Materialism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it doesn't just occur in religious contexts does it

sometimes it doesn't happen in religious contexts, Secondly I definitely experience emotions in religious contexts differently than in secular situations so work that one out. I think you are trying to be quantitative where it isn't appropriate

- the same phenomena and the same explanation of anandamide occur in context that have nothing to do with religion - e.g. singing, running and a range of other activities. So the phenomena and its explanation are causally decoupled from religion/god. That you can also trigger these effects via religious practice is neither relevant nor surprising.

I think you are mistaking an anandamine hit with the presence of God here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No - by "no good reason" I mean no reason that isn't logically false. Given your total reliance of logically false arguments to justify your assertion "god" (or your reliance on no arguments at all) you should understand this by now. 

SC seems to be your new unrequited bromance object around here these days. Unless you can cite the paper and tell us where you think he went wrong, this is just white noise.

Ah yes you've just reminded me you are a ''you offer no arguments and those you do offer are wrong''sort of person as well as a ''using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason'' man.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's just intellectual totalitarian wankfantasy on your part.

No, it's the definition of the term. As so often when you've been schooled and have run out of road to reply, you descend into abuse so as to cover your escape.

People have hidden fears and suppress things all the time even from themselves this is why we have psychiatrists and psychologists. Secondly I think you fear my presence on this board. Why is this? what is the cause of your Vlobsession?(Vlad Obsession).

Why would I fear a pathologically mendacious avoider of the arguments that undo him, and in any case what relevance has that to the point you responded to?

Oh, and as you have judiciously edited it out again: why still haven't you withdrawn and apologised for your assertion that I claimed something about materialism I didn’t claim at all?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah yes you've just reminded me you are a ''you offer no arguments and those you do offer are wrong''sort of person as well as a ''using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason'' man.

No. I'm the sort of person who explains to you why your attempts at arguments are wrong and invites you to respond to the corrections you're given, only for you to straw man, lie about or ignore them instead. Take your latest screw up re reification for example - why not try at least to deal with the problem rather than throw abuse at it in the hope no-one will notice?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are mistaking an anandamine hit with the presence of God here.

Then prove me wrong - prove to me that god exists and that the presence of god can induce these bliss like feelings without the release of anandamine. Good luck with that one.

Meanwhile the rest of us will trundle along with good old fashioned research that will provide evidence and explanations for these phenomena.

[Stranger]

...''using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason''...

And your endless repetition of this latest piece of foolishness, is just further evidence that you don't understand how to make an argument, and just repeat things that have already been dealt with without even bothering to attempt to address the answers you've already had.

How are you getting on with answering the question of what the sufficient reason for your "necessary entity" is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then prove me wrong - prove to me that god exists and that the presence of god can induce these bliss like feelings without the release of anandamine. Good luck with that one.

I don't recall claiming that. I don't see though why the presence of God and the release of anandamine should be mutually exclusive or an either/or.

Meanwhile the rest of us will trundle along with good old fashioned research that will provide evidence and explanations for these phenomena.

The trouble with that is if atheists see themselves as beyond research of which the danger is real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No. I'm the sort of person who explains to you why your attempts at arguments are wrong and invites you to respond to the corrections you're given, only for you to straw man, lie about or ignore them instead. Take your latest screw up re reification for example - why not try at least to deal with the problem rather than throw abuse at it in the hope no-one will notice?

I never throw abuse in the hope no one will notice. You cannot get away from treating God as an abstract, true for whoever affair.
until God is proved to be so and until he is disproved, the accusation of reification is unsafe.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see though why the presence of God and the release of anandamine should be mutually exclusive or an either/or.

That is true, but until you can actually demonstrate that god exists the notion that god is triggering your anandamine release is a rather futile exercise don't you think Vlad. So off you trundle and prove that god exists and then when/if you do that we can have a look at he/she/its ability to trigger anandamine release.

But I guess we might as well use our time usefully while we wait (likely to be a very, very long wait) so we can gain more evidence of the link between activities that trigger the bliss response, anandamine release and the feelings we experience as a result. And I suspect we won't be finding a big god-shaped hole in our understanding of the link one to the other.

