Update and Open Thread
I can’t believe there are still people showing up here. Your tenacious dedication to the site is appreciated. The move date is now less than two weeks away. I would guess that I’ll be posting again by the first week of June. In the mean time, talk amongst yourselves.
~I AM~
May 5th, 2006 at at 9:24 am
You’re a tease.
May 5th, 2006 at at 9:31 am
Good luck with the move. Can’t wait for the calendar. Have you thought about any other series, maybe an “Apocrypal a week” kind of thing…or probably something better than that.
May 5th, 2006 at at 10:05 am
You don’t fool me. I know you are really holding out for more money in your film deal.
May 5th, 2006 at at 1:05 pm
Well, I’ve always liked this site, that’s why I keep coming back. It’ll be all good when you have the time to post again.
So if we are to talk amongst ourselves, I think I’ll suggest a topic.
Assuming all supernatural religion is false, does the fact that an argument or belief, is at its core, based upon a supernatural religion make that belief false or worthless? Is there some value to religiously based moral arguments, even though they are based on a (by hypothesis) false religion?
Just some food for thought.
And now I’m going to go back and study for finals. Because it’s oh so much fun.
May 5th, 2006 at at 2:56 pm
Skinny,
Short answer no. Long answer: Finding a single flaw in a scientific theory doesn’t invalidate the entire theory. The inverse is equally true, finding a basically bogus system of belief doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain valid information. For example, at least 5 of the 10 commandments are well worth living by. It doesn’t matter that a sky fairy used his magic power to put them on a rock for an old man. Since all fiction is ultimately a reflection of some aspect of life, religious texts are too.
Of course, I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
May 5th, 2006 at at 4:36 pm
So maybe people can believe things that are true, even though the *reason* they believe in that thing is false? It would be like an unjustified true belief, for those epistomologists (sp?) out there.
That makes sense. The reasons people believe things do not have the effect of making those things false. If I believe the world is round *because* a flying green monkey told me so in a dream, the fact that that is an insane reason to believe something does not mean the world is *not* round. So if I believe that “killing is wrong” *because* God said so in the Bible, that may be a stupid reason to believe something, but that does not mean that killing is not wrong.
But what about more ambigious moral statements, such as “gays should not marry because (A) marriage is between a man and a woman, because God said so and (B) moreover, God hates gays, so we shouldn’t give them special treatment or rights.”
Just about everyone thinks murder is wrong, religious or irreligious. There are reasons *independant of* religion that make murder wrong. That is why the fact that people believe murder is wrong for false reasons does not make murder wrong. But there is not as much agreement on whether gays should marry. Are there reasons *independant of* religion that make gay marriage wrong?
Myself, I think that the *only* reason you would be against gay marriage is a religious reason. I can’t think of any non religious moral system that would have a problem with gays marrying. Maybe I just haven’t thought about it hard enough. If you can think of some Kantian or Utilitarian (or other) reason gays shouldn’t marry, let me know. I would be curious to hear your argument.
But if there are no good reasons *independant of* religion for gay marriage to be wrong, then the only reason gay marriage would be wrong would be because of religious reasons. Since all (supernatural) religions are false then all reasons gays shouldn’t marry are false.
To forestall any institutional arguments, I am concerned here only with arguments against gay marriage in principle. There are valid, institutional reasons to disagree with gay marriage being legal because Supreme Court of State X said so. You may not like judges having that power, whether you think gays should marry or not. My bottom line is I don’t think there are any non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage *in principle*. Or if you don’t like the idea of gay marriage, just replace everything above dealing with gay marriage with “against gays in general.”
May 5th, 2006 at at 11:56 pm
skinnydwarf, I totally agree with you. I was just discussing morality (and how personal choices that do not affect others cannot be considered immoral if you take religion out of the argument) on my new blog.
May 6th, 2006 at at 1:23 am
Skinny,
I have met atheists that have argued that marriage is an important pillar of society that contributes to stability and maintenance of the human species. These people maintian that the reason marriage is important is because the human race is produced, nurtured and socialised to function succesfully in their society by their family unit. As you would be aware children of sole parents can become disadvantaged if a parent is struggling on their own to care for them and provide an income for their existence, not to mention not having the role model of the absent parent to guide them. Therefore it is reasoned to give humans the best possible nurturing, role models, socialisation and financial support to grow to successful adulthood and maintain the human race and the stability of the human race to standards of civilised human society there must be a committed relationship to raise and produce children, this is called marriage. Of a necessity marriage is a heterosexual relationship because gay relationships cannot produce children. It is thought that if the marriage relationship was open to groups other than heterosexual couples likely to produce and nurture children in family units, it would lose it’s special cultural purpose of providing a stable committed relationship that produces and nurtures the human species according to principles of a civilised society. I think it is a pretty fair argument really we all grew up in family units, and we have all seen the hurt and destruction that children sometimes suffer if there is a breakdown of the primary heterosexual relationship and family unit and the affect that has on the next generation and society as a whole. Though not perfect, marriage is an institution of society that is designed to contribute to the stability and continuity of the human species, by necessity therefore it must be heterosexual to work and keep the high status of it’s principles of civilisation in order to benefit the human race.
May 6th, 2006 at at 3:23 pm
Skinny,
i don’t think there is a value in any false belief, unless you are weak minded and it is the only thing that you can understand that keeps you sane.
But for anybody who is capable of higher thought, it is essential that we don’t follow any belief without critically thinking about it, That has a value all it’s own. i don’t believe anything I hear any more, with out critically thinking about it. Damn near all of the information that hits my ears in a day is coming out of the mouth of some moron. Blah balahbalah, all day.
I would quickly be lulled into a braindead state of mental ennui. Jesus hates gays….yeah that sounds right, If you smoke pot your little brother will die…..yeah that sounds right. George Bush is protecting us….yeah uh huh. Sure, why not.
Question everything, Reject everything that doesn’t add up, then your foundations will be strong, aloowing further intelletual developement. If you leave so misfit delusion in there, you’ll only be able to get so far.
May 7th, 2006 at at 7:10 pm
Assuming all supernatural religion is false, does the fact that an argument or belief, is at its core, based upon a supernatural religion make that belief false or worthless? Is there some value to religiously based moral arguments, even though they are based on a (by hypothesis) false religion?
In my view, there is as much value to religiously based moral arguments as there is to secular based moral arguments – that is to say, none. Yes, I’m a moral relativist. I think morality as a word is only coherent in the context of “to me.” So, if there are 6 billion people on the planet, there are 6 billion different moral codes, all equally correct (or incorrect).
In my view, nothing at all intrinsically is right or wrong. It’s all a matter of opinion. And, of course, I have some very strong moral opinions; but, I never fail to recognize that they are only opinions and not facts.
May 7th, 2006 at at 8:34 pm
Frances:
Yeah, I worry about the problem of moral realism myself. I don’t think there is any morality outside of human experience; there is nothing out there in the world we can use to tell what is right and wrong.
It’s a hard problem. Some people think that the choices society makes are what determines what is right and wrong, and morality is defined as laws & social mores. Putting aside the problems of defining “society” (is your town society? your state? the USA? Western Civilization?) and what it thinks is right and wrong, the previous statement is itself a moral statement. To evaluate this statement, and whether it was right or wrong, would you look at society? You see the problem with defining morality. You can come up with a moral system, but then if you ask “Is this the right system?” you run in circles.
I generally follow utilitarian ethics. I think government should be guided by Utilitarian principles, but individual people should follow a set rules.
Because you cannot weigh all the consequences of your actions every time you make a decision, people should follow rules that generally increase utility. Every act that follows these rules may not, by itself, be the perfect utilitarian thing to do, but in the aggregrate a society of people who do the right thing most of the time is better than a society where noone does anything because they cannot figure out if what they are doing is the right thing or not.
But I don’t think Utilitarianism is the true moral code. I think there *should* be a moral code, because I think the world would be better with one than without one, and I think it should be Utilitarianism. But that is a moral idea, so it really gets us nowhere.
If this post does not make any sense, it is because I (like many people way smarter than me) haven’t been able to solve the problem of moral realism. If a god existed to tell us what the right thing to do was, it sure would simplify things. Of course, no gods exist, and even if they did, we would still have the Euthyphro problem.
May 9th, 2006 at at 8:20 am
Hey folks,
If we’re talking moral relativism, we’re talking nonsense. There is a difference between difficulty in coming up with a morally sound decision, and the actual moral involved. In other words, morality sometimes seems to be relative, but only because of lack of information, or because we fail to think things through to it’s core. Just my thought.
May 9th, 2006 at at 9:11 am
Hey folks,
If we’re talking moral relativism, we’re talking nonsense. There is a difference between difficulty in coming up with a morally sound decision, and the actual moral involved. In other words, morality sometimes seems to be relative, but only because of lack of information, or because we fail to think things through to it’s core. Just my thought.
No, you are talking nonsense. Each person’s morality is relative. That’s why you have Christians who are against abortion and for abortion. Who are against the death penalty and for the death penalty. It’s all relative. Christian just all use the same book (more or less) to justify their decision, but it’s still relative.
May 9th, 2006 at at 10:52 am
Severalspeciesof:
Do you think there are moral laws that can be discovered, that exist in nature? How would we discover them? Or do you believe in a supernatural religion, where God tells you what morality is? Where, exactly, does morality come from?
There are several places morality could come from:
God. God does not exist, so that is out.
