Materialism

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've just suggested that people explore their own feelings about God.

And I’ve explained to you that there can be no “feelings about God” without a good reason to think there to be a god in the first place. There can be feelings about your belief "god", but that's a different matter. That’s your reification mistake.

Obviously only someone who is so fanatical about philosophical empiricism that they would bet their soul on that would see that as the equivalent of selling one's kidneys.

No-one does that. Why are you straw manning again?

I wouldn't explore africa or the favelas of colombia Hillside but I am prepared to admit that that is out of fear. If you wont explore your feelings to God perhaps you should explore why not.

What the fuck is wrong with you? I have good reasons to think that Africa and the favelas exist. I have no good reason to think that (your choice of or any other) god exists. Conflating the two categories is committing the fallacy of reification. Just ignoring this no matter how many times it’s explained to you is dishonest. 

I stick to my opinion that you are not prepared to brook criticism of philosophical empiricism. If I called that materialism then that was indeed a mistake.

That wasn’t your accusation. Your accusation was: “You just tried to claim philosophical empiricism was somehow immune from criticism” (Reply 19). I made no such claim, so you should withdraw and apologise for the lie. 

[Stranger]

I have done...

Drivel.

...contingency is observed.

Yes.

No contingency without necessity.

Baseless assertion. What's more, when I asked you to logically define and justify necessity, you went on about beer and beer bellies, so an entirely relative concept, which totally contradicted your other assertions about necessary entities.

Thus far, a 'necessary entity' doesn't even have a fixed meaning in your posts.

Is the observable universe contingent yes...

Not obviously, as a whole manifold, no.

Does contingency alone make any sense, no.

Baseless assertion.

Does infinite regress answer any questions no...

Baseless assertion.

...does it answer the question why something and not nothing, no.

Neither does anything you have proposed.

The answer to that, the sufficient reason, is therefore the final necessary entity.

What's the sufficient reason for the "final necessary entity"? That was the last question you ran away from.

Questions and counterarguments answered.

Not even made a start.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What if people don't feel any of those things? What if people feel nothing and have no interest in gods because the concept makes no sense? What if they are only interested in why other people have so much interest in something those people can't prove exists?

My advice was for people who have feelings to examine them. A concept that doesn't make sense is evidently not necessarily a bar to having feelings about it. Perhaps they should examine their feelings about something that does make sense to them and maybe if they are fanatical about a certain way of thinking, examine that.

Many people haven't come to terms that they in fact have an actual weltbild.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would encourage anybody to investigate their feelings about God,

OK.

why for instance they feel that God is the very devil, if that is their case.

I don't because I don't believe that god exists, and nor do i believe that the devil exists.

Do they feel in the least repelled,

Repelled by god - nope don't feel that because I don't believe that god exists so hard to be repelled by something that doesn't exist.
 

do they feel challenged ...

Nope because I don't believe that god exists.

... or resisted

Nope because I don't believe that god exists.

... or frustrated by God?

Nope because I don't believe that god exists.

, do they feel that God might ask them, like the rich person who was asked to sell his belongings

Nope because I don't believe that god exists.

, to do something they wouldn't want to do.

Nope because I don't believe that god exists.

Why the interest in God?

I'm not interested in god - I'm completely indifferent to god because I don't believe that god exists.

Why should this come as surprise to you Vlad - you said you were atheist once, when you don't believe something exists you tend not to be interested in its non-existent attributes, or its non existent interactions with you. Or were you an "atheist" like you idol CS Lewis - angry at god for not existing. If there is ever an attitude that belies a claim to be an atheist that is it.

Is there more to it than a handful of peers in the house of Lords?

