Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[Bradskii]

No, I certainly wouldn’t say “must.” That would be out of character for a declared agnostic. But I think we have to drop the material vs. immaterial mind topic for now, because I realize we’re derailing a thread about a very different OP.

I’d be happy to make a new thread about it if you are interested in discussing it, though.

I certainly would.

 

[Bradskii]

Yep. For you refuse to accept it. Because if you accept it, you’d have to suffer from great cognitive dissonance or accept further unpleasant conclusions. For example…

Well, yes. I would for example… have to accept that the Christian God exists. Him being the consciousness that you claim gave consciousness to us (and cats and dogs and birds, fish, reptiles etc).

But that doesn’t come as a one-off, no-questions-asked, no-need-to-take-it-further option. Ben’s option is a little more straightforward. I don’t need to be an atheist to reject it despite it having all the appearances of a deistic approach. Maybe the consciousness that he refers to is what we might call Nature. Maybe nature itself is conscious in some way and therefore we, being part of nature, are conscious as well. I don’t agree, but I don’t agree not because I don’t beleive in gods. Or God in your particular case. I don’t agree because I see no evidence for it whereas I see lots of evidence for it to have arisen naturally.

But your option carries so much baggage with it, it is impossible to agree with it unless you already accept the Christian God in His entireity.

Because that’s what you want me to accept and your comments show it. You say I would have to accept ‘further unpleasant conclusions’. So the full question should be:

Do you accept that God created consciousness in Man and that He was the creator of the universe and sent His only son, born of a virgin and crucified, rising 3 days later and who will return at some point and who is our only hope of eternal salvation.

That’s a rather potted version of Chritianity I’ll admit. But that’s what you want me to accept. That’s why I suggested we call whatever it might have been ‘Brahma’. Maybe I should have just said X. You couLd have asked if X created consciousness. And I would quite naturally ask what you define X to be.

And you would have had to say 'X is the creator of the universe and sent His only son, born of a virgin…hey, Brad. Where are you going? There’s a lot more about Him (oops, sorry - X) that you need to know.

Thanks. But I already know quite a lot about Him.

 

[MPat]

Well, yes. I would for example… have to accept that the Christian God exists. Him being the consciousness that you claim gave consciousness to us (and cats and dogs and birds, fish, reptiles etc).

But that doesn’t come as a one-off, no-questions-asked, no-need-to-take-it-further option. Ben’s option is a little more straightforward. I don’t need to be an atheist to reject it despite it having all the appearances of a deistic approach. Maybe the consciousness that he refers to is what we might call Nature. Maybe nature itself is conscious in some way and therefore we, being part of nature, are conscious as well. I don’t agree, but I don’t agree not because I don’t beleive in gods. Or God in your particular case. I don’t agree because I see no evidence for it whereas I see lots of evidence for it to have arisen naturally.

But your option carries so much baggage with it, it is impossible to agree with it unless you already accept the Christian God in His entireity.

Because that’s what you want me to accept and your comments show it. You say I would have to accept ‘further unpleasant conclusions’. So the full question should be:

Do you accept that God created consciousness in Man and that He was the creator of the universe and sent His only son, born of a virgin and crucified, rising 3 days later and who will return at some point and who is our only hope of eternal salvation.

That’s a rather potted version of Chritianity I’ll admit. But that’s what you want me to accept. That’s why I suggested we call whatever it might have been ‘Brahma’. Maybe I should have just said X. You couLd have asked if X created consciousness. And I would quite naturally ask what you define X to be.

And you would have had to say 'X is the creator of the universe and sent His only son, born of a virgin…hey, Brad. Where are you going? There’s a lot more about Him (oops, sorry - X) that you need to know.

Thanks. But I already know quite a lot about Him.

No, actually at this point you could get away with merely rejecting materialism.

You know, just accept that there has to be an explanation for us not merely not knowing how consciousness arises, but not having a slightest idea how we can even start investigating it. And that existence of something that is not material and thus is hard to research is a much better explanation than “Science will get it! Eventually…” and using “Evolution”, as if that was some magic word.