Some higher plane of existance, or the world of the Forms. None of these exist, so that is out.
Nature. Show me how you would discover moral laws through empiricism.
Yourself. Morality just becomes the definition of subjective at this point, and the whole point of morality is that there are standards that you *and other people* are supposed to follow. So I don’t think this is the solution.
Society. However, different societies think different things are moral/immoral, so there is reason to believe they are not all working from single standard (otherwise you would expect more congruence between what some societies think is moral/immoral), so there might not be one. At best, you will be able to find a few moral standards that all societies agree on, but they are going to be very limited. Even simple standards everyone here probably agrees on, like “murder is wrong” will not be totally supported. Sure, most societies think murder is wrong, but some think it is just fine, depending on who you are killing. Infidels, unbelievers, different races, you name it and some society thinks its ok to kill them. Before you say “but we can tell which standards are the right ones, those societies are just *wrong* about what is moral,” note that you are making a moral judgment. What is your moral judgment based on? If you say society, you are running in circles, because we were trying to figure out what was universal about morality across societies. It is hard to see how society can be the grounding of moral values.
Grounding morality is society is probably the best bet though, if only because all the other options are so bad. However, what morality is at that point becomes very subjective, just not as subjective as grounding morality in individual values. This is because, as noted above, societies disagree. Is homosexuality evil? Not in every society, so is it really evil? Should people be free to choose their religion, or should the state impose it on them? Societies differ on which of these is right. I think people should be free to choose religion or not religion, I think that is the right thing to do, but not every society agrees with me. What am I going to use, above society, to show that I am right? All the supernatural options are out, and I have a hard time believing morality can be found out there in the world, in nature.
And note that grounding morality in society means that *morality does not exist outside of human experience*. This has the effect of meaning that there cannot be any timeless moral codes. Sure, some moral codes have *lasted* a long time, like “murder of people like us is wrong,” but presumably all societies could change their mind, and then that moral rule would change.
Anyone have any other suggestions of where morality could come from, or where my analysis is wrong?
Just some food for thought.
May 9th, 2006 at at 11:58 am
In a discussion of morality, the only absolute, is that everyone believes that their view of morality is absolutely right, and those that differ are absolutely wrong.
May 9th, 2006 at at 1:09 pm
In a discussion of morality, the only absolute, is that everyone believes that their view of morality is absolutely right, and those that differ are absolutely wrong.
While you may have just been making a joke, if you were not, I think you are wrong. While your statement is probably true in most cases, I don’t think it is true in all cases. There are plenty of people who don’t claim to have the true answer to morality.
Although, maybe you could say that those who claim there *is not* a true answer are asserting that they are absolutely right, and anyone who thinks that there *is* a true answer is absolutely wrong.
May 9th, 2006 at at 1:10 pm
My bad. That last post was mine, but I wasn’t thinking and put LBBP in the “name” field. I’m going to blame my craziness on finals.
May 9th, 2006 at at 5:04 pm
Although, maybe you could say that those who claim there *is not* a true answer are asserting that they are absolutely right, and anyone who thinks that there *is* a true answer is absolutely wrong.
That is essentially what I mean. No matter what your conviction on absolute versus relative morality, there will always be someone else that disagrees with you, even if your opinion is that this is an unknowable subject.
May 9th, 2006 at at 5:35 pm
Social scientist,
I’m sorry for not replying to you earlier, I did not see your post until today. I’m not sure why. I’m going to blame that on finals, too.
You make a good point, but I would reply that gay marriage would not stop heterosexuals from marrying. And, while marriage is often a basis for procreation, it is not always. Marriage is partly a public affirmation of a couples love for one another, and partly a property transfer. In many societies today, and in Western society in the past, marriage was largely looked at as an economic or diplomatic alliance.
So if marriage is *not* primarily about procreation, why should we deny it to those who cannot procreate? It will not stop heterosexuals from marrying, so society will not collapse. It is not totally tied to procreation, as history and the thousands of marriages w/o kids will tell you. I contend that allowing gays to marry does not really devalue heterosexual marriage anymore than other non-procreative marriages do. If marriage is really about procreation, should we not allow those who are sterile from marrying, or should we ask if people intend to have children before they get married?
As to your argument about it being best for the children to deny gays the right to marry, the social science does not support the idea that children who grow up w/gay parents are any worse off than children who grow up w/straight parents. In fact, many children of gay parents may be better off than some children of heterosexual parents- by necessity they will almost always be children the parents wanted to have.
May 9th, 2006 at at 6:54 pm
Yeah, I worry about the problem of moral realism myself. I don’t think there is any morality outside of human experience; there is nothing out there in the world we can use to tell what is right and wrong.
It’s a hard problem. Some people think that the choices society makes are what determines what is right and wrong, and morality is defined as laws & social mores. Putting aside the problems of defining “society” (is your town society? your state? the USA? Western Civilization?) and what it thinks is right and wrong, the previous statement is itself a moral statement. To evaluate this statement, and whether it was right or wrong, would you look at society? You see the problem with defining morality. You can come up with a moral system, but then if you ask “Is this the right system?” you run in circles.
I generally follow utilitarian ethics. I think government should be guided by Utilitarian principles, but individual people should follow a set rules.
Because you cannot weigh all the consequences of your actions every time you make a decision, people should follow rules that generally increase utility. Every act that follows these rules may not, by itself, be the perfect utilitarian thing to do, but in the aggregrate a society of people who do the right thing most of the time is better than a society where noone does anything because they cannot figure out if what they are doing is the right thing or not.
But I don’t think Utilitarianism is the true moral code. I think there *should* be a moral code, because I think the world would be better with one than without one, and I think it should be Utilitarianism. But that is a moral idea, so it really gets us nowhere.
If this post does not make any sense, it is because I (like many people way smarter than me) haven’t been able to solve the problem of moral realism. If a god existed to tell us what the right thing to do was, it sure would simplify things. Of course, no gods exist, and even if they did, we would still have the Euthyphro problem.
Rather than utilitarianism, I embrace an individualist moral code. Moral things are those that fulfill my values, while immoral things are those that take me away from my values. Moreover, since I only own myself (not other people), it is also immoral for me to interfere in anybody else’s pursuit of value fulfillment. Basically, I consider morality to be linked with individual value fulfillment.
But, that’s not a “correct” moral code. Someone could also say morality has to do with how an individual’s behaviors affect society at large. Or, someone could say morality has to do with how an individual’s behaviors affect the environment. All three are equally plausible, since there is no hard evidence from which to work.
Morality is defined on a person-by-person basis, and every definition is equally correct (or incorrect). In that sense, morality is wholly relative, except in the context of “To Me.”
May 10th, 2006 at at 9:36 am
“Morality is defined on a person-by-person basis, and every definition is equally correct (or incorrect). In that sense, morality is wholly relative, except in the context of “To Me.””
What’s This? Morality is NOT defined on a person-by-person basis AND is equally correct or incorrect. If that were the case, then on what basis would you defend this statement: “Murder is perfectly acceptable at all times” …if the person expressing that statement actually believed it? How could EVERY definition be equally correct or incorrect?
Is slavery wrong or right? If a person believes that slavery is good, is that person morally correct?
May 10th, 2006 at at 12:59 pm
To build upon what Severalspecisof was saying:
Frances said that: “Morality is defined on a person-by-person basis, and every definition is equally correct (or incorrect). In that sense, morality is wholly relative, except in the context of “To Me.””
People are going to disagree about morality means, someone will think “X is right” and someone else will think “Not X is right.” These cannot both be true, unless you think that there are different moralities for different people, all of which are legitimate.
This is not an insane position, but it is different from what people usually use the term “morality” to mean. People use morality to mean that people cannot just do what they think is right and have it be right. People want to use morality to guide their own behavior *and the behavior of others*.
If you define morality to mean “whatever someone thinks is right for me,” you are not using the word the way others use it. You are basically coming from a completely different set of assumptions about morality than most people. How do you defend those assumptions? I am not trying to attack you, I am not saying “how can you possibly defend those assupmptions, they are evil.” I am truly asking why you think those assumptions are justified.
May 10th, 2006 at at 6:41 pm
What’s This? Morality is NOT defined on a person-by-person basis AND is equally correct or incorrect. If that were the case, then on what basis would you defend this statement: “Murder is perfectly acceptable at all times” …if the person expressing that statement actually believed it? How could EVERY definition be equally correct or incorrect?
Is slavery wrong or right? If a person believes that slavery is good, is that person morally correct?
“Morality” is only coherent in the context of “to me.” Some examples:
To me, murder is immoral.
To me, slavery is moral.
To me, kidnapping is immoral.
To me, theft is moral.
All of these statements are equally correct (or incorrect) because there is no way to measure, gauge, test or quantify morality. There isn’t even a coherent universal definition.
Morality deals with the consequences of an individual’s behaviors…in the context of what? That individual? Society? The environment? If morality deals with how an individual’s behaviors affect the environment, then murder could be conceived as morally acceptable so long as the body was used to fertilize a plant.
“Morality” makes no more sense than “spirituality.”
May 10th, 2006 at at 8:11 pm
To me, murder is immoral.
To me, slavery is moral.
To me, kidnapping is immoral.
To me, theft is moral.
All of these statements are equally correct (or incorrect) because there is no way to measure, gauge, test or quantify morality.
If there is no way to measure, gauge….etc. then morality doesn’t exist, everything then becomes amoral or without value. Are you saying that you value nothing?
