Can an Atheist Answer These?

[tonyrey]

Well, interestingly enough, we do know certain chemicals that are typically associated with feelings of love, but of course, the subjective experience cannot be identified from external inspection.

Thank you for conceding that the subjective experience is a reality distinct from chemical reactions and cannot be identified by external inspection. Association does not entail dependence or causation…
How do you know that reasoning is more than mechanical deduction, or to put it another way, what evidence do you have that lead you to this positive conclusion?
Do you believe in the validity of induction? Intuition? Creative thought? Do you believe sophisticated machines like computers have a self? Or is the self an illusion?

 

[tonyrey]

Well, interestingly enough, we do know certain chemicals that are typically associated with feelings of love, but of course, the subjective experience cannot be identified from external inspection.

Thank you for conceding that the subjective experience is a reality distinct from chemical reactions and cannot be identified by external inspection. Association does not entail dependence or causation…

How do you know that reasoning is more than mechanical deduction, or to put it another way, what evidence do you have that lead you to this positive conclusion?

Do you believe in the validity of induction? Intuition? Creative thought? Do you believe sophisticated machines like computers have a self? Or is the self an illusion?

 

[tonyrey]

Except that if there is no God, you go about doing it with an ability that is not of God. With or without God, the reality is that we have that ability. You attribute it to God. I do not. For the sake of argument, assume there is no God, and then ask yourself how you would have the ability to make the decisions you do. If you can’t come up with an answer, perhaps you should accept that you’ve not really examined other options.

Of course I have examined other options and I have found none of them to be satisfactory. If my decisions are **not caused by me **they cannot be mine! If you disagree please explain how they can…

 

[Matthias123]

Perhaps not yet, and if someone did, you’d ignore it anyway.
But has anyone explained how an immaterial mind controls the body? How does it move muscles, cause brain activity, controls glands? Telekinetically? Magically?

Through an efficient cause – who says that the immaterial cannot cause change in the material?

 

[AnAtheist]

who says that the immaterial cannot cause change in the material?

That was not my question. **How **does it do that?

 

[AnAtheist]

Has anyone explained how and why physical energy exists, has produced and controls immaterial realities like persons, their thoughts and their decisions? Where is the source of integration and organisation? Or is that an illusion?

Well, it seems we have two different explanations of an observable phenomenon here, that both lack some detailed explanations at certain key points. (Unless you can explain, how an immaterial mind controls matter.)
Physical energy btw. is an abstract figure to describe the dynamic state of a system. That is very well defined, but often confused with esoteric concepts like Qi or chakra or whatever.
So, when having two theories we need to ask which explains the observable phenomenon better, i.e. more accurate? A materialistic theory e.g. very well explains, why drugs and brain injuries can alter one’s personality, I don’t see how a transcendent theory does that (but maybe you care to explain). Therefore I do favor the materialistic point of view.

Do you really believe you are no more than a collection of electrical currents?

“To believe” is the wrong term, see above regarding how theories about reality are accepted, but in a sense - yes, I do that.

 

[Matthias123]

That was not my question. **How **does it do that?

It is going to have to cause electrical stimulation in the brain. I would assume it would use the bodies’s chemical energy to do this. However it must be noted that the law of conservation of energy does not apply the immaterial – only the material – so it would not be a violation of this material law if energy was created.

 

[AnAtheist]

It is going to have to cause electrical stimulation in the brain. I would assume it would use the bodies’s chemical energy to do this. However it must be noted that the law of conservation of energy does not apply the immaterial – only the material – so it would not be a violation of this material law if energy was created.

Yes, it would have to cause electrical stimualtion in the brain. How does it do that? Does it interact using electro-magnetical fields, i.e. does it exchange photons with the brain? Is there an unknown force between the mind and the body that causes the stimulation? And if there is, isn’t that force as material as the other forces we know?

 

[tonyrey]

Has anyone explained how and why physical energy exists, has produced and controls immaterial realities like persons, their thoughts and their decisions? Where is the source of integration and organisation? Or is that an illusion?

Well, it seems we have two different explanations of an observable phenomenon here, that both lack some detailed explanations at certain key points. (Unless you can explain, how an immaterial mind controls matter.)
Physical energy btw. is an abstract figure to describe the dynamic state of a system.

How does an abstract concept fit into a materialistic scheme of things?

So, when having two theories we need to ask which explains the observable phenomenon better, i.e. more accurate?
A materialistic theory e.g. very well explains, why drugs and brain injuries can alter one’s personality.
A materialistic theory very well explains why drugs and brain injuries can alter brain activity.

The brain is an instrument which can be damaged like any other instrument. If it is damaged or affected by drugs it cannot function properly. A person is not a brain and is not changed but simply unable to express himself/herself or communicate normally. That is why such interference is associated with a lack of responsibility. it does not mean that the person ceases to be a person or no longer has the rights of a person.

Do you really believe you are no more than a collection of electrical currents?
“To believe” is the wrong term, see above regarding how theories about reality are accepted, but in a sense - yes, I do that.

If you are no more than a collection of electrical currents please will you explain how you are a person with:

1. An enduring identity
2. Awareness of yourself
3. The power of abstract reasoning
4. The power of choice
5. The capacity for emotion
6. The capacity for love
7. The right to life, liberty, equality and fraternity

Do you feel as if you are just a collection of electrical currents and treat others as if they are collections of electrical currents? If not why not?l

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just because we can use these things in bad ways does not make them untrue, does not make them part of our knowledge. Are you trying to say fusion is not true because we can use it to cause harm?

Of course not.

You said: “Real knowledge is that which we know to be true, we reap its benefits.” You didn’t say that we can see its effects; you said we reap its benefits. Benefit involves an advantage. I was just pointing out that much of this knowledge is questionably advantageous. This leaves your statement as “Real knowledge is that which we know to be true”, which is analytic and trivial.

 

[Leela]

Of course not.

You said: “Real knowledge is that which we know to be true, we reap its benefits.” You didn’t say that we can see its effects; you said we reap its benefits. Benefit involves an advantage. I was just pointing out that much of this knowledge is questionably advantageous. This leaves your statement as “Real knowledge is that which we know to be true”, which is analytic and trivial.

To know something is generally taken to mean “to be justified in believing something that is true.” This “justified true belief” formulation of knowledge goes back at least to Plato. These three criteria for knowledge don’t include anything about “benefits” and I don’t think that is what Darwin meant. I think all he was saying is that if a belief is a habit of action then a belief that we are justified in taking to be provisionally true is one that leads to successful action, even if it means successfully doing something evil. Such a description of our epistemic situation doesn’t give us much to say about the truth of, say, the transubstantiation of the consecrated host. How could we ever justify such a belief? Where is the difference that makes a difference that could be used to judge the truth or falsity of the claim?

 

[AnAtheist]

Has anyone explained how and why physical energy exists, has produced and controls immaterial realities like persons, their thoughts and their decisions? Where is the source of integration and organisation? Or is that an illusion?

How does an abstract concept fit into a materialistic scheme of things?
The brain is an instrument which can be damaged like any other instrument. If it is damaged or affected by drugs it cannot function properly. A person is not a brain and is not changed but simply unable to express himself/herself or communicate normally. That is why such interference is associated with a lack of responsibility. it does not mean that the person ceases to be a person or no longer has the rights of a person.
If you are no more than a collection of electrical currents please will you explain how you are a person with:

1. An enduring identity
2. Awareness of yourself
3. The power of abstract reasoning
4. The power of choice
5. The capacity for emotion
6. The capacity for love
7. The right to life, liberty, equality and fraternity

Do you feel as if you are just a collection of electrical currents and treat others as if they are collections of electrical currents? If not why not?l

This is pointless. You are confusing everything.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Such a description of our epistemic situation doesn’t give us much to say about the truth of, say, the transubstantiation of the consecrated host. How could we ever justify such a belief? Where is the difference that makes a difference that could be used to judge the truth or falsity of the claim?

But I was not defending the proposition “I know that the Eucharist is the body of Christ”, nor would I. I believe it, and it is possible. It doesn’t stand in need of justification. No rational Catholic would ever ask that someone *know *this proposition. This does not make the belief irrational – although the belief is certainly not entailed by rationality.

There are, without doubt, propositions that are true that cannot be completely justified, given our current knowledge. Should a person be blamed for believing them?

 

[liquidpele]

This is pointless. You are confusing everything.

You’re just mad because you can’t argue against a list of items.
…
3) profit!

 

[Shredderbeam]

Thank you for conceding that the subjective experience is a reality distinct from chemical reactions and cannot be identified by external inspection. Association does not entail dependence or causation…

Association/correlation can imply dependence/causation, but it does not necessarily prove dependence/causation.

tonyrey:

Do you believe in the validity of induction? Intuition? Creative thought? Do you believe sophisticated machines like computers have a self? Or is the self an illusion?

I can’t answer those questions with certainty, but my inability to answer does not prove that you are right.

You have not answered how you know that reasoning is more than a mechanical process. You must realize that to claim to know A, you must have evidence in support of A, or reasonable grounds on which to claim that you know it. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you, since you are claiming a positive.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

[Matthias123]

Yes, it would have to cause electrical stimualtion in the brain. How does it do that? Does it interact using electro-magnetical fields, i.e. does it exchange photons with the brain? Is there an unknown force between the mind and the body that causes the stimulation? And if there is, isn’t that force as material as the other forces we know?

