Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

I’m not religious in any way, so I don’t think of there being a soul in the driver’s seat, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

It does feel to me that there is something apart from the brain itself that oversees all the rest of my body’s functions.  Yes, there are all sorts of things that see to themselves, many signals racing around my body that I know nothing about, but ‘I’ feel as if I’m the pilot, and although most of everything is on auto-pilot. I can still change direction and take a different course if I want to.
 
As you believe in a god and souls, I can understand you thinking that something must be supernatural and actually is that pilot. 

I don’t understand the workings of the brain, very few people do, but I’m pretty sure this amazingly complex computer inside my head just works that way and it is, in fact, just all the experiences in my memory bank being called up continuously and makes me feel as if there is a real separate ‘I’ in control.

If I were religious, I’m sure I’d have the same explanation for it as you have, so I can’t criticise you for that.

But you can criticise him I think for just dismissing rather than addressing the determined vs binary problem that applies equally to his soul conjecture. "It's magic" seems to be enough for him, but I see no reason for anyone else to be satisfied with that. Indeed, using our friend Occam if "it's magic" is good enough for his soul, even if there weren't the findings we have from neuroscience in particular we could just make the same defence and be done with it without the additional assumption of "soul" all.

Something tells me though that AB won't accept "it's magic" for brains even though he insists on it for "soul". That's called special pleading - one of the dizzying array of logical fallacies he commits on a regular basis.       

[jjohnjil]

jj,

But you can criticise him I think for just dismissing rather than addressing the determined vs binary problem that applies equally to his soul conjecture. "It's magic" seems to be enough for him, but I see no reason for anyone else to be satisfied with that. Indeed, using our friend Occam if "it's magic" is good enough for his soul, even if there weren't the findings we have from neuroscience in particular we could just make the same defence and be done with it without the additional assumption of "soul" all.

Something tells me though that AB won't accept "it's magic" for brains even though he insists on it for "soul". That's called special pleading - one of the dizzying array of logical fallacies he commits on a regular basis.       

I agree that even this soul must make decisions on something, but if you believe in God then you can assume that he knows more than you do, so is able - through the soul - to make decisions far removed from ones personal experiences.

Our problem, Blue, is we don't have this religious belief and so are unable to get into Alan's shoes.  I have always said that if I believed in this amazingly knowledgeable God, I'd be a monk and spend all day praying.  Thankfully, I don't believe any of it, which makes life so much better and easier.   

Just imagine having to worry the whole time about maybe being sent to Hell - Hell on Earth, I should think!   

[ippy]

I know about Dorothy and she has written loads of books. Stop being unreasonable. Anyone who wants to mention a source provides a link, I did. I don't understand why you didn't provide some sort of link if not chapter and verse, have you not actually read any of her work which I suspect?

Don't answer because thread has moved past all this so let's leave it, no point in it being bogged down unless Gabriella wants to mention again.

Like I said, no need.

ippy

[ippy]

Alan

I’m not religious in any way, so I don’t think of there being a soul in the driver’s seat, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

It does feel to me that there is something apart from the brain itself that oversees all the rest of my body’s functions.  Yes, there are all sorts of things that see to themselves, many signals racing around my body that I know nothing about, but ‘I’ feel as if I’m the pilot, and although most of everything is on auto-pilot. I can still change direction and take a different course if I want to.
 
As you believe in a god and souls, I can understand you thinking that something must be supernatural and actually is that pilot. 

I don’t understand the workings of the brain, very few people do, but I’m pretty sure this amazingly complex computer inside my head just works that way and it is, in fact, just all the experiences in my memory bank being called up continuously and makes me feel as if there is a real separate ‘I’ in control.

If I were religious, I’m sure I’d have the same explanation for it as you have, so I can’t criticise you for that.

jjohnjil, I read one of V C Ramachandran's books a while back now he's an Indian, lives in America a  neuroscientist and even I can understand his books about neuroscience, the one I managed to get my hands on was titled 'Phantoms in the Brain', it doesn't exactly relate to this particular thread, but it's extremely enlightening and it's also incredible the things he describes that go on inside this lump of blancmange between our ears, a really good enlightening read, he also does a few lectures on YouTube.