May 10th, 2006 at at 8:15 pm
Severalspeciesof,
You’re missing the point. Frances is saying that he does value things, but the things he value is relative. What’s so hard to understand?
May 11th, 2006 at at 12:30 am
I just wanted to drop a quick note about a new blog that has just opened up called… Out of Christianity. It is a community that is inviting anyone that is coming or has come Out of Christianity to share there story and engage in discussion of their journey.
We were once not only Christians, but youth pastors, evangelists, nuns, and music ministers, yet we’ve left the Christian faith.
In order to create a ’safe’ environment that is free from the evangelism that we used to engage in ourselves, we’re asking that Christians respect this forum as being off limits to try and ’save’ those of us that have already been set free. It didn’t take long for this request to be violated by the ambitious Christians who were out to rescue the backsliders
, so we’re moderating all comments.
You can read ‘Your Invitation’ to catch the vision of what our purpose is and read some of our stories.
Thanks.
Aaron
May 12th, 2006 at at 8:49 am
Let me start over.
If , by what one means ‘relative morality’ means that, given the EXACT SAME condition(s) one person can say something is wrong (immoral) and another person says it is right (moral) and no one then can call either of them to task because each persons’ morals are relative because of culture, society, whatever… IT JUST AIN”T SO. They both can’t be correct.
Example: I see someone wearing the color red. I hate the color red. I despise it. I get livid, outraged, etc. etc. I do so because it’s against my religion. And my religion says I need to do something about it (what that something is isn’t clear, too many contradictions, yada yada…) I shoot and kill that person.
Is it right or wrong to do so?
If moral relativism means that there is no clearcut answer….please explain how that can be?
May 12th, 2006 at at 1:04 pm
Severalspeciesof,
Here’s a real world example:
Hindu’s believe that cows are sacred. They view it as morally reprehensible that you eat hamburgers. Does that mean you are wrong to eat a hamburger? Does it mean that Hindus are wrong for not eating hamburgers?
May 12th, 2006 at at 2:21 pm
The kind of morality where everyone’s morality is “right,” only makes sense if you use morality in a way that most people do not use the word. Because your definitions of the word “morality” are so at odds with each other, you are almost talking about two different subjects.
Those who view morality as a single guide for *everyone* to behave (a universal morality) talk about one subject. There are others who deny that that a universal morality exists, and simply think that the only true morality is that there is no universal morality are talking about a different subject.
Thoughts?
Speaking of different subjects, I just finished my last final, so I’m done my first year of law school. Woot!
May 12th, 2006 at at 2:30 pm
Frances,
You said above that “‘Morality’ makes no more sense than “spirituality.’” Are you saying that objective morality does not exist, and that is why you think it is individual?
I can understand why you might think objective morality does not exist, I happen to agree- I do not think there is an objective morality. That is what I mean about there being no morality outside of human experience. Thinking that morality is individual is not an insane position. As I said above, the best bet for a grounding of morality is probably society, but that is pretty subjective itself because there is little agreement on morality across societies. It makes sense to fall back on an individual morality, to avoid this subjectivity problem. I don’t think that is the right answer *because* it is so at odds with what morality, as most people use the word, is supposed to mean. I think we should try and match the meaning most people give to the word. Ater all there is no form of the word morality that exists out there in formworld- it’s just another word, which means whatever meaning people give to it.
May 14th, 2006 at at 5:25 am
Morality is such a wierd and complex thing, its variables make it, at best, nebulous. Is a certain ‘loose’ morality nothing more than a social meme, that keeps the group functional? Maybe better definitions would be ’subjective’ and ‘contextual’ morality. For instance, killing another person is wrong. Yes? Agree? But what if that person was trying to kill you? Still correct? Theft is wrong. Yeah? Even robbing the robbers to give to those who really need it? Hmmm…
Here’s a real life example. I’m an antiques dealer. Recently I came across a valuable item going very cheap in a charity shop. I bought it, and sold it, using the proceeds to run urgent repairs on the family car. My SIL, a born again Kristian, finds it morally uncomfortable that I did this. She believes that instead of going around buying these things, I should tell the shops the true value, and that I’m ripping them off. Yet, selling junk is how I make a meagre living, and it’s taken 15 years of study and experience for me to aquire the knowledge to do this. She helps at Sunday school in her church, yet I consider indoctrinating small children tantamount to abuse, especially as she is denying them the secular upbringing and adult choices that she enjoyed herself. I consider this utterly poisonous. But… Which of us is right? Her, me, both, or niether?
Hmmmm….
May 14th, 2006 at at 5:19 pm
Frances,
You said above that “‘Morality’ makes no more sense than “spirituality.’” Are you saying that objective morality does not exist, and that is why you think it is individual?
I can understand why you might think objective morality does not exist, I happen to agree- I do not think there is an objective morality. That is what I mean about there being no morality outside of human experience. Thinking that morality is individual is not an insane position. As I said above, the best bet for a grounding of morality is probably society, but that is pretty subjective itself because there is little agreement on morality across societies. It makes sense to fall back on an individual morality, to avoid this subjectivity problem. I don’t think that is the right answer *because* it is so at odds with what morality, as most people use the word, is supposed to mean. I think we should try and match the meaning most people give to the word. Ater all there is no form of the word morality that exists out there in formworld- it’s just another word, which means whatever meaning people give to it.
Yes, I think objective morality does not exist. I think morality is strictly a matter of opinion. “Morality” is much too gooey a term to be objective. After all, morality cannot be measured, tested, gauged or quantified. It’s an utterly unscientific term.
May 15th, 2006 at at 8:11 am
Hindu’s believe that cows are sacred. They view it as morally reprehensible that you eat hamburgers. Does that mean you are wrong to eat a hamburger? Does it mean that Hindus are wrong for not eating hamburgers?
Here lies the problem…
In the above example there are at least two levels going on. First level: Cows are sacred. I know this to be false (prove to me otherwise if you object: sacredness is a positive position) This fact, that cows are not sacred, makes eating of hamburgers NOT morally reprehensible, for the specific reason of sacredness.
Second level: Hindus can still choose not to eat hamburgers, but not for sacred reasons. The morality lies not in the specific act of eating, but the context behind the act of eating (or not eating).
May 15th, 2006 at at 8:13 am
Carl Rove indicted!
May 15th, 2006 at at 6:26 pm
I Am, can you get rid of my last comment.
May 17th, 2006 at at 12:29 pm
Hi,
I’m a Christian and I have a comment about atheism.
There have always been three people: the scientist, the artist and the priest. To excel in any of these fields requires aptitude in that area. A painter may have an exceptional artistic aptitude which allows him to pain masterpieces but he may have a very low mathematical and logical aptitude. No matter how hard the scientist tries to explain the theory of relativity to the artist, he doesn’t understand it. Now if the artist is extremely arrogant he may insist that what the scientist is telling him is nonsense because he doesn’t want to accept that he has a very low scientific aptitude. In the same way, no matter how hard the artist tries to teach the scientist to paint he may never be able to paint anything inspiring or decent because the scientist may have a very low artistic aptitude. If the scientist is arrogant he may insist that art is nonsense. And finally, the priest may try his best to explain to the scientist or artist about spiritual matters but if they are lacking in spiritual aptitude then they may insist it is nonsense. The same is true of a priest who thinks science or art are nonsense.
Mankind is intellectual, emotional and spiritual. There is no denying these three aspects of man. All of human history shows the existence of doctors, poets, and spiritual guides. And it has always been the case that those who excel in one area tend to deny the importance of the others. The scientist tends to believe that intellect is all important. The artist tends to believe that emotion is all important. The priest tends to believe that the spirit is all important. It’s just human nature to want to believe that what you are good at makes you special and important.
You will find that most atheists are very intelligent intellectuals. Many atheists are very proud that a great number of scientists are atheist or agnostic. They believe that it’s because they are so much more intelligent than the ordinary person that they have been able to realize that this idea of God is nonsense.
But maybe there is another explanation. Maybe highly intellectual people tend to have very low emotional and spiritual aptitudes. It’s commonly known that intellectuals tend to be more socially awkward and underdeveloped (nerds). An intellectual may understand quantum mechanics yet not understand very basic social rules that almost everyone understands. Why is that?
I think you and many atheists are very intelligent, logical and rational. However, I also think that you have an extremely underdeveloped spiritual aptitude. I’m sure you will say that spiritual aptitude is nonsense. Atheism is and has always been a small minority of the population. And the reason atheism is unpopular is not because the majority of people are stupid. Maybe it’s because the atheist minority are people who fall in the low end of the spiritual aptitude bell curve.
Most people look up at the night sky and are filled with awe and know in their inner most being that there is a God. The atheist does not.
Maybe it’s because you are so smart that you understand what most people cannot. Or maybe it’s because you’re so spiritually dumb that you can’t understand what comes easily to most people.
The crux of the issue is that most people don’t and will never believe that this universe of flowers, sunsets, laughter, and beauty are byproducts of unintentional accidental mindless random processes. Is it because you’re so smart that you believe this or is it because you’re so “dumb?” I leave that up to you to ponder.
May 17th, 2006 at at 12:43 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste,
sweeping generalities like the ones you’ve made: “…There have always been three people: the scientist, the artist and the priest…” fail to encapulate the artistic atheists, the scientific spiritualist, and the spiritual atheist.