[ProfessorDavey]

The trouble with that is if atheists see themselves as beyond research of which the danger is real.

Eh Firstly I don't think you should be generalising about atheists who are a rather diverse group of people whose only collective feature is that they don't believe god/gods exist. But also this particular atheist (and I suspect most of the others on this MB) doesn't see myself as beyond research, whatever that means. I'm incredible strongly committed to research which is why I am a professional researcher.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But it doesn't just occur in religious contexts does it - the same phenomena and the same explanation of anandamide occur in context that have nothing to do with religion - e.g. singing, running and a range of other activities. So the phenomena and its explanation are causally decoupled from religion/god. That you can also trigger these effects via religious practice is neither relevant nor surprising.

I would not describe it as the same experience. I think trying to simplify it the way you do misses the complexity of individual human thought, genetics, neurology, and emotions that make every situation different for each person in that situation.

Sky-diving was great but it wasn't the same feeling as when I pray and certainly not the same as that moment in my parents' home. Sky-diving was the wind rushing past me, feeling like I was flying, not feeling like I was falling anymore (which had been a really scary feeling) - I would describe it as exhilarating but I am limited by language as I cannot put all the feelings I had at that moment into words. And I doubt that I felt the same as the people who were sky-diving with me - there might be some similarities but also lots of differences because we each had our own thoughts e.g memories, associations, fears, expectations that would affect our feelings during any experience.

I also remember the day I was told I'd passed the interview to get my first job after university - I felt pure joy.

The feeling when I prayed at my parents' was not what I associate with exhilaration and joy and I have not felt it in any other context. It wasn't like the warm relaxing feeling of alcohol or codeine. It was like a sudden wave going through my body - like water from a rain shower but on the inside - and it washed away or extinguished the emotional pain. And prayer wasn't something I was expecting to work - I prayed assuming it would be a waste of time but felt obligated to at least give it a try, given I was a Muslim.

So I have no evidence that the feelings from prayer could be replicated by doing something else instead. Also of course I haven't seen any evidence that what I felt was caused by anandamide, so will wait and see what research and studies have been done or will be done to investigate that.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

I would not describe it as the same experience. I think trying to simplify it the way you do misses the complexity of individual human thought, genetics, neurology, and emotions that make every situation different for each person in that situation.

It wasn't my intention to imply that the experiences were the same - how could I, they are your experiences. And you are of course right that the same people will experience greater or lesser expressions of the same broad feelings triggered by different activities and also the same activity at different times. And different people will have those experiences triggered by different event - so I largely hate running, but still do it sometimes - I've never felt that bliss type feeling when running, but I know others do and research has shown it to be linked to anandamide. I suspect I get that feeling quite often when cycling and certainly when singing (and I cycle to my choir rehearsal, so double hit!!). But of course other people might get nothing from singing, and I have times when I experience it more or less - typically less when I'm not 'in the zone' - in other words struggling to get the music right.

Another really interesting aspect of the effects of anandamide and other endocannabinoids is that they induce a feeling of connectedness.That may be one of the reasons why there is such a strong response with communal and harmony singing, because there is a real physical connectedness which is further reinforced by anandamide. But also this sense of connectedness may be perceived by someone engaging in a solo activity as the presence of something or someone.

So I have no evidence that the feelings from prayer could be replicated by doing something else instead. Also of course I haven't seen any evidence that what I felt was caused by anandamide, so will wait and see what research and studies have been done or will be done to investigate that.

