advances being made and I find them fascinating, but I also recognise the limitations of human scientific achievement.  It is easy to get carried away with these advances and presume that we are approaching a time when science will have a valid explanation for everything, but we are still very far from being able to explain how human beings became aware of their own existence.  There is certainly more to life than we can ever imagine.

Yes, Alan, science has far to go to explain everything, but as soon as you credit everything they have not yet discovered to an entity which itself is explainable, you are giving up on looking further.

Crediting 'God' answers nothing! It's the lazy way out!  We don't know X, oh, Goddidit!  We don't know Y, oh, Goddidit!  If science took that road we would all be back in BC 32! 

Take God out of the equation  and you can wonder at how it all works, discover new medicines, new ways of communicating - Using the Internet, instead of putting your hands together and talking to yourself!

I know your religion means a lot to you and somewhere along the line you've been convinced by something or someone that this entity is real .  It's scary to question it when you are so entwined in all the carrot and stick that Christianity has invented but, believe me, Alan, life is so much better when you're not bothered about spending eternity on a cloud or worrying that you might get thrown into a furnace. 

It won't be long before I am literally thrown into a furnace but it holds no fears for me . and it need not for you.

[Shaker]

Excellent post. Bravo.

[jjohnjil]

jjohngil

Very much agree with your posts.

Hi Sue

I think we're both in the same mind when it comes to religion.

Hope you're keeping well.

[floo]

What you mean is you have a need to think there is more to life than your humdrum existence - a very common need throughout the ages.
Science has enabled you to sit at your computer and rubbish all the hard work scientists have put in to enable you to do that - no god had any hand in it! 

Of course every new advancement in science throws up more mysteries, that's the beauty of it!  You would rather grovel in the long out-dated thinking of millenia dead Israeli fishermen than look for yourself at the wonders of this planet!
 
Get your head out of the sand and look around you, Alan, there is more to life than the musings of ancient desert nomads!

I am not discrediting scientific achievements.  I greatly admire the advances being made and I find them fascinating, but I also recognise the limitations of human scientific achievement.  It is easy to get carried away with these advances and presume that we are approaching a time when science will have a valid explanation for everything, but we are still very far from being able to explain how human beings became aware of their own existence.  There is certainly more to life than we can ever imagine.

Yes, Alan, science has far to go to explain everything, but as soon as you credit everything they have not yet discovered to an entity which itself is explainable, you are giving up on looking further.

Crediting 'God' answers nothing! It's the lazy way out!  We don't know X, oh, Goddidit!  We don't know Y, oh, Goddidit!  If science took that road we would all be back in BC 32! 

Take God out of the equation  and you can wonder at how it all works, discover new medicines, new ways of communicating - Using the Internet, instead of putting your hands together and talking to yourself!

I know your religion means a lot to you and somewhere along the line you've been convinced by something or someone that this entity is real .  It's scary to question it when you are so entwined in all the carrot and stick that Christianity has invented but, believe me, Alan, life is so much better when you're not bothered about spending eternity on a cloud or worrying that you might get thrown into a furnace. 

It won't be long before I am literally thrown into a furnace but it holds no fears for me . and it need not for you.

Good post.

[Spud]

It still makes no sense. If Adam didn't know that disobeying "God" was wrong, it was unjust to condemn him for doing so.

By 'knowledge of good and evil' is meant, knowledge in the sense of experience. So you have free will to choose between good and evil actions, but you don't 'know' them until after the action.

If you choose an action but don't know that it is wrong, it is totally unjust to punish you for it afterwards.

Why? If I'm not punished I might do it again.

You might - that surely is where explanation rather than punishment comes in, yes?

That won't help though because human nature is curiosity- wanting to see if the authority will really carry out the punishment. If I've already been warned that I will be punished if I do such and such, then it is not unjust to carry out the punishment, if I go ahead and do it.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, Alan, science has far to go to explain everything, but as soon as you credit everything they have not yet discovered to an entity which itself is explainable, you are giving up on looking further.