No, the unpleasant conclusions I mentioned are not the ones you talked about.

One unpleasant conclusion is that you were wrong. Very wrong. And not for some good reason.

It leads to further unpleasant conclusions: if you were so wrong, you’re fallible. And if you had no good reason to hold your position, maybe you are not quite so perfectly “reasonable”? Maybe you are like the rest of us mortals, and are quite capable of self-deception?

Thus Feynman’s “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.” applies to you just as much as to anyone else.

And then you’d have to do lots of rechecking if you were fooling yourself anywhere else.

 

[benjamin1973]

Material monism, science, mind and God Philosophy

Introduction “Evolution” seems to be a word that comes up a lot, in forums about that subject as a competitor to Biblical or theistic accounts of creation, and recently in the thread about Pascal’s wager. Underlying this idea is the scientific objective world world view in general, and a material monist world view in particular (i.e. there is only the material Universe, the things and forces in it, etc.) Please let me say now that I’d prefer to stick to mainstream science. I don’t want to br…

 

[Bradskii]

No, actually at this point you could get away with merely rejecting materialism.

You know, just accept that there has to be an explanation for us not merely not knowing how consciousness arises, but not having a slightest idea how we can even start investigating it. And that existence of something that is not material and thus is hard to research is a much better explanation than “Science will get it! Eventually…” and using “Evolution”, as if that was some magic word.

No, the unpleasant conclusions I mentioned are not the ones you talked about.

One unpleasant conclusion is that you were wrong. Very wrong. And not for some good reason.

It leads to further unpleasant conclusions: if you were so wrong, you’re fallible. And if you had no good reason to hold your position, maybe you are not quite so perfectly “reasonable”? Maybe you are like the rest of us mortals, and are quite capable of self-deception?

Thus Feynman’s “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.” applies to you just as much as to anyone else.

And then you’d have to do lots of rechecking if you were fooling yourself anywhere else.

My position is that consciousness has developed naturally. There is evidence for that and I have been given no evidence to the contrary.

Would you like to refute that your position is that the God of the bible, the Christian God is the only explanation for consciousness?

Because it appears that you accuse me of being willing to accept just natural explanations. Whereas you discount ALL natural explanations and accept only ONE supernatural explanation together with literally everything else that one needs to believe to be classed as a Christian.

And I’m the close minded guy?

 

[Bradskii]

Material monism, science, mind and God

I’m not sure where the post was going but it appears to concern the use of the term ‘evolution’ and assumes it only is relevant to a materialst viewpoint. Which ignores the gazillions of Christians who accept it without any problem whatsoever. They consider the process of evolution to be the method whereby God created what we have now.

So both they and myself are in lockstep as to how the physical world evolved from the moment of creation to now. The only difference is that they would claim that God was the cause and I would say ‘I have no idea how it started’. Once stated, we can all move on investigating the world trying to work out how things like consciousness, for example, developed.

Where I and some Christians differ is that some of them want to claim that things like, for example, consciousness, are entirely supernatural. That there is no natural explanation. And what we are left with is a God Of The Gaps position. Is it that we should stop looking for natural explanations because they say that none exist?

If that is the case, rewind the clock and we wouldn’t have begun to look for explantions for why the sun appears to revolve around the earth or what stars are or why we are so genetically similar to apes.

As I said, if God is granted to have instilled consciousness, then there is no end to what else you HAVE to accept about Him. You can’t agree it was God and then suggest He simply ceased to exist. Oh no. You can’t accept it was God and then suggest He then plays no part in our lives. Oh no. You can’t agree it was God and then suggest that He has never interacted with anyone at all. Oh no. You can’t agree it was God and…well, you get the picture.

 

[benjamin1973]

That post is a link to the thread I made as promised. We should talk about this stuff there. I have a lot to say, but I don’t want to derail this thread anymore.

 

[MPat]

My position is that consciousness has developed naturally.

More specifically your claim is that it happened via Darwinian evolution. Mutations, survival of the fittest etc.