Of course I cannot say for certain that the feelings you experience when you pray are due to heightened levels of anandamide, because I doubt you've had your levels measured in a study. However how you describe those feelings is textbook anandamide effect and there is research that shows that prayer raises anandamide levels, as does yoga, as does meditation, as does singing etc. So I think I would be pretty confident that were we to measure your anandamide levels during a prayer-induced experience as you describe it, then we'd find those levels to be raised.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It wasn't my intention to imply that the experiences were the same - how could I, they are your experiences. And you are of course right that the same people will experience greater or lesser expressions of the same broad feelings triggered by different activities and also the same activity at different times. And different people will have those experiences triggered by different event - so I largely hate running, but still do it sometimes - I've never felt that bliss type feeling when running, but I know others do and research has shown it to be linked to anandamide. I suspect I get that feeling quite often when cycling and certainly when singing (and I cycle to my choir rehearsal, so double hit!!). But of course other people might get nothing from singing, and I have times when I experience it more or less - typically less when I'm not 'in the zone' - in other words struggling to get the music right.

Another really interesting aspect of the effects of anandamide and other endocannabinoids is that they induce a feeling of connectedness.That may be one of the reasons why there is such a strong response with communal and harmony singing, because there is a real physical connectedness which is further reinforced by anandamide. But also this sense of connectedness may be perceived by someone engaging in a solo activity as the presence of something or someone.
Of course I cannot say for certain that the feelings you experience when you pray are due to heightened levels of anandamide, because I doubt you've had your levels measured in a study. However how you describe those feelings is textbook anandamide effect and there is research that shows that prayer raises anandamide levels, as does yoga, as does meditation, as does singing etc. So I think I would be pretty confident that were we to measure your anandamide levels during a prayer-induced experience as you describe it, then we'd find those levels to be raised.

I think this line of argument is akin to saying God makes Christians smile in pentecostal services and Mickey Mouse makes people smile. Therefore that undermines God.
Leaving the quality of the smile out of it, it is as argu.ents go fairly weak.

A more promising line of argument was the holy helmet. An electromagnetic device which could induce religious feelings.

You never hear of it now probably because it wasn't a productive line of enquiry. I do hope the electromagnetic helmet survives though as the "phrenology bust" of religious neuroscience.

[ekim]

Another really interesting aspect of the effects of anandamide and other endocannabinoids is that they induce a feeling of connectedness.That may be one of the reasons why there is such a strong response with communal and harmony singing, because there is a real physical connectedness which is further reinforced by anandamide. But also this sense of connectedness may be perceived by someone engaging in a solo activity as the presence of something or someone.

Is it the view that anadamide is a stimulus which causes a response of joy or does it suppress or break the connection with  all other distracting emotions and thoughts so that consciousness of an inner state of bliss is revealed?

I believe that some Eastern religions would describe these event as glimpses of what lies beyond and that the objective is to always be conscious of that state.  Within some schools of Hindu philosophy the term anandamaya kosha which represents that state as an inner sheath, which also has to be transcended.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I never throw abuse in the hope no one will notice.

I assume that’s some attempt at humour? Throwing abuse in the hope no-one will notice (that you’re thereby avoided the arguments that undo you) is exactly what you do. Over and over again in fact. Here for example in Reply 242 I took the time to explain reification to you.

“Close – it’s treating an “abstract thing” such as a belief about something as if the object of the belief had been shown to be real. That’s why you can no more ask people about their feelings about “god” than I can ask you about your feeling about leprechauns. (See also the idiocy of “goddodging”.)”

It’s a perfectly clear explanation, but rather than engage with it you thought is appropriate to reply with:

“That's just intellectual totalitarian wankfantasy on your part.” (Reply 247).

No reasoning, no argument, no content of any kind – just throw a misplaced insult and then run away. That’s your typical MO, so why even try to deny it?   

You cannot get away from treating God as an abstract, true for whoeveraffair.

Of course I can “get away with” that because it’s true. What’s more, it’ll remain true until and unless someone finally makes an argument to justify the claim of an objectively true god that isn’t false.   

…until God is proved to be so and until he is disproved, the accusation of reification is unsafe.

Why is it that, no matter how many times I and others school you on the burden of proof principle, you still get it wrong even now? The issue here is when you ask people how they feel “god”, accuse them of goddodging” etc you’re treating the claim “god” as concretised for them rather than just a subjective faith claim for you. When your audience don’t believe in your god (because we have no reason to do so) then we can no more have feelings about, dodge etc your god claim than you can have feelings about, dodge etc my faith claim about leprechauns.

