Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Can Atheism Account For Rationality
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe self that I, and that Sam Harris is talking about, is the notion that there is a distinct individual, like an immaterial mind, that controls and directs the body. The experience of that self is an illusion, because there is no such self, there is only the brain, not an homunculus controling and directing it.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat makes you think anything, you, life or the universe is natural, what does that mean? Sure you may be following accepted definitions, but what makes you think that those definitions are correct? Those are assumptions without evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain - we don't know any of that. The evidence suggests that mind arises from brain. How it arises, we do not know. That mind and brain are related we do know. That the two are caught up in an interactive dance we also know: Mind can impact physiology - physiology can impact mind. How that works, we don't know. And how that ineffable sense of "self" arises - that deeper layer of "I" that is the object in the sentence "I have a mind" - we do not know that either. Like you, I believe it arises from brain for all of the reasons previously cited. I don't think it exists separate from brain. I have no compelling evidence to support such a belief. But the specific nature of the interactive dynamic between "self" and "brain" lies beyond my knowledge and (as far as I know) yours as well. I think it is a mistake, at this time, to lean too far in one direction or the other; there is not enough evidence to stand upon.Last edited by JimL; 07-10-2019, 08:04 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell that is fine that you think that, but that is where we differ. The brain and the mind are one and the same thing, thus the self is the brain, not a distinct thing arising from it and directing it. You seem to be arguing for both positions, i.e. that the mind is the brain, that it is not separate from the brain, but that it is also something separate and interactive with the brain.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSupernatural is defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
Since I have no basis for believing such things exist outside of the mythology and imagination of the human mind, it is not something that I spend a great deal of time on (anymore).
Since I have no evidence for a "supernatural" I do not have a corresponding belief in a supernatural. Since the evidence of a "natural" universe is all around me, I have more than adequate basis for belief in a "natural" universe. That seems fairly simple, evidence-based beliefs to me. I'm not sure where the confusion lay.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, and that definition is correct why?
Webster: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
Cambridge Dictionary: caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Collins Dictionary: creatures, forces, and events are believed by some people to exist or happen, although they are impossible according to scientific laws.
If you want to suggest a different definition, feel free to. Otherwise, I'll use the definition that is most commonly used by English-speaking people.
Originally posted by seer View PostThis is why I spoke of definitions, they are often arbitrary without objective basis.
Originally posted by seer View PostLet's say for the sake of argument that this universe was created by God, it would not be "natural" in any real sense of the word. Even with its predictable, intelligible, repeatable principles.
Originally posted by seer View PostYet you have NO basis for believing that you live in a natural universe.
Originally posted by seer View PostOutside of atheistic mythology and imagination of the human mind.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are begging the question.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou have no evidence that this is a "natural" universe.
Originally posted by seer View PostWhy aren't the very properties that are all around you evidence for the supernatural rather than the natural?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostBecause that's how most humans use the term, and so that is how it has been recorded in our dictionaries. Other definitions include:
Webster: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
Cambridge Dictionary: caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Collins Dictionary: creatures, forces, and events are believed by some people to exist or happen, although they are impossible according to scientific laws.
If you want to suggest a different definition, feel free to. Otherwise, I'll use the definition that is most commonly used by English-speaking people.
While definitions are not exactly "arbitrary," they are collectively subjective. And they all have an objective basis; that is the very purpose of language - to represent objective reality symbolically so we can discuss it.
No Carp, that does not follow, the definitions
Any definition of "god" I know of involves the "supernatural," as the word is conventionally defined.
I have every basis for believing that I live in a repeatable, predictable, intelligible universe: the evidence is all around me. I have no basis for believing there are "supernatural" forces, ergo I do not have a belief in supernatural forces.
I have no idea what "mythology" or "imagination" you think is at work here.
You'll have to outline how. I'm not seeing it.
It operates according to predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles that can be investigated by science. That is the very definition of the word "natural." I'm not sure why there is confusion here.
By definition, the supernatural lies outside of the reach of science - so there is obviously no scientific evidence of its existence. I also have no compelling evidence of any other kind that a supernatural realm exists - so I do not have a belief in a supernatural realm. I do have a significant amount of evidence about how supernatural beliefs have come to be, and how they have evolved over time, so the evidence I have available to me suggests that "supernatural" is a concept that exists in the mythology and imagination of humans.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain Carp, you have no idea that this is a natural universe.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou have no idea if predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles are properties of a natural universe or a supernatural universe.