I have to admit this is one of the difficulties dualists face. I do not have an answer to your question, and most people who have answered this question lived a very long time ago and their science is out of date.

 

[Leela]

I have to admit this is one of the difficulties dualists face. I do not have an answer to your question, and most people who have answered this question lived a very long time ago and their science is out of date.

I agree that the difficulties you mention are the product of dualistic thinking. They are the result of the subject-object picture that is inherent to metaphysics. Both the materialist and the supernaturalist will have a hard time with such questions as originally posed in this thread. Philosophers in the past have asked, “what really exists?”, “how does language hook up with reality?”, “What are the scope and limits of human knowledge?” All these questions and all other metaphysical inquiry as the attempt to get past appearances to reality as it really is presuppose that philosophy can be done ahistorically–that our present practices can give us an understanding of the essence of all human practices and that by believing right or wrong sentences we can be taken closer to or further from reality.

Maybe it is time to question these assumptions and even give up on the practice of such dualistic metahysics that give rise to such bugbears.Maybe we would get more mileage out of our philosphical musings if we think of ourselves as historically situated beings with no way of stepping outside of history and whose ideas are the product of thousands of years of biological, cultural, and intellectual evolution. We are are always in touch with reality because it cannot be otherwise. Language, as a tool that evolved for coping with reality, has no power to take us outside of reality.

Maybe we should return to the Socratic roots of philosophy as simply asking one another why we are doing what we are doing instead of participating in the Platonic dualistic practice of philosophy which itself is somehow supposed to be independent of practice. I think many of the differences bewteen materialists and supernaturalists will melt away when we stop philosophical inquiry as asking “what really exist?” and get on with philosophical inquiry as part of our practice of self-creation and our hopes of creating a better world.

Otherwise, I suspect that the next two thousand years of inquiry into such questions that opened this thread will take us no further toward answering them than the past two thousand years have.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

   Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5675993#post5675993)                 
             *Has anyone explained how and why physical energy exists, has produced and controls immaterial realities like persons, their thoughts and their decisions? Where is the source of integration and organisation? Or is that an illusion?

How does an abstract concept fit into a materialistic scheme of things?
The brain is an instrument which can be damaged like any other instrument. If it is damaged or affected by drugs it cannot function properly. A person is not a brain and is not changed but simply unable to express himself/herself or communicate normally. That is why such interference is associated with a lack of responsibility. it does not mean that the person ceases to be a person or no longer has the rights of a person.
If you are no more than a collection of electrical currents please will you explain how you are a person with:

1. An enduring identity
2. Awareness of yourself
3. The power of abstract reasoning
4. The power of choice
5. The capacity for emotion
6. The capacity for love
7. The right to life, liberty, equality and fraternity

Do you feel as if you are just a collection of electrical currents and treat others as if they are collections of electrical currents? If not why not?l*

This is pointless. You are confusing everything.

Please will you explain how I am confusing everything? It seems quite straightforward to me. Either you can sketch the outline of an explanation or admit you don’t know - as others have done. None of us understands everything…

 

[tonyrey]

   Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     
             *Has anyone explained how and why physical energy exists, has produced and controls immaterial realities like persons, their thoughts and their decisions? Where is the source of integration and organisation? Or is that an illusion?

How does an abstract concept fit into a materialistic scheme of things?
The brain is an instrument which can be damaged like any other instrument. If it is damaged or affected by drugs it cannot function properly. A person is not a brain and is not changed but simply unable to express himself/herself or communicate normally. That is why such interference is associated with a lack of responsibility. it does not mean that the person ceases to be a person or no longer has the rights of a person.
If you are no more than a collection of electrical currents please will you explain how you are a person with:

1. An enduring identity
2. Awareness of yourself
3. The power of abstract reasoning
4. The power of choice
5. The capacity for emotion
6. The capacity for love
7. The right to life, liberty, equality and fraternity

Do you feel as if you are just a collection of electrical currents and treat others as if they are collections of electrical currents? If not why not?*

This is pointless. You are confusing everything.

Please will you explain how I am confusing everything? It seems quite straightforward to me. Either you can sketch the outline of an explanation or admit you don’t know - as others have done. None of us understands everything…

 

[tonyrey]

You’re just mad because you can’t argue against a list of items.

It is rather disconcerting when we can’t answer questions but it is a sign of strength rather than weakness to admit we don’t know…

1. profit!

Why do your thoughts turn to money?