Regards ippy 

[jjohnjil]

jjohnjil, I read one of V C Ramachandran's books a while back now he's an Indian, lives in America a  neuroscientist and even I can understand his books about neuroscience, the one I managed to get my hands on was titled 'Phantoms in the Brain', it doesn't exactly relate to this particular thread, but it's extremely enlightening and it's also incredible the things he describes that go on inside this lump of blancmange between our ears, a really good enlightening read, he also does a few lectures on YouTube.

Regards ippy

Cheers ippy, I'll see if I can get hold of it - though it'll probably beyond me!

[torridon]

Alan

I’m not religious in any way, so I don’t think of there being a soul in the driver’s seat, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

It does feel to me that there is something apart from the brain itself that oversees all the rest of my body’s functions.  Yes, there are all sorts of things that see to themselves, many signals racing around my body that I know nothing about, but ‘I’ feel as if I’m the pilot, and although most of everything is on auto-pilot. I can still change direction and take a different course if I want to.
 
As you believe in a god and souls, I can understand you thinking that something must be supernatural and actually is that pilot. 

I don’t understand the workings of the brain, very few people do, but I’m pretty sure this amazingly complex computer inside my head just works that way and it is, in fact, just all the experiences in my memory bank being called up continuously and makes me feel as if there is a real separate ‘I’ in control.

If I were religious, I’m sure I’d have the same explanation for it as you have, so I can’t criticise you for that.

Fair enough I think.

Mind is mysterious.  Most people, for most of the time, are not interested in self-examining to that degree, so mind remains mysterious.  It's only a short hop from mysterious mind to 'soul', which is definitionally mysterious

[ippy]

Cheers ippy, I'll see if I can get hold of it - though it'll probably beyond me!

I very much doubt it'll be beyond you, I said it's a good read, I found it absolutely fascinating, one of those difficult to put down jobs.

Regards ippy

[Rhiannon]

I have always said that if I believed in this amazingly knowledgeable God, I'd be a monk and spend all day praying.   

Yes, I once heard someone who was considering the cloistered life say the same thing. If God exists and is this amazing force of love, then some kind of religious life is the only one that makes any sense.

[Rhiannon]

Coming back to the mental health thing, I once came across a woman in group therapy whose religion had left het terrified of just about anything. She used to carry her Bible in front of her as if it would ward off evil. One day we had what I thought was a relatively innocuous conversation about complementary healing; I was later told that as a result of this she'd reported feeling that demons were trying to attack her and I was told not to talk to her again. It was obvious that her religion was feeding her fears and anxiety.

Taken to extreme, the belief in 'evil force' leads to tragedy. I shudder at the 'led astray by Satan' stuff that some vomit over this forum. Sadly I had a conversation with someone not so long ago who had become involved in a Christian group of that nature; as a result another family member committed murder because of the fear of demonic possession. Yes, that person probably already was susceptible to delusional and psychotic behaviour, but without such superstitious poison being spread (and only as a means of control, there's no other purpose to it) they would never have been exposed to such a potent trigger.

[Roses]

Coming back to the mental health thing, I once came across a woman in group therapy whose religion had left het terrified of just about anything. She used to carry her Bible in front of her as if it would ward off evil. One day we had what I thought was a relatively innocuous conversation about complementary healing; I was later told that as a result of this she'd reported feeling that demons were trying to attack her and I was told not to talk to her again. It was obvious that her religion was feeding her fears and anxiety.

Taken to extreme, the belief in 'evil force' leads to tragedy. I shudder at the 'led astray by Satan' stuff that some vomit over this forum. Sadly I had a conversation with someone not so long ago who had become involved in a Christian group of that nature; as a result another family member committed murder because of the fear of demonic possession. Yes, that person probably already was susceptible to delusional and psychotic behaviour, but without such superstitious poison being spread (and only as a means of control, there's no other purpose to it) they would never have been exposed to such a potent trigger.

There were a couple of people at the Pentecostal church I attended as a child who would interrupt the morning service by 'speaking in gobbledegook aka tongues'. Sadly they had mental health issues.

[Rhiannon]

There were a couple of people at the Pentecostal church I attended as a child who would interrupt the morning service by 'speaking in gobbledegook aka tongues'. Sadly they had mental health issues.

Hopefully they didn’t murder anyone though.

