How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[torridon]

God can be found from within...through introspection and inner quest. The inner Self.....or inner Consciousness.  The 'naturalistic' world is only the external objective world....not the inner subjective world.   That is a fact ...but will it do for you?

When buddhists go looking for the inner self, they find it is not there.  I think they are closer to the truth than most.

[SteveH]

That is what the evidence suggests.  That Mind is the subjective aspect of Brain is what the evidence from science clearly suggests.  So what are we supposed to do, invest in becoming science deniers, or do we take it on board and try to understand it ??

If our consciousness is merely the result of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain that was not evolved to do advanced reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is accurate, and specifically, how do you know that mind is only the result of reactions in the brain? I know it's an old, old argument, but I'm interested in your answer.

[SusanDoris]

If our consciousness is merely the result of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain that was not evolved to do advanced reasoning,

Why do you think the brain evolved with a purpose, i.e. 'to do advanced reasoning'?

how do you know that your reasoning is accurate, and specifically, how do you know that mind is only the result of reactions in the brain? I know it's an old, old argument, but I'm interested in your answer.

What is your answer?

[SteveH]

Why do you think the brain evolved with a purpose, i.e. 'to do advanced reasoning'?

I said that it didn't, not that it did.

What is your answer?

I haven't got one.

[SusanDoris]

I said that it didn't, not that it did.

Okay, but I still get the impression that you think the brain evolved with purpose.

[SteveH]

Okay, but I still get the impression that you think the brain evolved with purpose.

I know enough to know that evolution does not proceed according to any plan or purpose.

[Nearly Sane]

This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.

  Or talking about it is surely meaningless? Essentially this approach ends up with the definition of god as No thing that has no attributes, a nonsense piece of pabulum. And as Wittgenstein would have it, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

[Nearly Sane]

Okay, but I still get the impression that you think the brain evolved with purpose.

If someone states that they don't see a purpose, how do you get the impression that they do?

[Stranger]

You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous. That then is the irrationality.
Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.

This is basically the old false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager.

Firstly, by believing in one of the many god-concepts you are taking just as much of a 'punt' as an atheist who doesn't bother with any. The stakes are just as 'high' for the believer.

You may claim that you did some 'seeking' (although how you might rationally go about that is unclear) and found the 'right' answer but you would then need to address all the other sincere 'seekers' who came to different conclusions (the majority - no matter what your religion, most people think you are wrong). You would need to deny their sincerity or have to admit that seeking just isn't enough and that there is actually no clear path to the truth at all.

Lastly, although the idea of some sort of god(s) cannot be 100% ruled out, the idea of a just, fair minded, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message for humankind can be ruled out because it is simply inconsistent with the observed world in which we live: there is no clear message from such a god.

[Nearly Sane]

If you believe that God might exist and have taken a punt on not bothering you must have had or are using a methodology to come to that decision. Obviously you would logically need to change your mind about your current stratagem.

I don't believe that god might exist, I have no way of showing that it doesn't. Further I haven't yet heard a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meaningless so it's effectively just white noise. Given I don't know what everyone has ever defined god as I cannot state that there is/is not a valid definition out there.


However, if a valid definition does exists I would need to understand a methodology for establishing evidence of such a thing. I note that you once again evaded that question as you have done so frequently and so dishonestly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Or talking about it is surely meaningless? Essentially this approach ends up with the definition of god as No thing that has no attributes, a nonsense piece of pabulum. And as Wittgenstein would have it, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Not really, since the argument is not about describing God but examining the decisions possible if one believes that God is possible. All are aware of what religion has to say about God and that is eminently investigable.

Given those descriptions and if one believes there might be a God then not to act oneself is irrational given the high stakes involved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is basically the old false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager.

Firstly, by believing in one of the many god-concepts you are taking just as much of a 'punt' as an atheist who doesn't bother with any. The stakes are just as 'high' for the believer.

You may claim that you did some 'seeking' (although how you might rationally go about that is unclear) and found the 'right' answer but you would then need to address all the other sincere 'seekers' who came to different conclusions (the majority - no matter what your religion, most people think you are wrong). You would need to deny their sincerity or have to admit that seeking just isn't enough and that there is actually no clear path to the truth at all.

Lastly, although the idea of some sort of god(s) cannot be 100% ruled out, the idea of a just, fair minded, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message for humankind can be ruled out because it is simply inconsistent with the observed world in which we live: there is no clear message from such a god.

