Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Would we be human though without the inherent creation of religions?

As for having no societal structures, I'm not sure who's on the jury but if they are saying that we would be what we think of as human without the drive to create and live in without them, then they are a jury of idiots.

[Outrider]

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.

I'm not ideologically welded to the notion that scientific evidence is the only possible evidence. Indeed, if all we had was science I wouldn't be discounting your notion of free will as non-viable, just as not evidenced. I go further than that and say it's nonsense on the pure logic that the system is not viable.

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.

Your feeling that this is demonstrable because it's how you feel, though, is explicitly contradicted by the demonstrable evidence that we have. We can show that how you think your brain works is actually not the case - your feeling on this, like everyone else's - is at best questionable.

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.

Firstly, it doesn't show that there is necessarily something more - at best it shows that are elements of consciousness that we don't fully understand yet. Secondly, the chemical brain activity model explicitly includes the conscious feedback mechanisms, so their existence does not demonstrate a need for something more. And, thirdly, whether the biochemical model will eventually be sufficient or not does not change the fact that your model demonstrably fails to explain what you want it to explain purely on logical grounds.

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

Like you, he appears to need free will to explain the problem of evil, not because it explains the phenomena we see in thought, but because he needs to explain the behaviour we should see if the god you both cite actually existed.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Your feeling that this is demonstrable because it's how you feel, though, is explicitly contradicted by the demonstrable evidence that we have.

Was it just a feeling that I consciously conducted intensive research into methods of computer aided design and consciously formulated a new method of optimum design comprising a combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm to conduct a highly efficient intensive search for an optimum combination of discrete lists of variable parameters to obtain my PhD?

I think not.

[Gordon]

Was it just a feeling that I consciously conducted intensive research into methods of computer aided design and consciously formulated a new method of optimum design comprising a combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm to conduct a highly efficient intensive search for an optimum combination of discrete lists of variable parameters to obtain my PhD?

I think not.

So you used your brain, and no doubt your subconscious personal traits added in the required commitment to stick at it for however long it took you.

Your biology provided all you needed (whether you like it or not).

[torridon]

Was it just a feeling that I consciously conducted intensive research into methods of computer aided design and consciously formulated a new method of optimum design comprising a combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm to conduct a highly efficient intensive search for an optimum combination of discrete lists of variable parameters to obtain my PhD?

I think not.

As usual you are just blurring different aspects of the phenomenon of consciousness.  Clearly you need to be conscious to do the above, but that does not reflect on how consciousness is produced in the mind. We all experience consciousness but nobody can consciously intervene in the neurobiological functioning of our brains thereby altering the pathways of our thoughts. The idea is is both biologically impossible and logically incoherent, being a variant of the circular claim that we can choose which wants to want.  Makes no sense, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

As usual you are just blurring different aspects of the phenomenon of consciousness.  Clearly you need to be conscious to do the above, but that does not reflect on how consciousness is produced in the mind. We all experience consciousness but nobody can consciously intervene in the neurobiological functioning of our brains thereby altering the pathways of our thoughts. The idea is is both biologically impossible and logically incoherent, being a variant of the circular claim that we can choose which wants to want.  Makes no sense, Alan.

As usual you are blurring the obvious role of consciousness in order to comply with the unavoidable consequences of material reactions - even though you have no idea of what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.

[Outrider]

Was it just a feeling that I consciously conducted intensive research into methods of computer aided design and consciously formulated a new method of optimum design comprising a combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm to conduct a highly efficient intensive search for an optimum combination of discrete lists of variable parameters to obtain my PhD?

Yes. You were aware of it happening, but the awareness wasn't it happening, the awareness was you realising it was happening 'somewhere else' in your brain. The head-melting bit is when you realise that that conscious awareness of it happening might well alter the outcome, but not in any way that you can directly control.

I think not.

On so many levels, that turns out to be the case.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Would we be human though without the inherent creation of religions?