Originally posted by seer View PostHow would a supernatural universe differ from a natural universe?
Originally posted by seer View PostYou have nothing to compare with, no objective standard to appeal to. You are simply using arbitrary definitions that themselves have no justification, except common usage.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou have no rational or logical ground for the claim.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes- I do. It is a predictable, repeatable, intelligible universe. All of the evidence at my disposal points to this.
The definition of "natural" is what it is, Seer. By that definition, this is a "natural" universe. If you want to change the definitions, you are free too - but then we are no longer talking about the same things.
I have no answer for this because there is no bound on what the "supernatural" could theoretically be, except that it is outside the purview of science.
That is what a definition is, Seer - common usage. Do you have another suggestion for how we go about defining words?
What exact claim is it that you think I have no logical/rational basis for?Last edited by seer; 07-10-2019, 10:47 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course I'm free to change definitions, they are completely arbitrary.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd based on these arbitrary definitions you are making the claim that this is a natural universe. And since there is no bound on what the "supernatural" could theoretically be why can't it include that which is open to scientific investigation?
Originally posted by seer View PostThat after all is what Christians believe.
Originally posted by seer View PostDoes common usage make the definition correct?
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are claiming that the universe is natural based on arbitrary definitions and common usage, neither give us a logical basis for the claim.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostActually - I'm not. And I disagree that the "mind" and the "brain" are the same thing. The mind is a collection of immaterial thoughts. The brain is hardware. That the former arises from the latter seems supported by adequate evidence. HOW it arises is unknown. That the brain impacts the mind and the mind impacts the brain is also well supported by evidence. I have not taken the position that the mind "directs the brain" or that the brain "directs the mind." I do not have enough information to know either of those things to be true or untrue. I know they are related. I know brain can exist without mind, but it does not appear that mind can exist without brain. That's about it. I go as far as the evidence takes me - and no further. I do not see an evidentiary basis for the claim "they are the same thing."
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThen you might just as well admit that you believe in an immaterial soul.
I am not an arm - I have an arm.
I am not a body - I have a body.
I am not a mind - I have a mind.
So what exactly am "I?"
I suspect it is this line of thinking (and experiencing) that gives rise to the concept of "soul."
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhere are those collection of immaterial thoughts housed, and how does the immaterial effect the material brain?
My best guess is that memories are "housed," but "thoughts" are not. I have to admit that this suspicion is based on my background in computer sciences, where one might suggest that "memory" is simply a holding place for data, but the equivalent of "thought" is essentially the execution of a program upon the hardware. Of course, the analogy breaks down because computers store programs as data, but we seem to be able to write our programs as we go along. Perhaps it is this ability that is the essence of "thought?"
Frankly - I have no idea. As far as I know, none of us knows - which was basically the point I was trying to make.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThe term "soul" is a religious one. I do not subscribe to any religions, so I do not use the term. However, I strongly suspect (but cannot say that I can prove) that the concept of "soul" arises from the sense of the "ineffable I" that is the subject of every statement we make about ourselves. As my old philosophy professor used to say:
I am not an arm - I have an arm.
I am not a body - I have a body.
I am not a mind - I have a mind.
So what exactly am "I?"
I suspect it is this line of thinking (and experiencing) that gives rise to the concept of "soul."
If I had the answers to those questions, I might actually be a rich man!
My best guess is that memories are "housed," but "thoughts" are not. I have to admit that this suspicion is based on my background in computer sciences, where one might suggest that "memory" is simply a holding place for data, but the equivalent of "thought" is essentially the execution of a program upon the hardware. Of course, the analogy breaks down because computers store programs as data, but we seem to be able to write our programs as we go along. Perhaps it is this ability that is the essence of "thought?"
Frankly - I have no idea. As far as I know, none of us knows - which was basically the point I was trying to make.Last edited by JimL; 07-10-2019, 10:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course I'm free to change definitions, they are completely arbitrary.And based on these arbitrary definitions you are making the claim that this is a natural universe.And since there is no bound on what the "supernatural" could theoretically be why can't it include that which is open to scientific investigation?That after all is what Christians believe.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment