But seriously . . . atheism?

[Caleb]

eques,

thanks for your comments; they were thoughtful, and I will respond later when I have time.  For now, I'll show you the Copenhagen interpretation from your article. 

The act of measurement causes an instantaneous "collapse of the wave function". This means that the measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function, and the wave function instantaneously changes to reflect that pick.

You're right that quantum is very involved, and frankly, it would seem that it has only very little to contribute to the discussion of God.  Bohm's theories are rather complex, and I'll frankly admit that I don't understand it completely, but he appears to believe that everything is non-local, and that all entities are interconnected.  Wolf assumes an infinite number of parallel universes, based on the premise that each possibility of each subatomic particle creates its own universe, and that the mind can choose between these universes. Whitehead (whose interpretations I follow) advocated a panexperientialist interpretation to the data.

I really have to wonder, is the concept that consciousness might be entirely based on matter repugnant to you in some way?  Why do you rule that out as a possibility?  Or does it in fact exist as a possibility, but you don't really want to think about it?

I would recommend checking the links I posted earlier with respect to panexperientialism, as I believe that would explain it to you.  I do not find the concept that consciousness and matter are interrelated to be repugnant in any way.  In fact, it is central to my belief.

[adamwruth]

Why are you picking on Ganesha? ???

It wasn't me, braddogg brought up the elephant, I would probably have gone with a naked warrior amazon god.  But when he did I got a picture of Homer Simpson dresed as Ganesha trying to break up Apu's wedding.

I managed to move away from "bless you" to using "gesundheit" (I think I mentioned this in another thread), merely as a form of politeness.

I'm German, so gesundheit was always my saying.

I think that if the Flatlanders were to have enough experience with interacting with the 3-dimensional world, they may be able to form concepts and theories that would make attempts to explain these things.

What was interesting about the lesson was when we tried to think in 4 dimensions ourselves, it was a real brain bender.  Imagine, for example, that the 4th dimension is time. As we are now we pass through time in one direction, and can only percieve an infintely small slice of it at any given time.  Try to imagine existing fully in that dimension, not time travel, but having time being a spacial dimension.  You could look at someone and see them as they were from birth to death all at once.  We don't have the sensory facilities nor the congitive ability to comprehend it.  Any way that we can come to describe it would be a fairly poor approximation.  It's like trying to think in irrational numbers in math.  They don't exist, but they have a value.  It's kind of fun but maddening.

The big difference between the pencil in Flatland and god in the real world is that the pencil in Flatland is directly observed as a morphing shape.  It may be unexplainable at first according to Flatlander standards, but I don't think it's ultimately incomprehensible.

I wasn't using the pencil as an analogy of god, it was just an example of how phenomena in our universe can be observable but not truly understood without a different framework.  Multiple dimensions, worm holes, big bang, grand unification, infinity, stuff like that.

[eques]

eques,

thanks for your comments; they were thoughtful, and I will respond later when I have time.  For now, I'll show you the Copenhagen interpretation from your article. 

The act of measurement causes an instantaneous "collapse of the wave function". This means that the measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function, and the wave function instantaneously changes to reflect that pick.

That doesn't say that a particle has "no position," just that its position is unknowable except as defined by the wave function which can only give a probability of the particle's position.  I think that radioactive decay is very much the same in this regard, as you can predict that the mass of a sample of a particular isotope will reduce in half according to that isotope's half-life, but you cannot predict which atoms will decay, nor when.

You're right that quantum is very involved, and frankly, it would seem that it has only very little to contribute to the discussion of God.  Bohm's theories are rather complex, and I'll frankly admit that I don't understand it completely, but he appears to believe that everything is non-local, and that all entities are interconnected.  Wolf assumes an infinite number of parallel universes, based on the premise that each possibility of each subatomic particle creates its own universe, and that the mind can choose between these universes. Whitehead (whose interpretations I follow) advocated a panexperientialist interpretation to the data.

I really have to wonder, is the concept that consciousness might be entirely based on matter repugnant to you in some way?  Why do you rule that out as a possibility?  Or does it in fact exist as a possibility, but you don't really want to think about it?

I would recommend checking the links I posted earlier with respect to panexperientialism, as I believe that would explain it to you.  I do not find the concept that consciousness and matter are interrelated to be repugnant in any way.  In fact, it is central to my belief.

Well, I followed the link you posted and read two of the first articles.  The thing that jumps to mind immediately is that a logical fallacy is being committed: the fallacy of composition.

In short, the fallacy goes like this: the properties of the composition are A, B, C, hence the properties of the constituents are A, B, C.  The reverse is another form of this fallacy.

From what I've read, it seems that the panexperientialists/panpsychists are saying that because human beings have feelings/consciousness, lower life forms and matter itself must have feelings/consciousness.  I would like to see where the panexperientialists/panpsychists address the charge that they're committing the fallacy of composition (I can keep looking for it, as I'm sure I'm not the only person to come up with this).

The question isn't if consciousness and matter are interrelated, but if consciousness is entirely emergent from matter and thus cannot be the cause of matter in some way.