There is evidence for that

And yet, let me guess, you will somehow avoid giving a single example?

I have been given no evidence to the contrary.

No, you refuse to recognise the evidence to the contrary.

For the simple fact that, as you yourself admit, we do not have any idea how consciousness can arise from material as described by Physics, is evidence for it not being of the kind that Physics (and related sciences) can successfully explain.

The existence of eliminative materialism or behaviourism (as tries to claim that consciousness, qualia etc. do not really exist) are also pieces of evidence (such desperate measures are not taken when there is serious hope to explain something).

Would you like to refute that your position is that the God of the bible, the Christian God is the only explanation for consciousness?

Well, things are a bit more complex than that. Sure, God is the First Cause, and there is a sense in which He is the explanation of everything.

But perhaps you’d be surprised to learn that Catholics accept more of “material” explanation of consciousness than you think.

Yes, there’s a catch: in that case the matter itself is understood to have qualitative aspects that are inaccessible to Physics, as it is understood now, working only with quantitative aspects.

See, for example, Edward Feser’s blog posts “Animals are conscious! In other news, sky is blue, water wet” (Edward Feser: Animals are conscious! In other news, sky is blue, water wet), “Progressive dematerialization” (Edward Feser: Progressive dematerialization) or “Was Aquinas a materialist?” (Edward Feser: Was Aquinas a materialist?).

I’m afraid that you weren’t ever going to learn those peculiarities of Catholic position from basic preparation of Anglicans.

Because it appears that you accuse me of being willing to accept just natural explanations. Whereas you discount ALL natural explanations and accept only ONE supernatural explanation together with literally everything else that one needs to believe to be classed as a Christian.

As you can see that is not that accurate either.

And I’m the close minded guy?

Oh, we’re both close minded.

The difference is that you are in denial about being close minded, while I happily admit that.

And you know, not fooling yourself is good.

Not to mention that I am right and you are wrong.

And I can give reasons for my beliefs, while you can only give excuses for not giving the reasons.

 

[Gorgias]

So finally you abandon your original assertion, namely: “you can ALWAYS choose what to believe”. It was about time.

Not in the least. You always do choose. The illogic of your position is the demand to abandon one’s choice.

The idea of unconscious choice is an oxymoron.

Hardly. Is there more than one alternative? Do you pick it without conscious thought? Then, yep: “unconscious choice.” It’s simple, really.

If only you would investigate neuroscience (even on a superficial level) you would realize the difference between the information processes that happen in the grey matter and the white matter of the brain.

Seriously… the attempts at asserting intellectual superiority are getting old.

 

[Bradskii]

The evidence that it happened naturally is that it appears in nature to different degrees in different organisms. The more basic the organism, the less consciousness is apparent. The more complex the organism, the more obvious. I don’t think it would be hard to list organisms as to the degree of self awareness from us down to mice for example. A list of the same organisms noting the complexity of the central nervous system would correlate.

As we know that we ourselves are evolved creatures from the most basic of organisms to the present, the evidence points to the fact that consciousness has evolved in a corresponding fashion.

The only other explanation I know of is the one that you suggest: God granted us consciousness. In which case you would need to ask when this happened. At once or over a period of time. If over a period of time then we are saying that it evolved. If it happened at once, then we need some evidence for this.

Now how it happened, as I have said and will probably have to keep repeating myself, is unknown. Just like the question of how life actually started, we have yet to determine any definitive answers.

If you want to suggest that Goddidit, then be my guest. But all the evidence points to Him doing it within nature. What we would describe as naturally. He may even be controlling evolution second by second. But if it all conforms with what we understand to be natural laws, then Occam’s razor might come in handy at this point.

So I do not have a problem with God being the creator.I do not have a problem with Him starting life. Or prompting consciousness. It’s just that it gives all the appearance of having happened naturally. So I can include God if you lIke (leaving aside the bits about Adam and Eve and virgin births at this stage). But you cannot exclude Him at all.