Ah Pascal's wager.....and yet we know in the face of thinking there might be a God not doing anything about it is de facto taking a punt. In fact I think it was Torridon who best describes what his money is on, reductionist materialism in which he finds virtue in eliminating himself from any investigation, or enquiry ever............ wither self examination and answering the question ''why is the importance of my sacrifice virtuous?''

[Stranger]

Ah Pascal's wager.....and yet we know in the face of thinking there might be a God not doing anything about it is de facto taking a punt.

Once again, Brave Sir Vlad-Robbin runs away from the points raised...

[Nearly Sane]

Not really, since the argument is not about describing God but examining the decisions possible if one believes that God is possible. All are aware of what religion has to say about God and that is eminently investigable.

Given those descriptions and if one believes there might be a God then not to act oneself is irrational given the high stakes involved.

So you just decided to ignore what I said. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When buddhists go looking for the inner self, they find it is not there.  I think they are closer to the truth than most.

Existentialist atheists use to talk about arriving at the ''abyss'', a talent presumably lost to the new atheists. I wonder though if this isn't the same as Augustine's God shaped hole.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you just decided to ignore what I said.

If you do not believe there might be a god then you are not the subject of what I am going on about are you?

[Nearly Sane]

If you do not believe there might be a god then you are not the subject of what I am going on about are you?

It's difficult to tell at the best of times what you are going on about but it seems to me that Stranger, for example, is taking much the same position as me and you are positing a straw man along with your continued evasions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again, Brave Sir Vlad-Robbin runs away from the points raised...

No what I've said is perfectly fair.
To believe that there might be a God and not act on that is a punt...... more than that it disqualifies anybody who makes that decision from rationally criticising the findings somebody who has chosen to, I would have thought.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's difficult to tell at the best of times what you are going on about but it seems to me that Stranger, for example, is taking much the same position as me and you are positing a straw man along with your continued evasions.

I talk about the person who believes there might be god/cannot yet rule out a god and does not take steps to investigate.
If you are saying such people do not exist then you are deluded.

Keep up.

[Nearly Sane]

I talk about the person who believes there might be god/cannot yet rule out a god and does not take steps to investigate.
If you are saying such people do not exist then you are deluded.

Keep up.

But i don't rule out a god for the reasons explained.

[torridon]

If our consciousness is merely the result of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain that was not evolved to do advanced reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is accurate, and specifically, how do you know that mind is only the result of reactions in the brain? I know it's an old, old argument, but I'm interested in your answer.

As far as neuroscience goes it is the only game in town, there is no alternative hypothesis on the horizon other than mind and brain being two sides of the same coin.  It is for people making extra claims for the nature of mind to justify that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But i don't rule out a god for the reasons explained.

Does it matter how one arrives at not ruling out a god?

[Stranger]

No what I've said is perfectly fair.
To believe that there might be a God and not act on that is a punt...... more than that it disqualifies anybody who makes that decision from rationally criticising the findings somebody who has chosen to, I would have thought.

I have posted a refutation of this 'argument' and you have totally ignored it. Mindlessly repeating your assertions and ignoring the counterarguments makes both you and your religion look stupid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have posted a refutation of this 'argument' and you have totally ignored it. Mindlessly repeating your assertions and ignoring the counterarguments makes both you and your religion look stupid.

Where is this refutation?

Can thinking that god may exist and not doing a thing about it be rational? That is the question. Since there is nothing to lose if there is nothing after all and everything to gain if there is?

Even if we mind your objection to Pascal because of the range of spiritual experience that does not detract from the reasonable argument that if you do not seek you will not find anything.

To your refutation I say this. By doing nothing you are avoiding the possibility of any encounter....and that is what this boils down to.

[Stranger]

Where is this refutation?

Firstly, by believing in one of the many god-concepts you are taking just as much of a 'punt' as an atheist who doesn't bother with any. The stakes are just as 'high' for the believer.

You may claim that you did some 'seeking' (although how you might rationally go about that is unclear) and found the 'right' answer but you would then need to address all the other sincere 'seekers' who came to different conclusions (the majority - no matter what your religion, most people think you are wrong). You would need to deny their sincerity or have to admit that seeking just isn't enough and that there is actually no clear path to the truth at all.

Lastly, although the idea of some sort of god(s) cannot be 100% ruled out, the idea of a just, fair minded, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message for humankind can be ruled out because it is simply inconsistent with the observed world in which we live: there is no clear message from such a god.

The last paragraph in particular rules out the 'high stakes' you keep on wittering about.