[Roses]

Hopefully they didn’t murder anyone though.

No they didn't.

Religious extremists have killed people in the name of their particular god over the centuries, thinking it will ensure them a place in heaven. It is so sad that people can fall for that sort of evil indoctrination. I wonder if there is anyone on this forum who would be prepared to take a life because they think god is asking them to do so?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

No they didn't.

Religious extremists have killed people in the name of their particular god over the centuries, thinking it will ensure them a place in heaven. It is so sad that people can fall for that sort of evil indoctrination. I wonder if there is anyone on this forum who would be prepared to take a life because they think god is asking them to do so?

Impossible to know, but we’ve had one at least who’d sacrifice a life. Ironically he was one of the more intelligent and nuanced theists we’ve had here (a catholic priest) who told us that, even if he was told in the confession box that someone had planted a bomb in a primary school he still wouldn’t break the “covenant” or whatever it’s called to shop the confessor to the cops. I found that chilling.

As for current posters here, I suppose that if you can convince yourself that there’s such a thing as “forces of evil” then it’d be legitimate to do anything you like to attack those supposed forces. After all, in your head that’d put you on the side of “good” right? That’s what I loath about the privilege demanded or afforded to “faith” – once a “but that’s my faith” statement will be acted on, that’s the beginning and the end of it. How would you argue against something that’s fundamentally impervious to reason? Which of course brings us back to AB and his unremitting obtuseness in the face of the reasoning that undoes him.   

[SteveH]

Rhi,

Impossible to know, but we’ve had one at least who’d sacrifice a life. Ironically he was one of the more intelligent and nuanced theists we’ve had here (a catholic priest) who told us that, even if he was told in the confession box that someone had planted a bomb in a primary school he still wouldn’t break the “covenant” or whatever it’s called to shop the confessor to the cops. I found that chilling.

Hard cases make bad law. Coming up with an astronomically unlikely scenario, and then claiming victory when the other person is flummoxed, is a bit pathetic.

[Rhiannon]

Hard cases make bad law. Coming up with an astronomically unlikely scenario, and then claiming victory when the other person is flummoxed, is a bit pathetic.

But I did meet someone directly affected by murder due to religious fanaticism. The case is in the public domain. And no, I won't link to it, because it is too horrible, someone else's stuff and frankly because it scares me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Hard cases make bad law. Coming up with an astronomically unlikely scenario, and then claiming victory when the other person is flummoxed, is a bit pathetic.

No it isn’t – there’s no victory and the other person wasn’t flummoxed. To the contrary, he was certain. That’s the problem – certainty born of faith. However strongly I might feel something to be right I also have doubt, hesitancy, uncertainty about it that allows for the possibility that I could be wrong and so I proceed accordingly. Certainty on the other hand of the type that AB, Nicholas Marks and a few others here display allows for no possibility of being wrong, and so whatever actions follow from that conviction must in their heads at least be right. AB for example if proud of his closed-mindedness – he’s said as much – so, no matter how slam dunk irrefutable the reasoning and evidence that undoes him he cannot allow it to do its job. The price – ie, changing his mind – would simply be too painful.

[jjohnjil]

Rhi,

Impossible to know, but we’ve had one at least who’d sacrifice a life. Ironically he was one of the more intelligent and nuanced theists we’ve had here (a catholic priest) who told us that, even if he was told in the confession box that someone had planted a bomb in a primary school he still wouldn’t break the “covenant” or whatever it’s called to shop the confessor to the cops. I found that chilling.

As for current posters here, I suppose that if you can convince yourself that there’s such a thing as “forces of evil” then it’d be legitimate to do anything you like to attack those supposed forces. After all, in your head that’d put you on the side of “good” right? That’s what I loath about the privilege demanded or afforded to “faith” – once a “but that’s my faith” statement will be acted on, that’s the beginning and the end of it. How would you argue against something that’s fundamentally impervious to reason? Which of course brings us back to AB and his unremitting obtuseness in the face of the reasoning that undoes him.

Blue

Your example of a bomb in a primary school is a case where even the most fervent priest would, in my opinion, always break that covenant.  What interests me though, is where would you draw the line?