This is a subtle difference from panexperientialism, which claims (if I'm understanding it correctly) that "experience" or "consciousness" is pre-existing within matter.

I'm glad it's not my job to back up this claim. 

[Caleb]

In short, the fallacy goes like this: the properties of the composition are A, B, C, hence the properties of the constituents are A, B, C.  The reverse is another form of this fallacy.

From what I've read, it seems that the panexperientialists/panpsychists are saying that because human beings have feelings/consciousness, lower life forms and matter itself must have feelings/consciousness.  I would like to see where the panexperientialists/panpsychists address the charge that they're committing the fallacy of composition (I can keep looking for it, as I'm sure I'm not the only person to come up with this).

No, you're not the only person to have noticed this.  That's why I made the earlier comment that I distinguish between actual individuals and aggregate individuals.

In other words, it wouldn't necessarily follow that if the individual subatomic particles composing a rock have experience, that the rock in itself must also have experience. (most Whiteheadian process philosophers prefer "experience" to "consciousness" in order to distinguish between consciousness, which is a high-level form of experience, and other types of lower-level experience.  Non process philosophers will likely refer to this form of "experience" as "proto-consciousness" or some other similar term.)  I would call the rock an "aggregate" individual, or a collective individual, which may or may not exhibit the properties of proto-consciousness, depending on its arrangement.  This is best determined by the evidence. For instance, you are also an aggregate or collective individual, being composed of billions of living cells organized in tissues, organs, and systems.  The individual liver cells (to take one example) are not you.  They also are aggregate individuals, and have their own experience.  Your experience includes these cells, but is not limited to it.

As such, it's possible that you could display some of the properties of the liver cell (including its degree of experience) but that would be determined by empirical evidence, which evidence indicates that you have a collective experience higher than any of your individual components.

Does this help at all?

[eques]

I suppose that what bothers me is that this "proto-consciousness" doesn't seem to have a standard of verifiability.

This "proto-consciousness" or "pervasive experience" looks like it has much more to do with religious philosophy than anything else and hence can only be weakly tied to scientific theory.

I think I understand what you're getting at, however.  I can say that I still don't agree with you.    (I must be getting to sound like a broken record, here. )

[Caleb]

I suppose that what bothers me is that this "proto-consciousness" doesn't seem to have a standard of verifiability.

It is an underlying assumption, but all worldviews incorporate underlying assumptions.  The problem is that materialism has become entrenched as the default worldview, even though it also has underlying assumptions:  Note, for instance, the certainty with which consciousness is placed as an emergent property of matter within the materialist worldview.  There is, to be sure, no evidence for this assumption.  Nonetheless, it is assumed as the default position as a result of the adoption of the underlying worldview.  To the extent that when a person presents another worldview, he is forced to "justify" his worldview - or else the "default" standard applies (materialism).  And most materialists are not even aware that they are making positive claims because the claims are not usually positively stated:  they are assumed. 

Notice that we both are dealing with five variables:  time, space, matter, energy, and consciousness.  Materialism arbitrarily attributes consciousness as a property of matter.  My worldview places consciousness on the same level with the other four, absent any reason to arbitrarily demote it.  The question which I asked Braddogg was appropriate, though he labeled it as "sophistry".  The fact of the matter is that we know one thing in this universe with certainty:  ourselves. All other knowledge we have is of a secondary nature, but myself I have true knowledge of.  You might say, I have "insider information."  The irony of materialism is that this thing of which I have the truest knowledge, it relegates to a position of unworthy insignificance.

[MaineShark]

I've often wondered how someone can subscribe to the most extreme forms of Deism (where God seems to simply be a watchmaker who sets the whole thing in motion, but doesn't want anything to do with it afterwards.)  Why would such a God have created it in the first place, if he intended only to abandon it?

A really long-term experiment?

Actually, I think the distinction between atheist and agnostic comes down to the definition of "know". An consistent atheist "knows" something if all reasonable evidence points that way and it is consistent with observed reality, but could be proven wrong later. An consistent agnostic "knows" nothing, because anything could be proven wrong later.

You make a good point about it being a sematics issue, but I think your definition of an agnostic is a bit off the mark, at least for me. 

It's not that nothing can be known because everything can be ultimately be disproven, it's that some things can't be known by their very nature.  Negative propositions being one of them.

Indeed.  I think the atheists need to read the dictionary, in many cases.  If you call yourself an atheist, that specifically means that you believe that no god exists.  From Webster?s:

Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic- a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

If you believe that there definitely is no god of any sort, you are an atheist, and your belief in a claim like that is based purely on faith, not on rationality, because you have no way to know anything of the sort.

If you believe that the question is unanswerable, or unlikely to be answered, you are an agnostic, and I can?t imagine for the life of me why any self-respecting agnostic would want to label himself an atheist.

Being an agnostic does not mean you can?t have an opinion (even a strong one) as to what the answer to that question might be.  It doesn?t mean you don?t have evidence to back up that opinion.  For that matter, I have strong opinions as to what the political climate is likely to be, 20 years from now, along with statistical, psychological, geographical (etc. etc.) evidence which led me to those beliefs.