Ah you are finally onto something, albeit trivialising matters. I do not believe that god exists but I know that religions exist and religion has impacts on society and the lives of myself and others. While I am indifferent about god I am very far from indifferent about societal and individual perceptions of religious and non-religious people, I am far from indifferent about special privileges for religion, which turned on their head is discrimination against those who are not religious. I am far from indifferent about many aspects of religiously-inspired so-called morality that runs completely counter to my own ethical framework, e.g. justifying discrimination against gay people, against women, against non religious people etc.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Almost certainly they are designed to induce an increase in anandamide serum levels which cross the blood/brain barrier to induce the effects you describe. We know this now, but of course when people were developing yoga and similar practices they didn't now this albeit they felt the effects induced to be important/significant etc etc, but the reality is that the effects are physiological, and pretty well understood physiology now.
These are entirely different questions - we can ruminate all we like on life, death, purpose etc etc, but the effects you've described are almost certainly a simple chemical process in the brain.
Why aren't they enough - if they are able to adequately explain (based on evidence) why you feel as you do when you think god is around, or when I sing in my choir, or when VG goes skydiving, or when someone practices yoga, why do you need to ascribe some greater purpose. Realistically the only 'greater purpose' you need to include is evolutionary benefits as it is pretty easy to see why the release of anandamide, triggered by certain experiences may be beneficial.

Well it's kind of difficult to find the time to go sky-diving or galloping on a horse etc. Religion is something that can be easily incorporated into everyday life and it makes sense if religious practices release chemicals.

I find the whole chemical release thing doesn't seem to work as well if I take a higher entity out of the process - not sure about a higher purpose as I am not sure how you can grade spiritual as being higher than non-spiritual - but the concept of the unknown, a greater power than me etc seems core for me for the release of the chemicals in connection with religion. I have also meditated as part of Shaolin kick-boxing training and in that you have concepts such as energy (chi) and connecting with the divine. But I experienced a greater sense of connection with religious rituals relating to Islam than I did with Quigong.

Also religious practice has lots of other benefits - it's a bonding experience with other people, I think social services might have something to say if I had tried to chuck my kids out of a plane to go sky-diving with me regularly...plus my husband is scared of heights.

So I prefer religion as it is a family activity, it's safer than sky-diving or horse-riding and less expensive, it opens up my mind to various philosophical perspectives because there are so many differences of interpretation so I end up reading a lot, I have found various interpretations that have a positive effect on my perspective, I learnt to read Arabic which made me feel good and hopefully developed my cognitive abilities, reciting in Arabic has a calming effect on me, it keeps me out of trouble as while I am busy reciting I am not doing something else more negative. The list of positives is long. Hence I encouraged my children to try it so it could be a shared family activity but I also warned them of some of the dangers of faith and believing things there is no objective evidence for.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My advice was for people who have feelings to examine them....

Advice you have shown no sign of taking yourself. Which of the various physiological, non-divine explanations for your experience did you examine, and how were you able to eliminate all of them? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK.
I don't because I don't believe that god exists, and nor do i believe that the devil exists.
Repelled by god - nope don't feel that because I don't believe that god exists so hard to be repelled by something that doesn't exist.
 Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
Nope because I don't believe that god exists.
I'm not interested in god - I'm completely indifferent to god because I don't believe that god exists.

Why should this come as surprise to you Vlad - you said you were atheist once, when you don't believe something exists you tend not to be interested in its non-existent attributes, or its non existent interactions with you. Or were you an "atheist" like you idol CS Lewis - angry at god for not existing. If there is ever an attitude that belies a claim to be an atheist that is it.
Ah you are finally onto something, albeit trivialising matters. I do not believe that god exists but I know that religions exist and religion has impacts on society and the lives of myself and others. While I am indifferent about god I am very far from indifferent about societal and individual perceptions of religious and non-religious people, I am far from indifferent about special privileges for religion, which turned on their head is discrimination against those who are not religious. I am far from indifferent about many aspects of religiously-inspired so-called morality that runs completely counter to my own ethical framework, e.g. justifying discrimination against gay people, against women, against non religious people etc.

I don't suppose you are a big 'feeling' sort of guy, preferring as you do to calling them just a release of certain chemicals. You don't seem to be indifferent to God and even if you were you don't seem to be indifferent to your own weltbild which you obviously find competing with others and that it seems troubles you a bit.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My advice was for people who have feelings to examine them. A concept that doesn't make sense is evidently not necessarily a bar to having feelings about it.