Being an atheist means one thing: you believe that god does not exist. Period. Being an atheist does not preclude one from being “spiritual”. It doesn’t mean that your “spiritual aptitude” is low. Those statements are patently false, unless you solely base spiritual aptitude on belief in god. To which I would ask, which god(s) do I need to believe in in order to qualify for average to high spiritual aptitude.
May 17th, 2006 at at 12:47 pm
The crux of the issue is that most people don’t and will never believe that this universe of flowers, sunsets, laughter, and beauty are byproducts of unintentional accidental mindless random processes. Is it because you’re so smart that you believe this or is it because you’re so “dumb?” I leave that up to you to ponder.
Oh puhleeze. To quote our friend, Big Heathen Mike, this is also the universe of:
May 17th, 2006 at at 1:07 pm
The artist can make items of beauty to enrich our environment. The scientist makes discoveries, that can lead to inventions, that make our lives easier. The priest asks for money, lives off the gullibility of the masses, and tells them how to live their lives, all the while, threatening them with purgatory if they don’t obey. Sure, many priests earn their keep as emotional counselors or administrators. But ultimately, the act of preaching produces nothing but guilt or self importance.
If I’m dumb in “spirituality”, well at least that means I have an aptitude for something that actually produces something. If your curious I would describe myself as an artist that wants to be a scientist, but lacks the patience.
May 17th, 2006 at at 1:11 pm
Oh, and what about everybody else? The factory worker, the mechanic, the nurse, the executive, the administrator, the secretary, the fire fighter, the cop, the garbage collector, the race car driver, the construction worker….
May 17th, 2006 at at 2:12 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste on May 17, 2006 at 12:29 pm said:
There have always been three people: the scientist, the artist and the priest.
This is nonsense, and has no place in an intellectual argument. You are grouping all humans into three broad groups, which don’t even exist, and trying to draw conclusions from that. Your starting point is erroneous (the idea that there are three types of people), and therefore your conclusions are erroneous. There is more to man than intellect, emotion and “spirit,” whatever that is. Sure, there may have always been artists, scientists and priests, but neither is necessary to mankind. I can imagine a world with none of these, or only some. They are not necessary for mankind to exist.
Man is an animal, a biological being developed by evolutionary processes. It is not necessary for man to be any of these three things.
It sounds nice to make statements like the one above, but they are meaningless. I understand what you are getting it, but it just isn’t anything close to a real argument.
Lory Jean-Baptiste said:
Mankind is intellectual, emotional and spiritual. There is no denying these three aspects of man. All of human history shows the existence of doctors, poets, and spiritual guides.
I am denying it right now. I deny that man is necessarily a spiritual being. I am not spiritual, and neither are millions of others. We are still human. Spirituality is a contingent property of man, not a necessary one. Imagine a man who is not spiritual (no doubt such people exist), he is still a man. Therefore spirituality is not a necessary property of man. The fact that there are billions of spiritual people does not mean that man is necessarily spiritual. It just means that those billions choose to be spiritual. If they were not, they would still be human. Or do you think that those who are not spiritual are not human?
I deny man is necessarily a scientific being. There were people before science. I deny that man is necessarily an artistic being. Sure, art goes back millenia- but art is not necessary for man.
The fact that man has an intellect is responsible for these three aspects of man. These three aspects of man are not necessary for man to exist, however.
Lory Jean-Baptiste said:
And it has always been the case that those who excel in one area tend to deny the importance of the others. The scientist tends to believe that intellect is all important. The artist tends to believe that emotion is all important. The priest tends to believe that the spirit is all important. It’s just human nature to want to believe that what you are good at makes you special and important.
Again, you are grouping all people into three arbitrary groups. What evidence do you have, besides your assertion that there are only three types of people, that these are the only types of people? That all people fall under these types? That these types even exist? Sure, there are scientists, priests & artists which exhibit some of the qualities you assert here. But they have other qualities as well. There is no such thing as a pure scientist, or artist, or priest. These concepts do not exist. There are only people.
Your argument falls apart, because your starting point is so erroneous. It is simply not true that there are only three types of people, or that man has three necessary qualities. The necessary qualities of man are those that define him as a species, and science art and spirituality are not the defining marks of man as a species. Perhaps brain capacity is one of them, and that is what gives rise to the potential for science, art & religion. So it may be that man will always have these qualities. But you can have brain capacity with neither of these things.
If noone ever thought of the concept of “god,” then there would be no spirituality. That is unlikely, the brain capacity of man leads him to explore and ask for explanations for the phenomena around him. The earliest explanations were spiritual ones. But man has learned more since then, he has come up with better explanations- scientific ones. The scientific explanations are superior because they are more internally consistent, and can be tested.
These scientific explanations have been tested, and many have withstood very rigorous testing. Science can predict what will happen in the future – if a theory successfully predicts the future, there is strong reason to believe that theory is at least close to the truth.
I believe that the only thing which exists is the physical world. The absolute best way to learn about the physical world is science. No other method of investigation has produced as good results. When is the last time religion led to a technological revolution? Did religion put a man on the moon? I am not denying that many of the greatest scientists have also been religious- but it was the scientific method of gathering empirical evidence and testing theories which led to their discoveries, not religion.
I can sit in my room and pray all I want, do all the religious ceremonies I can, but it will tell me nothing about the world outside that room, or what is inside my head. If I want to learn about the physical world (the only thing that exists) I should turn to science, not religion. Science will give me answers about the physical world, religion will just tell me what others have thought, or what I think about a nonexistant being.
Lory Jean-Baptiste, I know you think you are making a good argument. But your grouping of man into three groups simply does not make sense. Everything which follows from that (your ideas about a spiritual capacity lacking in atheists, for instance) has no basis. If it were true that there were three types of people, then your ideas might make sense. But I have shown, I think, that there is at least strong reason to doubt that these three types are necessary for man.
Just try and imagine a world without spirituality. I know that might be a depressing world- but it is a possible one. I can imagine a world where there are no priests, and no spirituality in man. Lots of people in that world might be very depressed, because they have no afterlife to look forward to. But the people would still be people.
You yourself probably know some people who are not spiritual. There are people who believe that only the physical world exists, that there is no god and there are no spiritual beings, that science is the only way to learn about the physical world. Imagine a world populated with these people. It is not impossible. Therefore, spirituality is not a necessary part of man. Spirituality is not a necessary part of any single man, therefore it cannot be necessary for humanity as a whole.
What makes man man are his physical characteristics, those biological characteristics that make him different from monkeys and dogs. These are the defining characteristics of man. Because of this, the starting point of your argument is erroneous, and the whole thing falls apart.
I know I may have repeated myself here a bit. But I am just trying to attack these starting points from many different angles and in different ways, to show you why they are false.
May 17th, 2006 at at 2:18 pm
Above I said:
“I can sit in my room and pray all I want, do all the religious ceremonies I can, but it will tell me nothing about the world outside that room, or what is inside my head.”
Reading this over, it may be misunderstood. I meant to say that doing ceremonies and praying will only tell me about what is inside the room (because I am in it and can see it) and what is inside my head (because I presumably can think alot while praying, and learn about my mind). I didn’t mean to say that sitting in a room will not tell me anything about my mind.
May 18th, 2006 at at 1:45 am
I really do not understand what an atheist actually believes… What is it about this belief tradition that grants the right to change national policy? As someone stated earlier, there undoubtable truths in Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Why then is it so hurtful? I simply thought I’d ask. I don’t know if I’ll ever get back to this site, but if I do I’d like to hear your responses.
Thanks.
May 18th, 2006 at at 2:01 am
Ó Seasnáin:
An atheist does not believe in God. That is it. Many atheists have other beliefs sometimes associated with atheism, such as naturalism (in an ontological sense), but the only belief necessarily associated with atheism is a lack of belief in god.
What are you talking about changing national policy? To what are you referring to?
May 19th, 2006 at at 1:52 pm
The scientist, artist and priests were just examples used to explain my point. No, there are not only three types of people in the world. What I mean to say is that there are, as far as I know three kinds of conscious experience. There are physical, emotional, and spiritual experiences. When I talk about a scientist, artist, and priest, I’m giving examples of people who are considered to have an exceptional perception in these areas. Let me explain.
A marksman may have exceptionally acute vision which allows him to see farther than the average person. So, in this narrow sense, he sees the physical world better. But it’s not just the eyes that see, the intellect can also see. No one has ever seen an atom with their eyes but we can see atoms with our intellect. Hence, someone with an extraordinary intellect like Einstein may have a very acute perception of the unseen physical world.
Now there is more to the human experience than physical experiences. We also have emotional experiences. Your friend calls you and tells you his mother just died. Instantly, you know how painful it must be for him. You can even feel some of his pain yourself. If you were purely an intellectual being you couldn’t possibly understand what his emotions are. The only way to understand them is by having experienced them. And it is your experience of emotion which allows you to understand your friend’s feelings. But we also know that not everyone has the same aptitude for understanding their own emotions and the emotions of others. Some people are extremely rational and would say to this friend, “I don’t understand why you’re so upset.”
My point is that certain things have to be experienced to be understood and that not everyone has the same aptitude for understanding these various experiences.
I’m just suggesting that you apply a little skepticism to your atheism. Maybe your atheism is not a result of great intellect but rather the result of an underdeveloped spiritual aptitude. It’s very difficult to prove that rainbows exist to a blind man who doesn’t want to believe they exist.