Should a priest break it for any criminal or even immoral act he is told about?  If so, the confessional would cease to be - and when something as bad as your example comes along, no priest would be able to warn the authorities.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

Your example of a bomb in a primary school is a case where even the most fervent priest would, in my opinion, always break that covenant.  What interests me though, is where would you draw the line?

This priest in particular didn’t seem to me to be “fervent” and the point is that as a general principle such people think – really think – that they answer to a higher authority on matters such as the sanctity of the confessional, so I suspect that his response would be more common than you think. I also wonder by the way whether the child abuse scandal is in part at least explained by the certainty of the perpetrators that they’ll be right with god come what may so mere secular concerns aren’t that big of a deal to them. 

Should a priest break it for any criminal or even immoral act he is told about?  If so, the confessional would cease to be - and when something as bad as your example comes along, no priest would be able to warn the authorities.

I’ve no idea – it’s not my problem. If though someone belongs to a club that’s decided that a rule is inviolable regardless of the circumstances and then he want to start chipping away at it for hard cases, then it’s up to him (or his club) to tell us where (if anywhere) he draws the line. The point I was making though is that in my view the certainty of faith beliefs can be utterly corrupting.     

[Roses]

I might be wrong but nowadays I thought a priest is legally obliged to inform the authorities if someone has confessed to a very heinous crime.

[bluehillside Retd.]

LR,

I might be wrong but nowadays I thought a priest is legally obliged to inform the authorities if someone has confessed to a very heinous crime.

Not so far as I'm aware - do you have a citation please? Even if there was such a legal obligation though, presumably a priest would rather take his chances with the secular law than risk what he thought to be the rule of a superior authority.   

[Rhiannon]

LR,

Not so far as I'm aware - do you have a citation please? Even if there was such a legal obligation though, presumably a priest would rather take his chances with the secular law than risk what he thought to be the rule of a superior authority.   

I think this relates to the trolley experiment idea. I linked to this a couple of days' ago on the Utilitarianism thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/22/hypothetical-thinking-pale-imitation-real-life

I wouldn't be surprised if in practice, in a moment of actual crisis, a priest would maximise saving life and deal with the consequences later.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I think this relates to the trolley experiment idea. I linked to this a couple of days' ago on the Utilitarianism thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/22/hypothetical-thinking-pale-imitation-real-life

I wouldn't be surprised if in practice, in a moment of actual crisis, a priest would maximise saving life and deal with the consequences later.

There’s no knowing what a priest would actually do (and presumably those who’ve heard confessions about, say, child abuse but did nothing we’d never hear about anyway) but this article isn’t on point I think. It concerns what you or I or anyone else unencumbered by a supervening religious conviction would do. The point though is that if you really believe deep down in your boots that there’s an inviolable rule mandated by a higher authority than a mere secular one would you really pick the latter over the former?     

Now that’s a thought experiment I’d like to see investigated in an experiment. 

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

There’s no knowing what a priest would actually do (and presumably those who’ve heard confessions about, say, child abuse but did nothing we’d never hear about anyway) but this article isn’t on point I think. It concerns what you or I or anyone else unencumbered by a supervening religious conviction would do. The point though is that if you really believe deep down in your boots that there’s an inviolable rule mandated by a higher authority than a mere secular one would you really pick the latter over the former?     

Now that’s a thought experiment I’d like to see investigated in an experiment.

I have been that side of the fence, Blue. What someone does who believes that they have to violate God's rule is throw his or herself on his mercy. If you believe that God is merciful then you take a chance.

A priest confessing to another priest about abuse is laden with the need to protect the church and the priesthood. For comparison, I've seen the medical profession close ranks to protect each other even though it potentially compromised the protection of a child. The drive that people have to protect their 'tribe' and their own self-interests is a pretty disgusting aspect to humanity. But I guess at one time it served an evolutionary purpose.

[Roses]

If it isn't the case that a priest is legally required to inform the authorities if they become aware of a terrible crime, which has, or is about to be committed, the law should be changed. The Catholic Church should be insisting on it if it had an decency.

[Nearly Sane]

If it isn't the case that a priest is legally required to inform the authorities if they become aware of a terrible crime, which has, or is about to be committed, the law should be changed. The Catholic Church should be insisting on it if it had an decency.

There is no generic duty to report crime, so anything like the above would need a major overhaul of the law.