And if I include Him, then excuse me if I use a different term to describe Him. You can still use the word ‘God’ but I will use a different term so as to distinguish Him from your specific God. The one with Adam and Eve and virgin births etc. We wouldn’t want to confuse them.

 

[Sophia]

Hardly. Is there more than one alternative? Do you pick it without conscious thought? Then, yep: “unconscious choice.” It’s simple, really.

I don’t know which dialect of the English language do you use. Maybe next time you will assert that one “chooses” to blink when a small insect is approaching your eye.

Seriously… the attempts at asserting intellectual superiority are getting old.

Now, whether this misunderstanding was the result of a volitional choice, or an involuntary response, I don’t know. But my suggestion comes from the genuine desire to help you to extend your horizons and thereby shrink your ignorance. Of course your ignorance is not “catholic” (all-encompassing ), but quite substantial. Mine too, and I am aware of it, so I never pass up an opportunity to learn more.

 

[MPat]

If you want to suggest that Goddidit, then be my guest. But all the evidence points to Him doing it within nature.

You know, someone more poetically minded might have described that as “God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.”…

Or (somewhat less poetically minded) “Moreover, it belongs to the dignity of a ruler to have many ministers and a variety of executors of his rule, for, the more subjects he has, on different levels, the higher and greater is his dominion shown to be. But no ruler’s dignity is comparable to the dignity of the divine rule. So, it is appropriate that the execution of divine providence be carried out by diverse levels of agents.” (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#77).

Or “But we showed above that divine providence does not exclude other causes; rather, it orders them so that the order which providence has determined within itself may be imposed on things. And thus, secondary causes are not incompatible with providence; instead, they carry out the effect of providence.” (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#96)

Or “However, it seems that we should keep in mind that, though God at times does something apart from the order implanted in things, He does nothing contrary to nature.” (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#100) .

It looks like your position is not as different from our position, as it might have looked.

Have the people who prepared you for confirmation claimed otherwise?

So I do not have a problem with God being the creator.I do not have a problem with Him starting life. Or prompting consciousness. It’s just that it gives all the appearance of having happened naturally. So I can include God if you lIke (leaving aside the bits about Adam and Eve and virgin births at this stage). But you cannot exclude Him at all.

And if I include Him, then excuse me if I use a different term to describe Him. You can still use the word ‘God’ but I will use a different term so as to distinguish Him from your specific God. The one with Adam and Eve and virgin births etc. We wouldn’t want to confuse them.

Well, if the main objection ends up being about the word “God”, sure, you can use any other.

The evidence that it happened naturally is that it appears in nature to different degrees in different organisms. The more basic the organism, the less consciousness is apparent. The more complex the organism, the more obvious. I don’t think it would be hard to list organisms as to the degree of self awareness from us down to mice for example. A list of the same organisms noting the complexity of the central nervous system would correlate.

The problem with consciousness is that it is not always easy to see from outside.

But yes, we do find out when we actually detect consciousness, neurons do tend to participate.

 

[Bradskii]

We’re all good then.

And the word I will use is ‘nature’.

 

[MPat]

If you want to suggest that Goddidit, then be my guest. But all the evidence points to Him doing it within nature.

We’re all good then.

And the word I will use is ‘nature’.

So, why don’t you write a bit more about “nature working through nature”?

I’d say that would be rather entertaining.

Hopefully, you’re OK with some confusion…

We wouldn’t want to confuse them.

…

Well, maybe you aren’t…

More seriously, of course, you are not trying to offer a new name for God.

Yet I’m afraid that the view you ended up expressing is no longer Atheism, but Pantheism.

You also have one more problem: that “nature” still has to be either material (in the sense used by materialists), or non-material.

If you choose option “material”, you still have the same problem you started with (and it would show that you can easily choose to believe conclusions against the evidence - an ability you wanted to deny). If you choose option “non-material”, then materialism becomes hard to justify, to say the least.

So, which option do you choose?

On a less related note… Isn’t it interesting that not a single URL I gave in last two posts has been viewed? As if you aren’t all that interested in finding out what the position of your opponent really is…

 

[rstrats]

IWantGod,
re: “What value do they give to existence?”