Did human species exist before religions existed. A bit tricky to say but we certainly have evidence of human species way before we have evidence of religions. So I'd suggest that yes, you can be human without the creation of religion.

And let's not forget that 'religion' isn't some objective thing. Nope it is a term that we have coined to describe certain types of societal structures and customs. Most, but not all, are based on a belief in god, but it seems to me that the definition is somewhat arbitrary and it then becomes a bit hard to argue that something so arbitrary in definition is somehow essential to being human.

But this is all on a 'meta' scale - at the level of an individual it is clear that we can be human without religion, as there are many millions of examples around the globes of individuals who are irrefutably human yet live their lives without religion. That's unless you believe the non-sense of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor that people cannot be properly human without god and religion.

As for having no societal structures, I'm not sure who's on the jury but if they are saying that we would be what we think of as human without the drive to create and live in without them, then they are a jury of idiots.

But there are individuals who believe in, and live their lives, on the basis of complete libertarian individualism. Not many, sure, but they exist living solitary lives according to their own individual choice without social structures. Those people are, of course, human and live as humans. But that approach is challenging to maintain across generations as it largely precludes the societal structures that arise and are needed within, firstly, family groups but broader society.

So can humans live as humans without societal structures - sure they can, but it is an evolutionary dead-end.

[Alan Burns]

Yes. You were aware of it happening, but the awareness wasn't it happening, the awareness was you realising it was happening 'somewhere else' in your brain. The head-melting bit is when you realise that that conscious awareness of it happening might well alter the outcome, but not in any way that you can directly control.

You are implying that I can have no personal control over what enters into my conscious awareness.
If I was not controlling the intensive efforts needed to obtain my PhD, then please enlighten me as to what was controlling the brain activity needed to produce the intended results?

Just try to analyse what you mean by  "The head-melting bit is when you realise ..."  - can you not see that in order to realise anything you need the power to consciously think about it and draw conclusions.

[Nearly Sane]

Did human species exist before religions existed. A bit tricky to say but we certainly have evidence of human species way before we have evidence of religions. So I'd suggest that yes, you can be human without the creation of religion.

And let's not forget that 'religion' isn't some objective thing. Nope it is a term that we have coined to describe certain types of societal structures and customs. Most, but not all, are based on a belief in god, but it seems to me that the definition is somewhat arbitrary and it then becomes a bit hard to argue that something so arbitrary in definition is somehow essential to being human.

But this is all on a 'meta' scale - at the level of an individual it is clear that we can be human without religion, as there are many millions of examples around the globes of individuals who are irrefutably human yet live their lives without religion. That's unless you believe the non-sense of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor that people cannot be properly human without god and religion.
But there are individuals who believe in, and live their lives, on the basis of complete libertarian individualism. Not many, sure, but they exist living solitary lives according to their own individual choice without social structures. Those people are, of course, human and live as humans. But that approach is challenging to maintain across generations as it largely precludes the societal structures that arise and are needed within, firstly, family groups but broader society.

So can humans live as humans without societal structures - sure they can, but it is an evolutionary dead-end.

I think you are missing the point. I'm talking about what it means to be human not what individual humans might be able to do. We are a social species.

Religion comes as part of what we are as well. To remove that drive or instinct would be change what we are so radically as to make assuming other things would stsy tge same to be laughable.

[Outrider]

You are implying that I can have no personal control over what enters into my conscious awareness.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it plainly. What you consider to be conscious thought is an influence, via a feedback mechanism, on the innumerable processes your brain is undertaking at any given time.

If I was not controlling the intensive efforts needed to obtain my PhD, then please enlighten me as to what was controlling the brain activity needed to produce the intended results?

Your brain. The collective result of a lifetime of inherent brain structure and chemistry, influenced and adjusted by the various experiences that you've had in your life. That's what 'you' are, that's what's in control, but your consciousness is only a part of that, and possibly a small part.