This isn’t difficult to understand (or shouldn’t be) so you have no excuse for getting it so consistently wrong.

Oh, and as you’ve judiciously edited it out yet again: why still haven't you withdrawn and apologised for your assertion that I claimed something about materialism that I didn’t claim at all?

[Dicky Underpants]

I think this line of argument is akin to saying God makes Christians smile in pentecostal services and Mickey Mouse makes people smile. Therefore that undermines God.
Leaving the quality of the smile out of it, it is as argu.ents go fairly weak.

A more promising line of argument was the holy helmet. An electromagnetic device which could induce religious feelings.

You never hear of it now probably because it wasn't a productive line of enquiry. I do hope the electromagnetic helmet survives though as the "phrenology bust" of religious neuroscience.

You obviously haven't a clue what kind of feelings people get while singing.
Not much of a clue about the feelings other people get in different faith situations either. But, of course, your experience is 'better' than theirs, so it justifies your own faith position. Including, bizarrely, the intellectual gymnastics involved in the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You obviously haven't a clue what kind of feelings people get while singing.

I have been in several choirs. Are you claiming that your singing is a better road to experience than my singing?

Not much of a clue about the feelings other people get in different faith situations either. But, of course, your experience is 'better' than theirs,

I have not tried to odds anyone's religious experience on this forum unlike the many atheists

so it justifies your own faith position.

I know there are intense feelings to be had in other religions but for me it isn't a Great British ''feeling off''

in Including, bizarrely, the intellectual gymnastics involved in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Intellectual gymnastics aren't a feeling , that just makes the reader think you are chucking in the Kitchen sink. Besides the intellectual gymnastics involved cannot be as spectacular as the atheist cosmologist who has built a career on basically the principle of sufficient reason who is now trying to push the doctrine of Brute fact where the former does not help his atheist agenda but the latter does.

[Stranger]

Besides the intellectual gymnastics involved cannot be as spectacular as the atheist cosmologist who has built a career on basically the principle of sufficient reason who is now trying to push the doctrine of Brute fact where the former does not help his atheist agenda but the latter does.

You're both misrepresenting the situation and being a hypocrite.

Yet again: what is the sufficient reason for your proposed god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're both misrepresenting the situation and being a hypocrite.

Yet again: what is the sufficient reason for your proposed god?

Look this has already been answered several times. There is a necessary entity The necessary necessary entity is the answer to several questions
If the universe is contingent what is it contingent on?
If the universe is the necessary entity what is it which is necessary about it?(The necessary entity) 
How come there is something rather than nothing? There must be a sufficient explanation and this must be the final explanation and that explanation is the necessary entity. Whatever is the necessary entity, that is what we call God.
What are the properties of the necessary entity, It is not contingent, it is not conditioned by anything else, it is not dependent on anything else, it is self directing.

[Stranger]

Look this has already been answered several times.

No, it has not.

There is a necessary entity The necessary necessary entity is the answer to several questions
If the universe is contingent what is it contingent on?
If the universe is the necessary entity what is it which is necessary about it?(The necessary entity)
How come there is something rather than nothing? There must be a sufficient explanation and this must be the final explanation and that explanation is the necessary entity. Whatever is the necessary entity, that is what we call God.

Even ignoring the baseless assertions and ridiculous labelling as 'god' at the end, none of this tells us what the sufficient reason for this "necessary entity" is. And it certainly doesn't get us anywhere near answering why there is something rather than nothing.

Basically, you're applying the principle of sufficient reason until you get to what you want and then ignoring it, which is exactly what you keep on accusing others of doing.

You're using a brute fact, the "necessary entity", just as much as anybody else has suggested. It's like you think that just calling it 'necessary' magically gets you out of the the principle you keep on insisting every other possibility has to follow all the time.