If man doesn’t have a spiritual dimension then why are there so many religions? Why are there so many believers? Why are there so many churches and mosques and temples? It seems to me that the atheist who denies man’s spiritual aspect is living in a state of denial.
Let’s say the universe we experience is “unintended.” It was not and is not directed by a being who intended it. It’s accidental or random or whatever but it’s not intended. Then our own thoughts and actions which are a part of the universe must also be unintended. Whatever is true of the nature of the universe as a whole must also be true of its parts.
So the atheist says the universe is unintended which implies his own thoughts his own atheism and the theism of others are all the consequences of unintended or random mindless processes. By denying God the atheist also denies his own existence as a conscious being of intention.
The theist believes in a universe where the fundamental substance is a being—God. Therefore, in a universe where consciousness and intention are fundamental and primary the idea of beings like ourselves who are conscious and intentional fits in. However, in the atheist world view where the universe progresses without intention being of consciousness and intention don’t fit. The only resolution is to deny consciousness and intention or bury the issue in intellectual obfuscation.
I’ve never understood how anyone could actually believe that all their feelings and experiences are a result of mindless unintended physical processes. It seems silly to defend such a point because if it’s true then even the argument is pointless because it’s not really “your” argument. There is not “you.” There are just mindless unintended processes and laws which explain away everything—even you.
My best explanation as to why someone would believe such a thing is that some people lack a spiritual aptitude. More specifically it’s the convergence of a low spiritual aptitude and a great intellect. Sort of what Nietzsche would call an “inverse cripple.” The atheist’s disproportionately great intellect (in contrast to his spiritual aptitude) cripples him—blinds him to the idea of God.
Atheism is not the advancement that some may think. It’s more a regression to a more primitive state. Insects are atheists too. They don’t have any awareness of self or any awareness of any being greater than themselves. They are very rational in that sense.
Religion encourages people to awaken to greater awareness. Not just physical and emotional awareness but also spiritual awareness. Atheism encourages people to regress to a state of mere physical awareness—a flattening of the world to a single intellectual dimension—a logical, rational, and almost robotic state of self denial. For if the atheist is right and there is no God, the universe is mindless and unintended then there is no self either. The atheist says that all our thoughts, dreams, and feelings are a result of mindless unintended processes. That statement when examined honestly is much more incredulous than all the Easter Bunnies, Santa Clauses and pantheon of gods in the universe.
Either the atheist is so acutely intelligent that he sees that there is no reason to believe in God or he is so deficient in spiritual faculty that he see what is obvious to majority of people.
May 19th, 2006 at at 4:18 pm
For if the atheist is right and there is no God, the universe is mindless and unintended then there is no self either. The atheist says that all our thoughts, dreams, and feelings are a result of mindless unintended processes. That statement when examined honestly is much more incredulous than all the Easter Bunnies, Santa Clauses and pantheon of gods in the universe.
I know no atheist that would agree with your gross misinterpretation of our world view. I think for myself, my actions are my own. God has nothing to do with it. The biological complexity of my brain allows me to think and perceive. Randomness drives the mechanisms that make that complexity possible, but does not drive the thoughts themselves.
Your view of the universe requires a God that is greater than or equal to the entire universe. In the words of philosopher Archie Bahm’s translation of Tao Te Ching, “Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of nature would have to duplicate nature.” You may say, “yes, that is correct, God created the universe and therefore is greater than all of it.” That world view requires the duplication of everything that exists to accommodate the existence of God. Seems rather inefficient to me.
Even if you allow that God is the universe and therefore knows all etc… Then man is part of that universe and thus part of God and not a lesser being but rather a part of greater whole. This sounds nice and all, but it hardly fits the megalomaniac described in the Old Testament.
Conversely, I see the universe as a highly complex system that developed out of a very simple origin. At the first moments of the big bang, the universe was extremely uniform. When considered as information, the universe required only one bit to describe the initial singularity. As it developed, the complexity grew and the universe expanded rapidly. Eventually, the complexity of the universe grew to the point where intelligence emerged. What we call “consciousness” is a direct result of attaining sufficient complexity to perceive our environment and say, “I think therefore I am.”
So where did all of this complexity come from? I would be lying if I said I knew with absolute certainty, however the most likely candidate is an aspect of quantum mechanics known as quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations are ubiquitous, and they tend to appear most prominently at the points where the universe is most sensitive. For example, we all get our DNA from our mother and father, but the exact sequence of DNA that makes each of us unique, is produced by a process of recombination in which portions of each parents DNA are selected randomly. The selection process is driven by chemical and thermal fluctuations that can be traced back to the randomness of quantum mechanics. This is just one example, there are many more. The net result is a constant influx of random information into the universe, from which, complex systems spring up unbidden.
Does your computer randomly produce “mindless unintended processes”? OK, maybe sometimes it seems that way… But, if you build a computer then load no software, then turn it on, what will happen? Nothing. But, if you start randomly typing instructions, eventually the computer will produce some sort of output. Most likely it will be garbage. But, if you keep at it, eventually something interesting will happen. This is not quite the same thing as the infinite army of monkeys hitting the keys on an infinite array of typewriters. Because, whereas the probability of the monkeys typing Hamlet for example, is nearly infinite, the likelihood of typing a random command into a computer that produces an interesting result, is comparatively large. The randomness introduced by quantum fluctuations is more similar to commands typed into a computer (the universe) than random strikes at a keyboard.
The computers we build today are not yet as complex as the neural network of our brain. To simulate consciousness will require a computer that is essentially a duplicate of a human brain. When we do, we will perhaps have concrete verification of the nature of consciousness. I am willing to bet that such a simulation will be capable of all the thoughts, emotions, hallucinations, and dreams of any human. As such, it will question it’s existence. Unlike humans, when questioning it’s origin it will have an easy answer for there will be a person standing there saying, “I made you.” People do not have that luxury. For if the Christian God exists, he has made his creation then ducked around the corner to see what it will do, tormenting humanity with threats of purgatory if we don’t believe while denying us any concrete proof.
Religion is the manifestation of the desire to know where we came from. Religion is not ubiquitous because we know the answer, but rather because we do NOT. Anyone that says they know is lying, but at a fundamental level people are desperate for the answer. Religion says, “we know the answer.” Science says, “we are looking for the answer.” Not only is science more useful, it’s more honest. Unfortunately, most people would rather hear a comforting lie, than an unsatisfying truth.
May 19th, 2006 at at 9:17 pm
I know no atheist that would agree with your gross misinterpretation of our world view. I think for myself, my actions are my own. God has nothing to do with it. The biological complexity of my brain allows me to think and perceive. Randomness drives the mechanisms that make that complexity possible, but does not drive the thoughts themselves.
I think what you are saying is that you are not a simple conglomeration of particles. You are a very complex conglomeration of particles. Complexity changes nothing about your nature.
A hand puppet is simple and modern age robotic puppet is complex but they are both just puppets. Your reasoning is if you make something complex enough then poof it becomes conscious and breaks free from the mindless random processes and develops intention.
The problem with your world view is that you believe that everything including yourself is complex matter. And if that is the case you are just a complex set of random unintentional processes. Any attempt to avoid this conclusion is merely intellectual sleight-of-hand—complexity magically becoming consciousness and intention.
The theist world view makes more sense. Here the fundamental reality is a conscious being. And because it is the fundamental building block of our world view consciousness doesn’t require explanation in our world view. However, if your world view makes unconscious and unintentional matter the fundamental substance then you are forced to try to “explain” consciousness.
I’ll admit both world views leave some things unexplained. In the theist world view we do not understand how one conscious being can produce other conscious beings. In the atheistic world view we cannot understand how unconscious matter can produce consciousness. However of the two problems the atheist is the most perilous because it must explain how matter can produce something categorically different–consciousness. Moreover, the atheist worldview says that conscious itself can be explained because it evolved. And if consciousness can be explained then you, your thoughts and feelings can be explained. In other words “you” don’t exist. You can be explained away.
Theism doesn’t claim that consciousness evolved and doesn’t suffer from this problem.
May 20th, 2006 at at 5:55 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste on May 19, 2006 at 1:52 pm said:
I’m just suggesting that you apply a little skepticism to your atheism. Maybe your atheism is not a result of great intellect but rather the result of an underdeveloped spiritual aptitude. It’s very difficult to prove that rainbows exist to a blind man who doesn’t want to believe they exist.
I don’t claim my atheism is a result of a great intellect. Anyone of any intellect can be an atheist.
I have thought long and hard on the problem of the existance of God, and I have come to the conclusion that he does not exist. The main reason for this lack of belief is that I am not convinced by any of the so called evidence and arguments for His existance. The main reasons to believe in God- ie, life and the existance of the universe, I believe are adequately explained by science. I think the existance of the Universe is perhaps the best reason to believe in a supernatural being, because presumably the universe must have come from somewhere. But why is it crazy to believe in an eternally existing universe? I don’t think it is- to add an eternally existing creator before the universe seems unnecessary. Not only is there no evidence for such a creator, we could not have any evidence of such a creator- the evidence would be exactly the same as that of the Big Bang. Adding God as the creator of the universe is unnecessary, and there is no evidence for the existance of such a being.
If man doesn’t have a spiritual dimension then why are there so many religions? Why are there so many believers? Why are there so many churches and mosques and temples? It seems to me that the atheist who denies man’s spiritual aspect is living in a state of denial.
