Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Your "explanation" is pure speculation in an attempt to shoe horn all our human abilities to fit in with materialistic thinking.

No, on the contrary, it is about beng evidence-led, something that ought to be second nature to someone with a Phd.  Research often confounds our intuitions, but that is not a reason to regress into denial and magical thinking.

[Outrider]

Can you do this while you are unconscious?

Given that I've woken in the morning on several occasions with a new perspective on things, I'd say yes, yes I can.

Can you not see the necessity of conscious control to perform these mental tasks successfully?

You appear to be confusing the activity with the awareness of the activity. My brain is working when I'm asleep - the unwatched kettle, in fact, boils just as readily as the watched one.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your "explanation" is pure speculation in an attempt to shoe horn all our human abilities to fit in with materialistic thinking.

No, his explanation is where anyone who cares about reason and evidence arrives at. By contrast, your notion “soul” actually is “pure speculatlon” in an “attempt to shoe horn” consciousness into superstitious thinking.

If you bothered to learn anything about logical reasoning you’d know this already.

[jeremyp]

The logical impossibility is the ability to apply logic without the need for conscious control.

But there's no reason for "conscious control" to emanate from anywhere except biology.

[jeremyp]

I would hesitate to put my faith in human nature without God's guidance.
Before Christianity came along, the most advanced civilisation in the world were entertained by watching human beings get slaughtered in an arena.
I put it to you that without the profound influence of Christianity, our world as a whole would not have the desire for fairness we see today.

After Christianity came along the World was entertained by watching human beings getting slaughtered on a gallows* or other execution places, frequently because their own version of Christianity was subtly different from that of the monarch.

The Christians were also fed with sugar and clothed with cotton harvested by slaves owned by Christians that had been procured from Africa by Christians.


* see the article on this thread: https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21051.0

[Nearly Sane]

I would hesitate to put my faith in human nature without God's guidance.
Before Christianity came along, the most advanced civilisation in the world were entertained by watching human beings get slaughtered in an arena.
I put it to you that without the profound influence of Christianity, our world as a whole would not have the desire for fairness we see today.

[Nearly Sane]

...
And I put it to you that without Christianity (and any other religious faiths) a world build on the principles of Aristotle, Spinoza and Einstein instead would be much fairer than the one we have now.

I'm not sure that proposal makes any sense. Spinoza and Einstein were heavily influenced by religious morality. Aristotle approved of slavery. But more, a humanity without its propensity to religion is not humanity, but

https://youtu.be/0hYZaqYCZyQ?si=35NFktigw1anLJe9

[Alan Burns]

After Christianity came along the World was entertained by watching human beings getting slaughtered on a gallows* or other execution places, frequently because their own version of Christianity was subtly different from that of the monarch.

The Christians were also fed with sugar and clothed with cotton harvested by slaves owned by Christians that had been procured from Africa by Christians.


* see the article on this thread: https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21051.0

Yes, there are many examples of our human failings going against the ethos of Christian teachings - things being done in the guise of Christianity for personal gain whilst going against the essence of the Christian message which tells us to practise willing of the good of the other, regardless of who the person is. "Love one another, as I have loved you"  John 13:34

[Alan Burns]

You appear to be confusing the activity with the awareness of the activity. My brain is working when I'm asleep - the unwatched kettle, in fact, boils just as readily as the watched one.

My conscious awareness is currently processing the information in your post and consciously composing this reply.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not sure that proposal makes any sense. Spinoza and Einstein were heavily influenced by religious morality. Aristotle approved of slavery. But more, a humanity without its propensity to religion is not humanity, but

https://youtu.be/0hYZaqYCZyQ?si=35NFktigw1anLJe9

AB referenced Christianity specifically, and implied that without it we’d be raping and pillaging at will. Aristotle pre-dated Christianity of course, and in any case religions didn’t just invent morality from whole cloth – our species (and, some would argue, other species too) developed “moral” (or proto moral) behaviour long before religions turned up to take the credit. See Hamilton’s Rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

And here:

https://academic.oup.com/book/1451/chapter-abstract/140837668?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Re Aristotle specifically too, yes we'd find some of his positions to be immoral now but it would be the work of moments to list the morally despicable injunctions in AB's "holy" book too. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

AB referenced Christianity specifically, and implied that without it we’d be raping and pillaging at will. Aristotle pre-dated Christianity of course, and in any case religions didn’t just invent morality from whole cloth – our species (and, some would argue, other species too) developed “moral” (or proto moral) behaviour long before religions turned up to take the credit. See Hamilton’s Rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

And here:

https://academic.oup.com/book/1451/chapter-abstract/140837668?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Re Aristotle specifically too, yes we'd find some of his positions to be immoral now but it would be the work of moments to list the morally despicable injunctions in AB's "holy" book too.