So you’re implying that you can consciously choose to believe things but only if you think that such a belief would give value to your existence?

If so, can you name something that you curently believe - are convinced - doesn’t exist but that you think if you were to believe in its existence that the belief would give value to your life?

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not adding another term. I’m removing one. I’ve simplified ‘God working through nature’ to ‘Nature’.

A lot simpler.

And please don’t expect me to read every link that you post. I post them as an option you might like to take. You won’t find me saying ‘So…I note that you haven’t read all of ‘Origin of the Species’ to which I linked!’

I prefer to give MY opinion on any subject. A link sometimes indicates where information can be found that supports my view or from where I developed my view. But I will give my version any time you ask.

 

[MPat]

I’m not adding another term. I’m removing one. I’ve simplified ‘God working through nature’ to ‘Nature’.

A lot simpler.

So, why not drop one more term? Just look at the result: “”! So simple!

If only it (empty string) would also be useful, or making sense… Not that you indicated any willingness to check for that.

And you know, for someone who claims to be so perfectly “reasonable” (as you define that), you show remarkably little interest in things actually making sense, offering evidence, arguments.

All that is obviously evidence for your views not being based on rational reasons, evidence. Non-rational motivators (like willingness to think well of oneself) are all that is left.

And, of course, it again demonstrates that beliefs can be chosen.

And please don’t expect me to read every link that you post. I post them as an option you might like to take. You won’t find me saying ‘So…I note that you haven’t read all of ‘Origin of the Species’ to which I linked!’

Oh, “expect” is far too strong.

But not even looking to them points towards interesting lack of interest in position one is arguing against.

You know, clicking on link only requires the level of curiosity “I’ll see what nonsense did those idiots write now, so that I could laugh at it.”.

And if you can’t demonstrate even such level of curiosity, we can see to what extent you are closed minded.

And again, since you have no good rational reason to be so closed minded, it shows that you have different motives. Which, in turn shows that beliefs can be chosen.

I prefer to give MY opinion on any subject. A link sometimes indicates where information can be found that supports my view or from where I developed my view. But I will give my version any time you ask.

You do understand you ended up saying that you are not all that interested in evidence or alternative views?

The idea of unconscious choice is an oxymoron.

I don’t know which dialect of the English language do you use. Maybe next time you will assert that one “chooses” to blink when a small insect is approaching your eye.

Actually, “unconscious choice” is not such an uncommon phrase. For example:

• Quickly making the correct choice - ScienceDirect! (Eli Brenner, Jeroen B.J.Smeets “Quickly making the correct choice”, “Vision Research”, 2015) - “In daily life, unconscious choices guide many of our on-going actions.”
• CAN I WRITE FOR A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL? - ScienceDirect (Phillip W. Hughes “CAN I WRITE FOR A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL?”, “Australian Journal of Physiotherapy”, 1964) - “The design must always be such as to enforce honesty on the investigator and eliminate any possibility of unconscious choice of favourable conditions.”

Perhaps, if you think it should be abandoned, you should offer arguments instead of just personal disapproval.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, I will respond to what you write. If you want to quote something then I will read it and respond. If you quote something and post a link to where you got the quote then I don’t really need to go any further than what you think was worth quoting. If you put forward an idea and post a link to where I might get further info should I want it, then I might read it if I have time and your ideas seem interesting enough for me to do some further investigation. If you post a link as evidence of what you have already posted, I will then accept what you have posted or investigate the link to see if it’s valid and respond as required.

All clear?

 

[Bradskii]

And you might mean null rather than empty. An empty string is something. A string that is empty. But you still have the string. Null means there is nothing. Which is what you get when there is no nature.

 

[MPat]

And you might mean null rather than empty. An empty string is something. A string that is empty. But you still have the string. Null means there is nothing. Which is what you get when there is no nature.

So, instead of dealing with the point that further use of your current “method” (“simplification”) leads to Nothing being used to explain consciousness, you want to discuss the data type of that Nothing?

That looks like an obvious distraction to me.