Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[JimL]

I don't think the "self" is an illusion either. It is a pervasive experience of all humans I know of. It is an existent reality, albeit one we do not understand. Illusion is about perceiving something that is not there and is not real - it is not about material/immaterial.

The 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.

[carpedm9587]

The 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.

Again - 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.

[JimL]

What 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.

The world that we see is what we call natural. Supernatural is just another term that is used to designate the supposed existence of a nature that can't be seen. Those definitions are correct, because they are our definitions.

[JimL]

Again - 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.

Well 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.

[carpedm9587]

Well 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.

Actually - 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."

[seer]

Supernatural is defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Right, and that definition is correct why? This is why I spoke of definitions, they are often arbitrary without objective basis. Let'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.

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).

Yet you have NO basis for believing that you live in a natural universe. Outside of atheistic mythology and imagination of the human mind.

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.

You are begging the question. You have no evidence that this is a "natural" universe. Why aren't the very properties that are all around you evidence for the supernatural rather than the natural?

[carpedm9587]

Right, and that definition is correct why?

Because 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.

This is why I spoke of definitions, they are often arbitrary without objective basis.

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.

Let'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.

Any definition of "god" I know of involves the "supernatural," as the word is conventionally defined.

Yet you have NO basis for believing that you live in a natural universe.

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.

Outside of atheistic mythology and imagination of the human mind.

I have no idea what "mythology" or "imagination" you think is at work here.

You are begging the question.

You'll have to outline how. I'm not seeing it.

You have no evidence that this is a "natural" universe.

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.

Why aren't the very properties that are all around you evidence for the supernatural rather than the natural?

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.

[seer]

Because 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.

Again Carp, you have no idea that this is a natural universe. You have no idea if predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles are properties of a natural universe or a supernatural universe. How would a supernatural universe differ from a natural universe? You 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. You have no rational or logical ground for the claim.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, you have no idea that this is a natural universe.

Yes- I do. It is a predictable, repeatable, intelligible universe. All of the evidence at my disposal points to this.

You have no idea if predictable, repeatable, intelligible principles are properties of a natural universe or a supernatural universe.

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.

How would a supernatural universe differ from a natural universe?

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.

You 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.

That is what a definition is, Seer - common usage. Do you have another suggestion for how we go about defining words?

You have no rational or logical ground for the claim.

What exact claim is it that you think I have no logical/rational basis for?

[seer]

Yes- 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.

Of 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.

That is what a definition is, Seer - common usage. Do you have another suggestion for how we go about defining words?

Does common usage make the definition correct?

What exact claim is it that you think I have no logical/rational basis for?

You are claiming that the universe is natural based on arbitrary definitions and common usage, neither give us a logical basis for the claim.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I'm free to change definitions, they are completely arbitrary.

Communication is a bit hard when someone simply changes the meanings of words on a whim. That being said, as long as you define your terms, I'll try to follow along.

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?

Actually - that's a good point. Since the terms "natural" and "supernatural" are largely caught up with what can and cannot be investigated scientifically, there IS a bound on the supernatural - at least as the term is defined. If you want to change the definitions, again, no skin off my nose. I just need to know what definition you are using so I am "speaking your language," as they say.

That after all is what Christians believe.

I am not aware of a point of Christian theology that defines the bounds between natural and supernatural. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what branch of Christian studies deals with this.

Does common usage make the definition correct?

For people trying to communicate, of course. If we don't communally agree on what a word means, then communication becomes difficult. But then again, language is malleable. Words change meaning, gain new meanings, lose old ones, as common usage shifts and language groups intersect. As long as everyone communicating agrees on what the words mean, communication is possible. When they don't, communication becomes that much more difficult.

You are claiming that the universe is natural based on arbitrary definitions and common usage, neither give us a logical basis for the claim.

I am using the dictionary definition of "natural." If you'd prefer to call it "flumbottomed," I'm cool with that - as long as "flumbottomed" means "operating on intelligible/repeatable principles that can be investigated by science." It does not matter to me what word you would prefer to use. If "natural" bothers you, feel free to pick another word.

[JimL]

Actually - 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."

Then you might just as well admit that you believe in an immaterial soul. Where are those collection of immaterial thoughts housed, and how does the immaterial effect the material brain?

[carpedm9587]

Then you might just as well admit that you believe in an immaterial soul.

The 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."

Where are those collection of immaterial thoughts housed, and how does the immaterial effect the material brain?

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.

[JimL]

The 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."

That kind of thinking may give rise to the concept of soul, but that kind of thinking in my opinion is not correct. The material concept of the self is derived of the complex, interelated, systems of memory. The autobiographical info therein is what gives rise to the experience of a self, or to the concept of "I". That is the "I" that is not its arm, not its body or its mind, it is the "I" that has an arm, has a body and has a mind.

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?"

But memories are thoughts, and I really don't think that a computer is a good analogy, or maybe it is a good analogy, but not an exact example of how the brain works. It is always turned on, always in operation and doesn't need a distinct agent in order to press its buttons. In my humble opinion, of course.

Frankly - I have no idea. As far as I know, none of us knows - which was basically the point I was trying to make.

That is true, none of us can say we know. But, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of immaterial things existing or sound reason to think that they do exist, or if they did, that they could effect the material.

[Tassman]

Of 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.

The various religions have believed all sorts of stuff during the course of human history. Just because some people believe these things does not make them true.