Bafflement is probably one of the feelings. How would someone explore bafflement? What would they do first? They have heard people explain their beliefs in gods and it doesn't make sense. So not sure how you think they can explore something that does not make sense. Or why someone would want to when there are so many other more constructive things they could be doing with their limited time.

Perhaps they should examine their feelings about something that does make sense to them and maybe if they are fanatical about a certain way of thinking, examine that.

Many people haven't come to terms that they in fact have an actual weltbild.

Ok. But not sure how this would help them explore feelings about gods if the only feeling they have about gods is bafflement?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You don't seem to be indifferent to God...

Fallacy of reification. Again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Advice you have shown no sign of taking yourself. Which of the various physiological, non-divine explanations for your experience did you examine, and how were you able to eliminate all of them?

They are inadequate, Hillside, I have explained this to you. The linguistic framework provided by 2000 years + of Christianity provides the closest fit to my experience, other linguistic frameworks and philosophies don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They are inadequate, Hillside, I have explained this to you. The linguistic framework provided by 2000 years + of Christianity provides the closest fit to my experience, other linguistic frameworks and philosophies don't.

And the linguistic frameworks from millennia of other faiths in other gods you think not to be real most closely fit the feelings that other people have about those gods too. Does this not even give you pause – that people frequently retro-fit their cultural traditions to validate the narratives they use to explain their experiences no matter what those traditions happen to be?

Something?

Anything?

You’ve explained nothing, other that is than the inadvertent explanation that you’re in thrall to solipsistic wishful thinking.         

[ProfessorDavey]

Well it's kind of difficult to find the time to go sky-diving or galloping on a horse etc. Religion is something that can be easily incorporated into everyday life and it makes sense if religious practices release chemicals.

Sure whatever rocks your boat - or rather releases your anandamide.

I find the whole chemical release thing doesn't seem to work as well if I take a higher entity out of the process - not sure about a higher purpose as I am not sure how you can grade spiritual as being higher than non-spiritual - but the concept of the unknown, a greater power than me etc seems core for me for the release of the chemicals in connection with religion. I have also meditated as part of Shaolin kick-boxing training and in that you have concepts such as energy (chi) and connecting with the divine. But I experienced a sense of connection more with religious rituals relating to Islam than I did with Quigong.

I have no doubt that different people will find different experience are better or worse at inducing the effect - and what I would opine is that for you the belief in a higher entity and incorporating this belief into your ritual is the key. I think unlike Sriram and Vlad you aren't claiming that there is definitely a higher entity actually there.

For me engaging in religious activities has the opposite effect - the certainty of believers within a religious worship setting I find really, really irritating such that I want to yell out 'there is no evidence that god even exists and you are talking as if it is absolutely known, certain and accepted' - that would be somewhat inappropriate in the middle of a church service so I tend to avoid them.

For me I guess the equivalents are the feeling I get when in wide open spaces, often mountains and when singing. Interestingly studies have shown that yoga increases anandamide levels by about 20%, yet singing increases it by over 40%. But actually there are similarities between the two in terms of controlled breathing, posture and focus/concentration.

Also religious practice has lots of other benefits - it's a bonding experience with other people, I think social services might have something to say if I had tried to chuck my kids out of a plane to go sky-diving with me regularly...plus my husband is scared of heights.

So I prefer religion as it is a family activity, it's safer than sky-diving or horse-riding and less expensive, it opens up my mind to various philosophical perspectives because there are so many differences of interpretation so I end up reading a lot, I have found various interpretations that have a positive effect on my perspective, I learnt to read Arabic which made me feel good and hopefully developed my cognitive abilities, reciting in Arabic has a calming effect on me, it keeps me out of trouble as while I am busy reciting I am not doing something else more negative. The list of positives is long. Hence I encouraged my children to try it so it could be a shared family activity but I also warned them of some of the dangers of faith and believing things there is no objective evidence for.

Sure, each to their own, but I imagine the feelings we are experiencing variously by your skydiving (when you did it) and religious practice, my singing, Sriram's yoga etc etc are actually all just different person-specific triggers for the same physiology and the same 'feeling', and in no case does this actually involve the presence of a god or higher entity, albeit for some people the belief in that presence is all-important.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fallacy of reification. Again.