A more plausible explanation than a “spiritual dimension” of man for the existance of religions was one I hinted to above. People are curious, and want to learn about their environment. The earliest explanations for phenomena were magical and religious explanations, but we have since developed superior explanations- scientific ones. We no longer have a need for religion to explain physical phenomena. Some people, however, are not aware of these superior explanations, or do not sufficiently understand them, and so they still need religion to explain the world around them.
Religion also fulfills some other roles- it provies comfort for people and is a means of some to control others. It gives some people a feeling of superiority over others. Religions still exist because they still provide comfort (it is not a happy thought that death is truly the end) and because people still use religion to control others. Some people use religion to feel better than others. I don’t think these types of people are in the majority, but they do exist.
There are many reasons for religion to still exist other than a “spiritual” dimension to man. Do you have other evidence for the existance of a “spiritual dimension”? The existance of many religions has alternate explanations, ones which I find more plausible.
Let’s say the universe we experience is “unintended.” It was not and is not directed by a being who intended it. It’s accidental or random or whatever but it’s not intended. Then our own thoughts and actions which are a part of the universe must also be unintended. Whatever is true of the nature of the universe as a whole must also be true of its parts.
So the atheist says the universe is unintended which implies his own thoughts his own atheism and the theism of others are all the consequences of unintended or random mindless processes. By denying God the atheist also denies his own existence as a conscious being of intention.
You lost me here. Why is it impossible for intention to arise from an unintended universe? Why could not sub parts of an unintended universe develop intention?
Now, if you want to get all deterministic on me, that’s fine. The problem of determinism and free will is a hard one. Myself, I don’t think there is free will the way people want it to be, because we live in a determinstic universe. So you might be right here- intention does not exist, it is an illusion. This is depressing, but it does not mean that God exists.
The theist believes in a universe where the fundamental substance is a being—God. Therefore, in a universe where consciousness and intention are fundamental and primary the idea of beings like ourselves who are conscious and intentional fits in. However, in the atheist world view where the universe progresses without intention being of consciousness and intention don’t fit. The only resolution is to deny consciousness and intention or bury the issue in intellectual obfuscation.
I don’t deny consciousness. But I think free will might be an illusion. Depressing, true, but I don’t turn to a fictional God to make myself feel better.
I’ve never understood how anyone could actually believe that all their feelings and experiences are a result of mindless unintended physical processes. It seems silly to defend such a point because if it’s true then even the argument is pointless because it’s not really “your” argument. There is not “you.” There are just mindless unintended processes and laws which explain away everything—even you.
Again, true, there is no “me” in the sense of non-physical will. But if consciousness is an illusion, at least it is a nice illusion. I still enjoy myself.
My best explanation as to why someone would believe such a thing is that some people lack a spiritual aptitude. More specifically it’s the convergence of a low spiritual aptitude and a great intellect. Sort of what Nietzsche would call an “inverse cripple.” The atheist’s disproportionately great intellect (in contrast to his spiritual aptitude) cripples him—blinds him to the idea of God.
Atheism is not the advancement that some may think. It’s more a regression to a more primitive state. Insects are atheists too. They don’t have any awareness of self or any awareness of any being greater than themselves. They are very rational in that sense.
Now your getting all ad hominem on me. I don’t think of myself as a cripple, or a primitive.
Religion encourages people to awaken to greater awareness. Not just physical and emotional awareness but also spiritual awareness. Atheism encourages people to regress to a state of mere physical awareness—a flattening of the world to a single intellectual dimension—a logical, rational, and almost robotic state of self denial. For if the atheist is right and there is no God, the universe is mindless and unintended then there is no self either. The atheist says that all our thoughts, dreams, and feelings are a result of mindless unintended processes. That statement when examined honestly is much more incredulous than all the Easter Bunnies, Santa Clauses and pantheon of gods in the universe.
I don’t find it more incredulous than Easter Bunnies, etc. You are trying a “reducto ad absurdum” argument- basically you are saying “your argument has absurd consequences (atheism implies the death of free will & self) so it must be wrong.” The problem with that type of argument is that one mans absurd conclusion is another mans valid deduction. I have taken my arguments to these conclusions, and though it is depressing, I see no error in them, and so I do not deny these conclusions.
Either the atheist is so acutely intelligent that he sees that there is no reason to believe in God or he is so deficient in spiritual faculty that he see what is obvious to majority of people.
I deny the existance of a spiritual faculty. I think there are better explanations for the existance of religion than a spiritual faculty. Do you have any other evidence for such a faculty?
A little aside: When I was young, I thought God existed. Not the Christian God, but I thought that the existance of religion around the world had to mean something- so many people could not be wrong. I thought “there is a God which exists, which presents himself to different people in different ways- as Zeus to the Greeks, Jesus to the Christians, etc.” Later on, as I learned more about science, religion and philosphy, I came to doubt this belief. I realized that the fact that many people believe something is not, independantly, a good reason to believe that thing is true. There needs to be alternate evidence. After all, many people once believed the world was flat, but we know this is false. Similiarly, the existance of many religions is not a good reason, by itself, to believe in the existance of something behind those religions. You need more evidence.
May 20th, 2006 at at 6:20 pm
Two points:
First, I don’t mean to say that consciousness and intention do not exist. Sort of.
What we perceive as consciousness and intention does exist. After all, we perceive these things. I perceive my consciousness (ie, I am thinking about my friend coming over right now), and I perceive intention (I intend to type this sentence, and my fingers type it). It is just that while I perceive these things, I also know that ultimately I am made up of matter in motion. My brain is just made up of energy and matter. There is no external soul that exists outside of causality directing my actions. This has the consequence that there is no free will, intention or consciousness in the way some people want to think of it- as something existing outside causality.
That does not mean consciousness and intention don’t exist- as LBBP said above, they arise from complexity. I see no problem with this explanation. Consciousness and intention are simply complex processes arising from complex systems. This is perfectly possible in a universe without a God. It is perfectly possible for intention and consciousness, as we perceive them, to exist in a universe without a God. It is just that because ultimately we are all just matter in motion, there is no “free will” as some people would like. I wish there was free will, where I was an agent existing outside of causality guiding the actions of my body, but I wishing won’t make it true.
Second, science is superior to theism, because science provides better explanations. Science explains and predicts, and often to predictions bear out, giving us evidence that the explanation is at least close to the truth.
What true predictions has theism made? Jesus was supposed to return a generation after his death, at least according to the gospels. He hasn’t. That prediction turned out false. Of course, this is but one example, I don’t mean to disprove all theistic predictions this way. After all, science makes mistakes sometimes, too. A hypothesis might not be borne out by experiment. That does not mean science is not the way to truth about the physical world. But science has made many predictions which have turned out to be true- it has great explanatory power. This is not the case, I believe, with theism.
I want to ask the theists present: what predictions has theism made about the world that have turned out true? In other words, what evidence is there to believe that theistic explanations are at least close to the truth?
May 21st, 2006 at at 12:16 am
Lory Jean-Baptiste:
Better then, to be a hand puppet, & have meaning, than to have no meaning, and a limp sock?
& what is wrong w/that, exactly?
Oh, riiighhht. Better to be a puppet. At least an invisible being cares about you.
Hey, you’re the magical thinker engaging in cognitive dissonance. I think you’re projecting here.
Uh-oh. Here we go. Codependence as philosophy.
Of which you have no proof of.
Magical thinkers always go for the easy answers, don’t they?
Who’s forcing whom? It’s been explained pretty well already.
It’s called evolution.
Flunked Sex Education class, did we?
The differential being, that you want somebody to be behind it all. I don’t. Sometimes, poopoo occurs.
Whatchoo mean ‘we’, kemosabe? Go lecture on the Hovind circuit, wouldja?
Where’d you learn that drivel? Psychobabble 101?
So it boils down to this:
you’re a hopeless romantic, who wants to cling to the nostalgic concept that ‘my feelings are real! My destiny is real! There IS somebody watching over me!’
Hey, you’re feelings are real. But they are just synapses firing, bio-chemical responses fired from the hypothalamus. So big effin’ whoop.
Oh, hey, thanks. I was losing sleep over that.
I’d advise you get over yourself sometime soon.
May 21st, 2006 at at 7:23 pm
Why is the move so long?
May 23rd, 2006 at at 8:41 pm
This thread is too long for me to digest in one evening, I must return. Meanwhile:
A Scientist, an Artist and a Priest walk into an Inquisition.
The Artist says, “Rather than wait to be found guilty and burned as a heretic, I will throw myself on the pyre as an act of self-sacrifice. That is art!”
The Scientist says, “I know that I am an animal, and I have value to both myself and my fellow man. Since I have more value alive than dead, I will use my wits to attempt to survive. That’s science!”
The Priest says, “Burn the Scientist! That’s religion!”
May 24th, 2006 at at 2:57 pm
You admit to experiencing consciousness and intention but because your worldview does not fit your experience, you throw out the evidence of your experience in order to preserve your worldview. It seems like you’re trying to make the evidence fit your theory rather than making your theory fit the evidence.
And if you are honest with yourself then you have to admit that the phrase “free will and intention are illusions” is vague and paradoxical. How can beings who do not truly possess genuine free will and intention experience the illusion of free will and intention and be aware of the illusion? Imagine two string puppets having a conversation. One puppet says to the other, “I now realize that I have no free will and all my actions, and words are directed by my puppeteer.” You see the problem? The problem is, if he is correct, even his statement is directed by the puppeteer which negates the authenticity of his statement.