What being agnostic means is that you never claim to know, for a fact, the answer to any question which cannot be answered.

I know that gravity exists.  I experience gravity every day.  I do not know that modern scientific theories of gravity are accurate and, indeed, I cannot know that because scientific theories are forever theories.

As I?ve said, I still have to give the theists the edge over the atheists.  Caleb may, indeed, have experienced some sort of god.  I don?t know.  But I do know, with absolute certainty, that no atheist has ever experienced ?the total lack of any god in the entire universe,? because no one can possibly experience that.  Maybe some theists are as rational as agnostics.  No atheist is.

This is where I differ with many atheists (not all, mind you).  They profess a belief that there is no god, but that belief has no more basis in evidence than the theists's with whom they disagree.  They are both coming from a position of "faith", yet only the theists admit it.

Absurd.  God is a man made concept.  Without others' suggestions, no one would believe in god, because they would never have heard of the idea!

Is that really the case?

We're not talking about a (relatively) modern bit of insanity like the concept that disarming someone will make him safer.

We're talking about something that has been believed (in various forms) since before recorded history.

Who was the first person to say "hey, there's this fellow who made the universe," and why didn't everyone just call him crazy?

I'm going to cobble together a theory for the sake of discussion:

1.  "God" is a term for a real entity or entities, which could be studied scientifically.
2.  Human beings are capable of directly experiencing "god(s)" in a limited manner.
3.  All early human cultures believed in "gods" of some sort due to direct experiences.
4.  Religions are created when humans attempt to "fill in the gaps" in their limited experiences.
5.  Modern religions teach faith as a higher goal than experience, so most people now tend to ignore these subtle sensory abilities.
6.  As such, many people now have no direct experience with "god(s)."
7.  Faith in the ability of priests to experience something that average person no longer experiences centers power with the priests.
8.  The more power the priests have, the greater their ability to enforce their claims.
9.  The more these claims are enforced (often by killing "the unfaithful," which rewards those who have greater sensory limitations), the fewer the direct experiences of the people will be, which forms a vicious psychological and biological cycle.
10. The majority of the population is now under the control of some modern religion (or modern variant of an older religion).
11. The majority of the population no longer has the psychological ability to experience "god(s)," although the biological ability remains intact in many.
12. Ergo, while "god(s)" exist, most people have been psychologically-conditioned to ignore their innate ability to experience "god(s)," and many have little or no biological ability left for those senses.

Joe

[Pat McCotter]

Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic- a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

So what do you call a person who has no belief either way? The existence or non-existence of a supreme being has no bearing on this person's life in any way.

[MaineShark]

Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic- a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

So what do you call a person who has no belief either way? The existence or non-existence of a supreme being has no bearing on this person's life in any way.

Agnostic.  To an agnostic, whether the theists or the atheists are right is immaterial, since the question cannot be answered in the negative, and is unlikely to be answered in the positive, so why worry about it?

Joe

[Raineyrocks]

Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic- a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

So what do you call a person who has no belief either way? The existence or non-existence of a supreme being has no bearing on this person's life in any way.

Very care-free, maybe stoned and happy!

[Pat McCotter]

Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic- a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

So what do you call a person who has no belief either way? The existence or non-existence of a supreme being has no bearing on this person's life in any way.

Agnostic.  To an agnostic, whether the theists or the atheists are right is immaterial, since the question cannot be answered in the negative, and is unlikely to be answered in the positive, so why worry about it?

Joe

The definition of agnostic seems to be an active process so I need a new word. I guess apatheist is best for this.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Atheist- one who believes that there is no deity.

Agnostic- a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

So what do you call a person who has no belief either way? The existence or non-existence of a supreme being has no bearing on this person's life in any way.

Very care-free, maybe stoned and happy!

god provided pot

[Michael Fisher]

This nonsense debate over materialism is about 2,100 years old. Back then, reason and faith were so intermingled as to be inseparable. It required over two millenia, but by now the human race has finally achieved a clear delineation between reason and faith, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Belief in God is faith, not reason, and a man can possess both reason and faith in God simultaneously.

Unlike 2,100 years ago, one does not need to accept the religious aspects of atomism in order to accept the physics of atomism as true. Although atomists may have their physics right, that does not mean they are right about anything else.

Why are people looking for physical evidence of God based on reason? They will never find physical evidence of God's existence until the apocalypse (the great revealing).

Why have so many men, with and without faith, wasted so many centuries discussing this? Faith is faith, reason is reason, and though a man may possess both, the two have nothing to do with each other.

[ninetales1234]

If you're not interested in actually providing a proof, you can't just say that it's not possible to prove it doesn't exist, nor does your stated impossibility of proving thus automatically lend any credibility to your argument, namely, that it does exist.

Whoa! That was deep...

[eques]

If you're not interested in actually providing a proof, you can't just say that it's not possible to prove it doesn't exist, nor does your stated impossibility of proving thus automatically lend any credibility to your argument, namely, that it does exist.

Whoa! That was deep...

Was it actually deep, or just convoluted and run-on-ish?