AB is wrong but that doesn't mean that statement of your's is made any more correct by that. Just as religion could not give rise to morals on its own, nor could it exist without us. It forms part of the evolutionary traits just as much as kin selection, arguably it's just a specific form of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

AB referenced Christianity specifically, and implied that without it we’d be raping and pillaging at will. Aristotle pre-dated Christianity of course, and in any case religions didn’t just invent morality from whole cloth – our species (and, some would argue, other species too) developed “moral” (or proto moral) behaviour long before religions turned up to take the credit. See Hamilton’s Rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

And here:

https://academic.oup.com/book/1451/chapter-abstract/140837668?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Re Aristotle specifically too, yes we'd find some of his positions to be immoral now but it would be the work of moments to list the morally despicable injunctions in AB's "holy" book too.

proto moral? Do tell.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

AB is wrong but that doesn't mean that statement of your's is made any more correct by that. Just as religion could not give rise to morals on its own, nor could it exist without us. It forms part of the evolutionary traits just as much as kin selection, arguably it's just a specific form of it.

I don’t know which statement of mine you think is wrong, nor why you think it’s wrong. I haven’t suggested that “religions could exist without us”, so what point are you making?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

proto moral? Do tell.

Altruism.

[Enki]

proto moral? Do tell.

It might be worthwhile looking at this Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

You might not agree, but, at least it will give you some idea what proto morality is all about.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I don’t know which statement of mine you think is wrong, nor why you think it’s wrong. I haven’t suggested that “religions could exist without us”, so what point are you making?

This one

'And I put it to you that without Christianity (and any other religious faiths) a world build on the principles of Aristotle, Spinoza and Einstein instead would be much fairer than the one we have now.'

You know the one I replied to and explained why I thought it was wrong. And it's that you've suggested we could exist without religions and somehow be 'human', which makes as much sense as suggesting we exist without kin selection.

[Outrider]

My conscious awareness is currently processing the information in your post and consciously composing this reply.

Is it? The evidence from research into brain activity is that your subconscious is processing the information, and what you think of as your 'conscious awareness' is you watching that happen in real-time.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This one

'And I put it to you that without Christianity (and any other religious faiths) a world build on the principles of Aristotle, Spinoza and Einstein instead would be much fairer than the one we have now.'

You know the one I replied to and explained why I thought it was wrong. And it's that you've suggested we could exist without religions and somehow be 'human', which makes as much sense as suggesting we exist without kin selection.

I merely suggested, contra AB’s opinion on the matter, what I actually said – namely that “a world built on the principles of Aristotle, Spinoza and Einstein instead” would be much fairer than the fairness AB attributes to the supposedly benign principles of his faith tradition. I have no idea how you’ve managed to conflate that into a straw man version that suggests that I don’t think we’d have been “human” at all but for his (or any) pick of the available religious faiths.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I merely suggested, contra AB’s opinion on the matter, what I actually said – namely that “a world built on the principles of Aristotle, Spinoza and Einstein instead” would be much fairer than the fairness AB attributes to the supposedly benign principles of his faith tradition. I have no idea how you’ve managed to conflate that into a straw man version that suggests that I don’t think we’d have been “human” at all but for his (or any) pick of the available religious faiths.     

I didn't say you did think we wouldn't be human. I stated that if you remove the drive to religion that is obviously part of humanity as is kin selection then you wouldn't be talking about humanity as it is, and that therefore your statement is worthless.

[Sebastian Toe]

Your "explanation" is pure speculation in an attempt to shoe horn all our human abilities to fit in with materialistic thinking.

The explanations fail to convince how non conscious brain activity can possibly initiate and guide thought processes to perform reasoned arguments to arrive at validated conclusions which somehow pop into your conscious awareness.  We do not just experience the processing of reasoned arguments, we purposely guide the contents of our conscious awareness and memory to reach consciously chosen goals.

And your "explanation" is pure wishful thinking from an over active (biologically driven) imagination.
Clinging to that which makes your own personal multiverse work.
The main problem is that it requires magic and few actual working details in order to "be obvious"!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I didn't say you did think we wouldn't be human.

And yet in Reply 49465 you said: “And it's that you've suggested we could exist without religions and somehow be 'human'”?
   