It's hypocritical and laughable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look this has already been answered several times. There is a necessary entity The necessary necessary entity is the answer to several questions
If the universe is contingent what is it contingent on?
If the universe is the necessary entity what is it which is necessary about it?(The necessary entity)
How come there is something rather than nothing? There must be a sufficient explanation and this must be the final explanation and that explanation is the necessary entity. Whatever is the necessary entity, that is what we call God.
What are the properties of the necessary entity, It is not contingent, it is not conditioned by anything else, it is not dependent on anything else, it is self directing.

Are you not understanding the question or are you deliberately avoiding it?

It’s simple enough: if you assert there to be a necessary entity for the universe that isn’t the universe itself, how is it then that the necessary entity you’ve inserted (“god”) doesn’t itself require a necessary entity?

We know already that this is the point you resort to “it’s magic innit” (or the theological euphemism for the same thing: “mystery”) but the price you pay for that is that you’ve merely relocated the same question and answered nothing.

Tell you what – I’ll simplify the question even further for you to just two words: why god?

Do you get it now?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it has not.

Even ignoring the baseless assertions and ridiculous labelling as 'god' at the end, none of this tells us what the sufficient reason for this "necessary entity" is. And it certainly doesn't get us anywhere near answering why there is something rather than nothing.

Basically, you're applying the principle of sufficient reason until you get to what you want and then ignoring it, which is exactly what you keep on accusing others of doing.

You're using a brute fact, the "necessary entity", just as much as anybody else has suggested. It's like you think that just calling it 'necessary' magically gets you out of the the principle you keep on insisting every other possibility has to follow all the time.

It's hypocritical and laughable.

I'm not using Brute fact. The reason or explanation for why something rather than nothing is the final reason as it were there can in effect be no further question or entity since the next step is zilch which has never answered anything.

You see the necessary being has sufficient reason.

Brute fact as exemplified by Bertrand Russell's 'solution' is ''this being exists and there's an end to it''. So Russell and his admirers Dawkins and Carroll are the ones who want the principle until it doesn't suit them and you are guilty of trying to disprove the principle by claiming there is insufficient reason for it. I have stated why it is the necessary entity and that supplies sufficient reason.

We call it God because it is the origin of everything, it is not contingent that is it is not dependent on or conditioned by anything else and it is totally self directing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not using Brute fact.

Yes you are - you're asserting "god" to be a brute fact. 

Once again: why god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Are you not understanding the question or are you deliberately avoiding it?

It’s simple enough: if you assert there to be a necessary entity for the universe that isn’t the universe itself, how is it then that the necessary entity you’ve inserted (“god”) doesn’t itself require a necessary entity?

The universe or the part we observe plus the rest of the universe I think you hope to be there if it is there is going to be contingent unless we find something that is the necessary entity. Now, 
that entity is necessary for the universe but it is not dependent on the universe or conditioned by the universe. In other words it is not contingent on nature. If you then say that this entity is dependent on nature then you just extend nature back so we have to ask why nature is the necessary entity (which would require a sufficient reason) or if it is itself contingent to which we must ask ''on what?''

We know already that this is the point you resort to “it’s magic innit” (or the theological euphemism for the same thing: “mystery”)

I don't.... I resort to the final question as it were ''How come there is something rather than nothing'' That will have a sufficient reason which will be the final reason and so we have arrived at the necessary entity

but the price you pay for that is that you’ve merely relocated the same question and answered nothing.

No, that is anybody who relies on either Brute fact or infinite regress.
You see we have arrived at the necessary entity and as Aquinus finishes off ''and that is what we call God''. No insertion there and no brute fact because we have arrived at something which has sufficient reason. 

[Stranger]

I'm not using Brute fact. The reason or explanation for why something rather than nothing is the final reason as it were there can in effect be no further question or entity since the next step is zilch which has never answered anything.

Which just makes it a brute fact.

You see the necessary being has sufficient reason.

So what is the sufficient reason?

I have stated why it is the necessary entity and that supplies sufficient reason.

You have not stated why it is necessary - or even how that is logically possible in that sense - and neither have you given a sufficient reason for its existence.