It is the same with the atheist who believes that everything can be explained in terms of matter, physical laws and probabilities. These laws and probabilities are the strings which direct his actions, thoughts and statements. So how can he come to any genuine conclusions if his conclusions are determined by matter, laws and probabilities?
The fact is our human experience of consciousness, free will, and intention doesn’t fit the materialist worldview.
A more reasonable worldview says: yes there is matter, there are physical laws and probabilities but there are also conscious beings of free will who can make choices and influence the material world through physical bodies. While understanding the physical world is realm of science consciousness and free will are beyond the realm science.
The scientist is first and foremost a conscious being of intention. He makes his observations through the mystery of consciousness and he chooses to accept theories through the mystery of free will. However, he can not explain conscious using the objects of consciousness. I repeat, you can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness. And you cannot explain free will without invalidating it.
In short, the scientist can explain his world through science but he can never explain himself.
Now that’s where religion comes in and this is why religion exists. Human beings (most of them) have always intuitively understood that while they existed in a material world that inwardly they were not merely material stuff. Human beings have long experienced the existence of an immaterial soul. To quote Shakespeare, “We are the stuff that dreams are made of.”
Does having a soul prove there is a God? No, but beliefs about the soul and its origins are not the domain of science—they are the domain of religion or faith. Enter the priest.
These three have always existed. The scientist, the artist, and the priest. The intellect (logic), the emotions (consciousness), and the spirit (free will). The brain, the heart, and the soul. Some people have more aptitude in one area than in other areas however to deny any one of them is to be incomplete.
May 24th, 2006 at at 5:30 pm
You admit to experiencing consciousness and intention but because your worldview does not fit your experience, you throw out the evidence of your experience in order to preserve your worldview. It seems like you’re trying to make the evidence fit your theory rather than making your theory fit the evidence.
WOW!! is that the pot calling the kettle black or what?!
Actually, paradoxical illusions are very common in the material world. Quantum mechanics is laced with them. But, a simpler example would be to consider computer generated random numbers. They don’t exist, not really anyway. What does exist, is a mathmetical function that the computer runs that creates the illusion of randomness. In practical application, running a computer program that simulates the random role of dice, will appear to do just that. If one were to log a significant number of computer generated dice roles, and compare that to a similar set of “real” dice rolls, the end results would show statistically insignificant differences. The upshot is, that although the dice rolls are not really random, they might as well be, because the end result is indistinguishable from “real” randomness. For that matter, if one were able to calculate every physical aspect of “real” dice, one would find that they are not really random either, because every aspect of how they roll is based on deterministic properties.
Similarly, consciousness (awareness born out of complexity) can simulate “free will”, such that it is indistinguishable from “real” free will (no such thing). We go about are happy little lives believing that what we do is all our own, and for all practicality, it is. All the while, the engine that drives the simulation is not.
But, all of that is just busy work before the real meat of your reply, which whittled down to the base, is:
[...] that’s where religion comes in and this is why religion exists.
Phrased still shorter: I don’t understand it, so God must have done it.
So we appear to agree on at least one point, religion is born out of a lack of understanding.
That’s really where all superstition comes from. When primitive man didn’t get good harvests, they would pray to the “earth” God. If they weren’t having enough babies they would pray to the “fertility” God. Need to kill your neighbor? Pray to the “war” God. Now, we don’t understand consciousness, must be the “consciousness” God, right?
Technology and science have killed the earth God, the fertility God, and much of the spirituality related to how our bodies work. Unfortunately, far too many people still pray to the “war” God, the less fatal, but perhaps more obnoxious, “sports victory” God, or justify hate by praying to the “morality” God. My bet though, is that when we kill the “consciousness” God, we’ll also do away with the rest of the Gods all in one stroke.
May 24th, 2006 at at 7:59 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste on May 24, 2006 at 2:57 pm said:
You admit to experiencing consciousness and intention but because your worldview does not fit your experience, you throw out the evidence of your experience in order to preserve your worldview. It seems like you’re trying to make the evidence fit your theory rather than making your theory fit the evidence.
I am not throwing out evidence. True, “I” experience consciousness and intention, these are experiences. You see only one explanation for these experiences: a soul. I see two explanations for this evidence. One: that consciousness and intention are an illusion, that there is only the physical world and I am a physical being, whose actions and thoughts have physical causes. Two: I am not a physical being, but rather a soul directing my body.
My explanation fits with everything else I know, including the reasons to believe (described below) that consciousness originates in my physical brain. Your explanation, that there is a soul, has a certain draw to it, but it does not fit with the rest of what I know. I am not making the evidence fit my theory. I am simply evaluating the evidence (my experience of consciousness & intention) in light of all the other things I know about the world.
And if you are honest with yourself then you have to admit that the phrase “free will and intention are illusions” is vague and paradoxical. How can beings who do not truly possess genuine free will and intention experience the illusion of free will and intention and be aware of the illusion? Imagine two string puppets having a conversation. One puppet says to the other, “I now realize that I have no free will and all my actions, and words are directed by my puppeteer.” You see the problem? The problem is, if he is correct, even his statement is directed by the puppeteer which negates the authenticity of his statement.
Why would my being correct about my consciousness being physical in nature “negate the authenticity” of that belief? I’m not sure I follow your argument.
I do not think it is impossible for something without true free will to be aware of the illusion. Imagine a computer AI so advanced, that it can think on its own. You’ve seen such fantasies in science fiction movies. Presumably it can think to itself “I was made by man, all I am is metal and electricity, my mind is a very advanced computer program, which ultimately is made up of high and low voltages of electricity in computer circuits.”
It is the same with the atheist who believes that everything can be explained in terms of matter, physical laws and probabilities. These laws and probabilities are the strings which direct his actions, thoughts and statements. So how can he come to any genuine conclusions if his conclusions are determined by matter, laws and probabilities?
The fact is our human experience of consciousness, free will, and intention doesn’t fit the materialist worldview.
I don’t see the connection. Why does the fact that I am ultimately a physical being keep me from learning about my mind? I don’t see why the fact that my actions, thoughts and statements are ultimately physical keeps me from coming to “genuine conclusions.” Maybe I just don’t understand your argument well enough. Please explain further.
I don’t think it is a fact that the experience of consciousness etc. is incompatible with materialism. True, if it were so that these phenomena were impossible to explain in that worldview, they would be incompatible. But I do not think that is so. I don’t think it is impossible to explain these phenomena materialistically, and I think there are reasons to believe that they *do* have a physical explanation. In other words, I can see in theory how they would be explained (electircal impulses caused by other electrical impulses giving rise to thoughts), and I think there is evidence for this theory (the fact that affecting the physical brain effects consciousness).
A more reasonable worldview says: yes there is matter, there are physical laws and probabilities but there are also conscious beings of free will who can make choices and influence the material world through physical bodies. While understanding the physical world is realm of science consciousness and free will are beyond the realm science.
Why is this a more reasonable worldview? To me it is an unreasonable worldview, because it contradicts everything else I know about the world. But I do not have the same aversion that you seem to have to explaining consciousness physically. I think it can be done, and I think there is evidence that lends support to the idea that consciousness is ultimately physical in nature. (see below)
The scientist is first and foremost a conscious being of intention. He makes his observations through the mystery of consciousness and he chooses to accept theories through the mystery of free will. However, he can not explain conscious using the objects of consciousness. I repeat, you can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness. And you cannot explain free will without invalidating it.
In short, the scientist can explain his world through science but he can never explain himself.
Why can you not explain consciousness in terms of the objects of consciousness? Merely saying it (even twice) does not make it so. But I’m not even sure what you mean by “can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness.” I think what you mean by this statement .
You say I cannot explain free will without invalidating it. I am not trying to explain free will. I am simply saying that free will, thought of as there being a soul existing outside physical causality guiding my body, *does not exist*. “You” “experience” it, but that is an illusion created by the fact that we are incredibly complex creatures with highly advanced brains. I experience free will, but at the same time I know I am ultimately a physical being, which has the effect of there being no free will as I understand it. There is evidence for my concluding I am ultimately a physical being. I put this all together and I conclude free will is an illusion. Let me explain.
I think that my consciousness does not consist in an immaterial soul, it consists in my brain. There is evidence for this belief. First, it concurs with the rest of the understanding of science (that there is a physical world, and only a physical world).
Additionally, there are many reasons to believe that your consciousness is tied to your brain. If you get brain damage, it affects your consciousness and your behavior. If enough memory brain cells die, it affects your memory, your consciousness (Alzheimers disease*). Deprive oxygen to your brain for long enough, it will effect your behavior, maybe even kill you. You can effect consciousness and behavior through physical means- anti-depression drugs which work on brain chemistry, for example. Introduce certain hormones and people have certain desires- give someone testosterone and they will become more aggressive, or more sexually aroused. In other words, you can affect the brain with a physical instrument and it will have effects on the persons’ consciousness. You can inject all manner of illicit drugs (physical things) into your body, and this will have an effect on your consciousness. All of these are reasons to believe that consciousness is, at root, a physical phenomenon.
It is hard to see how an immaterial soul could be controlling my body. After all, how would it do so? Presumably through the brain. Assuming I am really an immaterial soul directing my body, there has to be a point where my immaterial soul has an effect on my physical body- otherwise it could not control it. At one time, people thought there was a physical part of the brain which acted as the conduit to the soul. But it is hard to see how that would be the case.