Just try to analyse what you mean by  "The head-melting bit is when you realise ..."  - can you not see that in order to realise anything you need the power to consciously think about it and draw conclusions.

Absolutely not. I've had any number of realisations hit me out of the blue, conclusions arise out of seemingly nowhere while my conscious brain has been plugging away in the wrong direction or on a different element or notion entirely. Whilst you can have a conscious awareness of the parts of the process that lead to the conclusion, you can equally have the subconscious do all the work and suddenly have a conscious 'flash' of inspiration - or, equally, suddenly have an intrusive conscious thought bubble up that completely distracts you, unbidden.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are missing the point. I'm talking about what it means to be human not what individual humans might be able to do. We are a social species.

Which is exactly my point NS. But I don't think you can disapply the notion of being human to individuals who may adopt an alternative approach. They are still human at an individual level, although at a species level those traits aren't likely to be retained for the reasons I (and you) have indicated, that societal structures are needed to nurture and impart knowledge to human offspring to the point where they can survive independently.

Religion comes as part of what we are as well. To remove that drive or instinct would be change what we are so radically as to make assuming other things would stsy tge same to be laughable.

But religions are a sub-set of societal structures that exist within human species and are, frankly, rather arbitrarily defined by human societies. Are they necessary for human survival - I don't think so. Are they a necessary element of being human - nope.

The evidence seems to suggest that early human species existed for perhaps millions of years before religions developed. So an interesting discussion is why religions developed at a point during the evolution of human species, given that they didn't seem essential as earlier human societies seemed to exist without religion, albeit with essential societal structures. One argument is that when humans moved from living in essentially isolated colonies to a point where those small groups interacted with others and/or combined that religions became a way of cementing loyalty to one tribe rather than another tribe.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is exactly my point NS. But I don't think you can disapply the notion of being human to individuals who may adopt an alternative approach. They are still human at an individual level, although at a species level those traits aren't likely to be retained for the reasons I (and you) have indicated, that societal structures are needed to nurture and impart knowledge to human offspring to the point where they can survive independently.
But religions are a sub-set of societal structures that exist within human species and are, frankly, rather arbitrarily defined by human societies. Are they necessary for human survival - I don't think so. Are they a necessary element of being human - nope.

The evidence seems to suggest that early human species existed for perhaps millions of years before religions developed. So an interesting discussion is why religions developed at a point during the evolution of human species, given that they didn't seem essential as earlier human societies seemed to exist without religion, albeit with essential societal structures. One argument is that when humans moved from living in essentially isolated colonies to a point where those small groups interacted with others and/or combined that religions became a way of cementing loyalty to one tribe rather than another tribe.

Still missing the point. It's valid to define humans as a bipedal species even though not all of them have two legs. We evolved in a way where religion appeared as a subset of social structures. I don't see how you can talk about us a soecies without accepting that. For us not to have evolved that way means that you are talking about some other species than what we refer to currently as human.

[jeremyp]

even though you have no idea of what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.

Time you took the plank out of your eye.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's valid to define humans as a bipedal species even though not all of them have two legs. We evolved in a way where religion appeared as a subset of social structures. I don't see how you can talk about us a soecies without accepting that. For us not to have evolved that way means that you are talking about some other species than what we refer to currently as human.

But that is pure confirmation bias.

The question isn't whether religion has evolved alongside the most recent (100,000-ish years) of human evolution - we know it did. Nope, the question is whether (looking backwards) humans could have evolved without religion and (looking forwards) whether humans could evolve further without religion. Only if you can answer 'no' to both of those questions would you have a reasonable argument that religion is an essential part of being human. I don't think you can justifiably argue 'no' to both of those questions - the first question is based on evidence - religion seems to be a relatively recent development in human evolution. The second is, of course, more speculative but it is possible to argue that in the most recent period (perhaps 1000 years) that the progression and development of human societies has occurred fasted during periods where religion had least influence.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's valid to define humans as a bipedal species even though not all of them have two legs.