Reification? Isn't that turning an abstract thing into a concrete thing.
To accept that charge then I would have to agree that God is an abstract thing and hence sign up to YOUR belief. I see what you tried to do there.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't suppose you are a big 'feeling' sort of guy, preferring as you do to calling them just a release of certain chemicals.

Understanding what causes emotions/feelings etc doesn't mean that you somehow dismiss them as important. A love of music isn't diminished by understanding how a piano works, nor is it enhanced by thinking that music is generated by some mythical, mystical woo.

You don't seem to be indifferent to God ...

How on earth can you know how I feel. Trust me, were religion not to be a thing I doubt I'd give god a second thought. The issue is religion and its impacts, which are very real, not god who I don't believe exists.

and even if you were you don't seem to be indifferent to your own weltbild which you obviously find competing with others and that it seems troubles you a bit.

Not making a lots of sense there Vlad.

[Bramble]

But the problem is...that is not enough. We need to explain Life, Mind, Consciousness, Death, purpose and so on.

Your problem in a nutshell, Sriram.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And the linguistic frameworks from millennia of other faiths in other gods you think not to be real most closely fit the feelings that other people have about those gods too. Does this not even give you pause – that people frequently retro-fit their cultural traditions to validate the narratives they use to explain their experiences no matter what those traditions happen to be?

Something?

Anything?

You’ve explained nothing, other that is than the inadvertent explanation that you’re in thrall to solipsistic wishful thinking.       

I have said other frameworks do not fit my experience. It looks like you are having trouble accepting that. What is going on is that you have a weltbild you have committed to and that is it. Anything and everything must be fitted into that. I have no desire to jump into that.

Religious people have periods of doubt, struggle, dark nights and what have you. I don't suppose you let yourself or your weltbild be troubled by anything like that. That would explain why people here bask in your faith. I have not tried to odds anyone else's religious experience on here.

And as for retrofitting to fit culture, you are as they say you are the very model of the modern major atheist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sure whatever rocks your boat - or rather releases your anandamide.
I have no doubt that different people will find different experience are better or worse at inducing the effect - and what I would opine is that for you the belief in a higher entity and incorporating this belief into your ritual is the key. I think unlike Sriram and Vlad you aren't claiming that there is definitely a higher entity actually there.

Based on how I understand the meaning of the words - no I don't think it makes sense for me to claim that I "know" "definitely" anything is "there" as I can't give you objective evidence and even if I could give you objective evidence it could only lead to a provisional explanation (as in the scientific method)  rather than a definite conclusion, and I am not sure what "there" means.

For me engaging in religious activities has the opposite effect - the certainty of believers within a religious worship setting I find really, really irritating such that I want to yell out 'there is no evidence that god even exists and you are talking as if it is absolutely known, certain and accepted' - that would be somewhat inappropriate in the middle of a church service so I tend to avoid them.

Yes I used to feel the same way as an atheist, and I still feel the same way as a theist about many of the beliefs and rituals fellow theists have, including fellow Muslims. Though I am a bit more chilled about it as I get older so not really feeling like yelling out. Arguing yes, but yelling not really.

For me I guess the equivalents are the feeling I get when in wide open spaces, often mountains and when singing. Interestingly studies have shown that yoga increases anandamide levels by about 20%, yet singing increases it by over 40%. But actually there are similarities between the two in terms of controlled breathing, posture and focus/concentration.
Sure, each to their own, but I imagine the feelings we are experiencing variously by your skydiving (when you did it) and religious practice, my singing, Sriram's yoga etc etc are actually all just different person-specific triggers for the same physiology and the same 'feeling', and in no case does this actually involve the presence of a god or higher entity, albeit for some people the belief in that presence is all-important.

Yes. I mean we have no way of knowing if there is a higher entity and if it is actually present as we can't prove any of that, so according to my understanding of the meaning of words I would call it a belief. Unless I use "know" colloquially to mean I have faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Understanding what causes emotions/feelings etc doesn't mean that you somehow dismiss them as important. A love of music isn't diminished by understanding how a piano works, nor is it enhanced by thinking that music is generated by some mythical, mystical woo.
.