Imagine for a moment, that your physical brain is acting in such and such a way, directing your body in such and such a way- at what point does the soul pitch in? You think to yourself “I want to move my arm up.” Trace back the arm moving up and you will find electrical signals originating in your brain. What is the cause of these signals? More electrical signals- and so on back, there are physical causes. Maybe you could say that at the moment you intended for the arm to move, that was where the soul stepped in. But, unless an immaterial object affected a physical object, that would not be possible. I don’t know of any evidence for an immaterial object affecting a physical object. All we can observe are physical effects having physical causes. In the above cause, physical energy effecting your brain, which sends signals to your arm, which raises up. Before you say “but it could be both- soul and physical causes.” But that just means that there is no evidence for the soul- if your arm moving up is adequately explained by only physical causes, there is no need to bring in a soul to move your arm *in addition* to the electrical impulses in your brain.
With all this in mind, I see that my experience of free will must be an illusion, because that fits with my understanding of the rest of the world, and because of the evidence (described above) that my consciousness is ultimately physical (and hence deterministic) in nature. I believe my consciosness arises from my brain, a physical object, that acts determinstically. This belief is consistent with my general belief in a physical universe. I also have evidence that my brain is the seat of my consciousness, because effecting my brain effects my consciousness. My consciousness is ultimately based on something that acts deterministically, and determinism is incompatible with free will, as so I infer that free will must be an illusion.
*I am not exactly sure how Alzheimers works, so forgive me if I don’t have the details right- but my point is the same: it is *physical* damage which affects memory.
Now that’s where religion comes in and this is why religion exists. Human beings (most of them) have always intuitively understood that while they existed in a material world that inwardly they were not merely material stuff. Human beings have long experienced the existence of an immaterial soul. To quote Shakespeare, “We are the stuff that dreams are made of.”
Does having a soul prove there is a God? No, but beliefs about the soul and its origins are not the domain of science—they are the domain of religion or faith. Enter the priest.
These three have always existed. The scientist, the artist, and the priest. The intellect (logic), the emotions (consciousness), and the spirit (free will). The brain, the heart, and the soul. Some people have more aptitude in one area than in other areas however to deny any one of them is to be incomplete.
Just because someone “intuitively” “knows” something does not make it true. Not everyone has your intuitions. Your evidence to support these intuitions has explanations other that the existance of a soul. There is evidence that your consciousness is ultimately physical- affecting the brain effects consciousness. That lends credence to the idea that they are connected.
You think that consciousness and intention are evidence of a soul. I think there is an alternate explanation, one which fits with what I know about the rest of the world. Because I believe you can explain consciousness physically, I see no need to imagine the existance of a soul. For this reason, I do not believe in the existance of a soul. I am not, as you claim, ignoring evidence for the existance of a soul (ie, consciousness, intention), I simply think there is an explanation besides a soul for that evidence.
May 24th, 2006 at at 8:00 pm
LBBP,
You admit we experience free will and you claim that it is an “illusion.” The burden of proof falls on you because you are the one claiming that what we experience is an illusion.
I would like to agree with your belief that free will is an illusion but if you are right I do not have the freedom to agree with you! My agreement is determined by laws and randomness which are beyond my ability to control. Oh my, so I guess that’s why you can’t agree with me.
What a universe?! no freedom to seek knowledge and make choices, no meaning, no purpose and then death and the abyss. It’s hard to understand why atheism is not more popular.
It seems quite obvious that in the process of killing your gods you have killed yourself.
May 24th, 2006 at at 11:40 pm
LBBP,
You admit we experience free will and you claim that it is an “illusion.” The burden of proof falls on you because you are the one claiming that what we experience is an illusion.
Sure, I’ll take that burden, because unlike religion, scientists are actively trying to find the mechanisms that allow us to perceive our environment. Theists are content to throw up their hands and say, “God did it” and leave it at that. Scientists may not prove it today, but religion will never prove anything.
If you really mean it, then nothing is stopping you. It’s all a matter of perception. Simply stop believing in fairy tales and start observing reality. That was the choice I made 15 years ago. It may or may not, interest you to know, that my Father is a Father. That is to say, he is an Episcopal Priest (retired) and I was raised as the “Priests kid” with all that goes with that. I voluntarily got confirmed when I was 16, I was very active in church youth activities, I was an acolyte, etc., etc… Once I moved out on my own, a gradual awakening took place, and I began to realize what a crock religion was. 911 was the clincher, it was at that point that I realized that religion is not just BS, but is an evil scourge that needs to be eliminated from society through enlightenment.
It seems quite obvious that in the process of killing your gods you have killed yourself.
We percieve freedom, so what difference does it make if it’s “real” or “illusion”, the end result is the same. I am still free to “seek knowledge and make choices” at least as far as I can tell. Meaning and purpose are your hang-ups not mine. I’m sorry if your life means so little to you that you have to devot it to an imaginary friend in the sky. Personaly, I think life itself is meaning enough. I mean, life is pretty fucking amazing don’t you think? I don’t need belief in “God” to diminish it. The search for knowledge and beauty provides purpose, and life itself provides meaning. What else should I need? When I die, yes it’s over. That makes me embrace the life that I have now, and makes it more meaningful, not less.
If the after life, “with God” is really going to be so great, why wait around through the warm up act, why not just skip to the main event. Oh, yeah, all those made-up arbitrary and self conflicting rules. Gotta keep all the little people under control otherwise they might wake up and put the priests out of a job.
May 25th, 2006 at at 12:28 am
I did not kill my god as it is impossible to kill somethong that does NOT exist. A billion words can’t make it true. Only those of us who live free can know freedom. And that is free from god, superstition, and the ridiculous nonsense that has been Lory Jeans logic. I know freedom without god. I am unsure what it is Lory Jean is saying by all that hyperbole but it is not logic and it contains very little reason. It is mush.
I hope your doing well I AM
May 25th, 2006 at at 8:51 am
While understanding the physical world is realm of science consciousness and free will are beyond the realm science.
The scientist is first and foremost a conscious being of intention. He makes his observations through the mystery of consciousness and he chooses to accept theories through the mystery of free will. However, he can not explain conscious using the objects of consciousness. I repeat, you can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness. And you cannot explain free will without invalidating it.
In short, the scientist can explain his world through science but he can never explain himself.
What basis do you have for saying this? “you can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness.” What does that even mean? Objects of consciousness? Sounds like vacuous psychobabble to me. Just stating that consciousness and free will are beyond the realm of science does not make it so. You may not be able to comprehend how it is possible to understand the mind and consciousness in an objective, empirical fashion, but that does not preclude others from gaining this understanding. Arguments from ignorance will get you nowhere. Granted, we may not know everything yet, but we have discovered a great deal in the past few centuries and there is a great deal more that we are beginning to unravel regarding the nature of the human mind. It’s really very exciting if you ask me.
The scientific examination of consciousness has in fact been a serious field of study for quite some time. Psychology? Neuroscience? Here’s one field I bet you haven’t heard of, cognitive science. It draws together disciplines as varied as psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, artificial intelligence, anthropology and biology to explain how the mind, intelligence and consciousness can arise out of a complex organ such as the human brain. Indeed, there is a vast amount of important research happening in this field, as well as many others, and we are learning more every day.
I am not about to explain it all in the comments section of a blog, so I suggest you check it out for yourself. Wikipedia is probably a good starting point, as it has a ton of information on this stuff, see: cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology, behavioral neuroscience, neurobiology, and psychometrics. This Wikibook on consciousness is also particularily helpful in understanding these fields, I recommend that you check it out as well: Consciousness studies
How right you are…. it baffles me that so many would dismiss the incredible complexity of this world, the diversity of life on this planet, human existence itself and the search for knowledge and beauty in science and art as meaningless and not worth understanding or appreciating without the existence of their imaginary friend.
“If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.” – Albert Camus
May 25th, 2006 at at 10:17 am
To Lory Jean-Baptiste & LBBP et.al. regarding freewill…
I’ve just come across a book written by Daniel C. Dennett called “Freedom Evolves”, in which he explains freewill. I’ve just started reading it , and so far so good. (He’s ‘pro-freewill’ and he’s an atheist)
May 25th, 2006 at at 7:12 pm
To Lory Jean-Baptiste & LBBP et.al. regarding freewill…
I’ve just come across a book written by Daniel C. Dennett called “Freedom Evolves”, in which he explains freewill. I’ve just started reading it , and so far so good. (He’s ‘pro-freewill’ and he’s an atheist)
I have that book. I started it early last year, but then school intervened and I never finished it. I thought it was pretty good, but I’m not sure whether I like his argument (as I understood it from the brief bit I wrote). I need to read it more thoroughly before deciding- it was certainly an interesting idea. It seemed like a possible solution to the problem of free will that does not abandon determinism or turn to superstition.
From what I remember, Dennett was arguing that since more complex organisms have more options, they have more free will than less complex organisms. So I have more free will than an amobea, even though my choices are ultimately deterministic. I don’t want to try and describe it further, for fear of my incomplete memory and understanding of the book causing me to mangle his argument.
Our discussions here have inspired me to go take another stab at it… maybe when I get home.
November 28th, 2007 at at 10:01 pm
backseat bangers backseatbangers…
hottest backseat bangers backseatbangers…