But it is clearly ludicrous to argue that you cannot be human unless you have two legs - so the possession of two legs is not an essential attribute to being human.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is pure confirmation bias.

The question isn't whether religion has evolved alongside the most recent (100,000-ish years) of human evolution - we know it did. Nope, the question is whether (looking backwards) humans could have evolved without religion and (looking forwards) whether humans could evolve further without religion. Only if you can answer 'no' to both of those questions would you have a reasonable argument that religion is an essential part of being human. I don't think you can justifiably argue 'no' to both of those questions - the first question is based on evidence - religion seems to be a relatively recent development in human evolution. The second is, of course, more speculative but it is possible to argue that in the most recent period (perhaps 1000 years) that the progression and development of human societies has occurred fasted during periods where religion had least influence.

Again you are missing the point. This isn't about saying we need religion to survive. Rather that it's not something you can just magic away, and understand in any sense what would need to have happened for ot not to exist. It obviously exists as part of our evolutionary traits.

Were we able to remove what it is about us that leads to it, tgen making a comment like we would have better ethics, which is where this started with bhs is completely specious. Whatever we would be would be so different as to not be what we talk about as human just now.

[Nearly Sane]

But it is clearly ludicrous to argue that you cannot be human unless you have two legs - so the possession of two legs is not an essential attribute to being human.

Which is why I didn't make that argument. I was arguing against your position that because certain individuals do not have certain traits expressed in an individuual example, it does not mean that it is not a generalused trait of the species.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again you are missing the point. This isn't about saying we need religion to survive. Rather that it's not something you can just magic away, and understand in any sense what would need to have happened for ot not to exist. It obviously exists as part of our evolutionary traits.

Were we able to remove what it is about us that leads to it, tgen making a comment like we would have better ethics, which is where this started with bhs is completely specious. Whatever we would be would be so different as to not be what we talk about as human just now.

Yet more confirmation bias.

Try to engage with the actual points I am making.

[Nearly Sane]

Yet more confirmation bias.

Try to engage with the actual points I am making.

They are about a strawman.

[Sebastian Toe]

you have no idea of what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.

I do hope Alan, in order to persuade anyone reading this thread, that you have a sound and thorough idea of what comprises the "soul" , how it works, how it interacts with the physical brain both inputs and outputs, when it came into being, how it came into being, what it does when you are not conscious, where is it?

Oh and your new toy, the "soul memory".
How does it work, where it resides, how you can access it at will does it have infinite capacity, how do you distinguish between it and your physical memory?

Have you considered doing a peer reviewed paper on the whole topic?
I'm sure there must be a Nobel Prize waiting for that.
The world needs to know not just a few old blokes on a message board!

Anything?

[Alan Burns]

I do hope Alan, in order to persuade anyone reading this thread, that you have a sound and thorough idea of what comprises the "soul" , how it works, how it interacts with the physical brain both inputs and outputs, when it came into being, how it came into being, what it does when you are not conscious, where is it?

Oh and your new toy, the "soul memory".
How does it work, where it resides, how you can access it at will does it have infinite capacity, how do you distinguish between it and your physical memory?

Have you considered doing a peer reviewed paper on the whole topic?
I'm sure there must be a Nobel Prize waiting for that.
The world needs to know not just a few old blokes on a message board!

Anything?

As I have pointed out many times on this thread, I know my soul exists because of what it does - I do not need to know how it does it.

[Maeght]

As I have pointed out many times on this thread, I know my soul exists because of what it does - I do not need to know how it does it.

Claimed not pointed out.

[torridon]

As usual you are blurring the obvious role of consciousness in order to comply with the unavoidable consequences of material reactions - even though you have no idea of what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.

Just because we don't know everything is not a licence to fill the gaps in knowledge with impossible nonsense.

[torridon]

As I have pointed out many times on this thread, I know my soul exists because of what it does - I do not need to know how it does it.

In a similar manner, we know that invisible pixies exist because of what they do, we do not need to know how they do it.