Have you tried thinking that then and found it not to be enhanced or is that assertion based on your beliefs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
. I have no good reason to think that (your choice of or any other) god exists.

Do you mean no good reason for you?

If that paper from Sean Carroll touted on this forum constitutes what you mean by ''Good'' reason then i'm afraid I find your claim in this matter a tad laughable.

[Stranger]

If that paper from Sean Carroll touted on this forum constitutes what you mean by ''Good'' reason then i'm afraid I find your claim in this matter a tad laughable.

What is actually laughable is you, who have totally failed to come up with anything remotely like a sound argument, and just run away from anything at all awkward for you, even to the extent of refusing to define your terms or be explicit about the steps, would criticise Carroll's paper, which is a discussion of possibilities, rather than an argument for a particular answer. It's rather like seeing a kid, who still struggles with "the cat sat on the mat" claiming that Shakespeare was a crap writer or somebody who can't do basic arithmetic saying Einstein was wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you tried thinking that then and found it not to be enhanced or is that assertion based on your beliefs?

It is my opinion - I'm not really sure that opinions are necessarily always equated to beliefs.

Actually in my opinion understanding how music is generated by instruments and performers enhances the experience, as it allow me to engage in different ways. On the one hand I may choose to close my eyes and simply allow the music to enthall me, move me, excite me etc. But on the other hand I can also choose to watch the performer, or even if i'm listening to a record to be amazed and impressed by the musicianship.

So understanding how the music is generated allows me to engage with the music on more than one level.

But that's my opinion - perhaps you hate music Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is my opinion - I'm not really sure that opinions are necessarily always equated to beliefs.

Actually in my opinion understanding how music is generated by instruments and performers enhances the experience, as it allow me to engage in different ways. On the one hand I may choose to close my eyes and simply allow the music to enthall me, move me, excite me etc. But on the other hand I can also choose to watch the performed, or even if i'm listening to a record to be amazed and impressed by the musicianship.

So understanding how the music is generated allows me to engage with the music on more than one level.

But that's my opinion - perhaps you hate music Vlad.

I was interested to see whether you experience music as ecstatic both in the sense we can probably agree on but also in the sense of being taken out of oneself, to cease thinking about oneself or to lose oneself.

Secondly If I hated music and I don't, but if I did......so what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Based on how I understand the meaning of the words - no I don't think it makes sense for me to claim that I "know" "definitely" anything is "there" as I can't give you objective evidence and even if I could give you objective evidence it could only lead to a provisional explanation (as in the scientific method)  rather than a definite conclusion, and I am not sure what "there" means.

Yes. I mean we have no way of knowing if there is a higher entity and if it is actually present as we can't prove any of that, so according to my understanding of the meaning of words I would call it a belief. Unless I use "know" colloquially to mean I have faith.

Then I think you are being appropriately measured in describing your faith.

However I'm not convinced that Vlad and Sriram think the same - I don't think they are using "know" colloquially to mean they have faith when they claim to know that they are in the presence of god/higher entity. I suspect they are actually in the presence of an anandamide-rush that they perceive to be the presence of something, which isn't actually there.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was interested to see whether you experience music as ecstatic both in the sense we can probably agree on but also in the sense of being taken out of oneself, to cease thinking about oneself or to lose oneself.

Of course I do - in fact music tends to move me in ways that very little else can. And not just in a bliss/ecstatic sense either. Actually as an adult I think music has moved me to cry more than anything else.

Why would you think otherwise Vlad - in your mind are atheists strange mechanistic automatons who are incapable of feelings?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then I think you are being appropriately measured in describing your faith.

However I'm not convinced that Vlad and Sriram think the same - I don't think they are using "know" colloquially to mean they have faith when they claim to know that they are in the presence of god/higher entity. I suspect they are actually in the presence of an anandamide-rush that they perceive to be the presence of something, which isn't actually there.

where?