Crediting 'God' answers nothing! It's the lazy way out!  We don't know X, oh, Goddidit!  We don't know Y, oh, Goddidit!  If science took that road we would all be back in BC 32! 

Take God out of the equation  and you can wonder at how it all works, discover new medicines, new ways of communicating - Using the Internet, instead of putting your hands together and talking to yourself!

I know your religion means a lot to you and somewhere along the line you've been convinced by something or someone that this entity is real .  It's scary to question it when you are so entwined in all the carrot and stick that Christianity has invented but, believe me, Alan, life is so much better when you're not bothered about spending eternity on a cloud or worrying that you might get thrown into a furnace. 

It won't be long before I am literally thrown into a furnace but it holds no fears for me . and it need not for you.

I am not using science (or lack of it) to prove God's existence.  My posts are aimed at opening up the possibility that God exists to those who try to deny this possibility.

My own faith is primarily based on personal experience of God in my life which is difficult to convey to non believers who do not know me, but these personal experiences will never allow the possibility of me dropping my faith in God.  I can't stop believing in someone with whom I have a personal relationship.

[Nearly Sane]

It still makes no sense. If Adam didn't know that disobeying "God" was wrong, it was unjust to condemn him for doing so.

By 'knowledge of good and evil' is meant, knowledge in the sense of experience. So you have free will to choose between good and evil actions, but you don't 'know' them until after the action.

If you choose an action but don't know that it is wrong, it is totally unjust to punish you for it afterwards.

Why? If I'm not punished I might do it again.

You might - that surely is where explanation rather than punishment comes in, yes?

That won't help though because human nature is curiosity- wanting to see if the authority will really carry out the punishment. If I've already been warned that I will be punished if I do such and such, then it is not unjust to carry out the punishment, if I go ahead and do it.

So, if it is human nature, and your God created human nature and is omniscient, and if it will lead to challenging his authority, he created humans by your logic to challenge his authority and be punished?

[BashfulAnthony]

Yes, Alan, science has far to go to explain everything, but as soon as you credit everything they have not yet discovered to an entity which itself is explainable, you are giving up on looking further.

Crediting 'God' answers nothing! It's the lazy way out!  We don't know X, oh, Goddidit!  We don't know Y, oh, Goddidit!  If science took that road we would all be back in BC 32! 

Take God out of the equation  and you can wonder at how it all works, discover new medicines, new ways of communicating - Using the Internet, instead of putting your hands together and talking to yourself!

I know your religion means a lot to you and somewhere along the line you've been convinced by something or someone that this entity is real .  It's scary to question it when you are so entwined in all the carrot and stick that Christianity has invented but, believe me, Alan, life is so much better when you're not bothered about spending eternity on a cloud or worrying that you might get thrown into a furnace. 

It won't be long before I am literally thrown into a furnace but it holds no fears for me . and it need not for you.

I am not using science (or lack of it) to prove God's existence.  My posts are aimed at opening up the possibility that God exists to those who try to deny this possibility.

My own faith is primarily based on personal experience of God in my life which is difficult to convey to non believers who do not know me, but these personal experiences will never allow the possibility of me dropping my faith in God.  I can't stop believing in someone with whom I have a personal relationship.

I can resonate with all you say there.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not science that leads to my non belief, it is that believers have so far only provided  definitions of a 'God' that is either logically contradictory or meaningless. As far as I am concerned we are not even at the starting gate in terms of  discussions about existence.

[SusanDoris]

Going back to the title of the thread, people search for God in different ways.

I found this interesting

http://www.jesuit.org/blog/index.php/2011/09/searching-for-god-at-ground-zero/

Thanks for this Rose,  a very moving testimony.

And yet again, it is something that tries to lessen the entirely human response of brave individuals. If someone 'found god' as a result of what happened, they should immediately realise that they have found whole people, not some imagined mythical friend/power.

[SusanDoris]

Hi Sue

I think we're both in the same mind when it comes to religion.

Hope you're keeping well.

First, yes, definitely!  And second, yes, thank you, very well. Hope you are too - we don't want to get tossed into the fire for a while yet!!