I stated that if you remove the drive to religion that is obviously part of humanity as is kin selection then you wouldn't be talking about humanity as it is, and that therefore your statement is worthless.

You seem to pursuing an agenda of some sort here, but I don’t, know what it is. AB implied that fairness exists because (his) religion mandated it. In fact it’s older, deeper and more inherent than that, and more likely has its origins in kin selection-derived altruism rather than in “holy” books. Moreover, various atheistic philosophers have advocated behaviours that I consider morally preferable to the texts of AB’s faith.       

What your comments being “human” or not don’t seem to me to be relevant to any of that. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

And yet in Reply 49465 you said: “And it's that you've suggested we could exist without religions and somehow be 'human'”?
   
You seem to pursuing an agenda of some sort here, but I don’t, know what it is. AB implied that fairness exists because (his) religion mandated it. In fact it’s older, deeper and more inherent than that, and more likely has its origins in kin selection-derived altruism rather than in “holy” books. Moreover, various atheistic philosophers have advocated behaviours that I consider morally preferable to the texts of AB’s faith.       

What your comments being “human” or not don’t seem to me to be relevant to any of that.

That says the exact opposite of saying that you don't think we would be human. Go.back and read the posts. It's me saying that I don't think that you could 'remove' religion from us and for us to be 'human', any more than you could remove kin selection from us and for us to remain 'human'.


The 'agenda' is I disagreed with your statement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

And yet in Reply 49465 you said: “And it's that you've suggested we could exist without religions and somehow be 'human'”?
   
You seem to pursuing an agenda of some sort here, but I don’t, know what it is. AB implied that fairness exists because (his) religion mandated it. In fact it’s older, deeper and more inherent than that, and more likely has its origins in kin selection-derived altruism rather than in “holy” books. Moreover, various atheistic philosophers have advocated behaviours that I consider morally preferable to the texts of AB’s faith.       

What your comments being “human” or not don’t seem to me to be relevant to any of that.

I immediately thought of Ayn Rand when I read this.
I thought you said atheism was merely the lack of belief in Gods. Now you have it as some kind of moral influence.

[Alan Burns]

Is it? The evidence from research into brain activity is that your subconscious is processing the information, and what you think of as your 'conscious awareness' is you watching that happen in real-time.

If the only evidence you accept is research into chemical brain activity you are bound to come up with the conclusion that everything we do is pre determined by physical brain activity.  The profound evidence which contradicts this is our demonstrable ability to guide our own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions- an ability which is deemed to be logically impossible in any materialistic scenario, but which is aptly demonstrated by the conclusions we consciously attain.  This evidence does not deny the need for chemical brain activity, but shows that there is something more which gives us the power to consciously manipulate our brain cell activity - not just react to it.

An interesting take on free will from professor John Lennox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N-E17d2SXA

[ProfessorDavey]

I immediately thought of Ayn Rand when I read this.
I thought you said atheism was merely the lack of belief in Gods. Now you have it as some kind of moral influence.

Oh dear Vlad - once again failing to understand what atheism is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your quote from BHS never mentions atheism and indeed its focus appears to be religion, which is of course a completely different thing. While atheists do not believe in the existence of god or gods (nothing more, nothing less) we completely accept that religions exist, albeit the presence of a religion that posits that a god exists is no evidence whatsoever that that god actually does exists.

But religions are social structures and although most (not all) are necessarily theistic they cannot all be correct in their theism as many are mutually exclusive in their claims of god.

So the point, I guess, is whether humans can exist without religion. The answer to me seems inherently 'yes' as religion is just a sub-set of societal structures. Plenty also exist, within human societies and as societal structures of closely related social species (e.g. gorillas, chimpanzees) that are effective societal structures but are not religions.

So perhaps the most relevant question is whether humans (and other closely related social species) can exist without societal structures. And here I guess the jury is out - and arguably the answer would be 'no'. Certainly in the long run as evolutionarily we need these structures to ensure that genes are passed on as human (and related species) offspring require that societal structure for basic protection (human babies are incredibly vulnerable for a long time) and also for passing on the very thing which makes our species successful, namely knowledge.

But coming back to whether belief in god is necessary - well I don't think it is, provided other elements that support societal structures exist. Do gorillas believe in god Vlad?

But none of this takes us one iota further in terms of whether god actually exists in any objective sense - god either exists or does not exist and I don't see how any 'belief' in that existence provides any evidence that god actually exists. Certainly for virtually the entire existence of our own planet belief in god didn't exist as that belief requires not just life but life that had evolved with a sufficient level of higher consciousness for that belief to be possible.