Can an Atheist Answer These?

[liquidpele]

And, the odds are the person who will figure it out will not be christian.

I wouldn’t say that… people have specialties in life. The neurologist can understand the brain but contribute the universe to God while the cosmologist can understand cosmology but attribute the mind to God. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone who knows enough about everything to not have misconceptions and bias.

 

[liquidpele]

So we are great apes aping what we’ve seen… That’s great! It let’s off the hook. We’re not responsible for anything we think, say or do. Highly convenient.

It says we are loads of goofs?:manvspc:

Yes, according to that theory you could put it that way… except for the whole not being responsible argument. To use an analogy, if you didn’t know someone was allergic to peanuts but never told you and you fixed them lunch trying to be nice but used peanut oil and they died, are you responsible for their death?

Love that little graphic btw

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey In other words it’s not your decision at all because it has physical causes… In fact you don’t exist! There is just a body…
Quote:
Great discovery! If electrical signals from the brain control muscles why wouldn’t they control a computer? There is one thing you have overlooked. It doesn’t prove thoughts and decisions originate in the brain - simply that they are communicated via the brain. Otherwise you are just a very complicated biological robot. How does it feel?

How does what feel? You know you don’t need to be such a jerk all the time about everything. If you want to have a conversation then fine but just about every post I see you make somehow puts people down or seems like it tries to make them try to feel bad or something.

 

[tonyrey]

                           Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5707988#post5707988)                 
             *So we are great apes aping what we've seen... That's great! It let's off the hook. We're not responsible for anything we think, say or do. Highly convenient. :rolleyes:

It says we are loads of goofs?:manvspc:*

Yes, according to that theory you could put it that way… except for the whole not being responsible argument. To use an analogy, if you didn’t know someone was allergic to peanuts but never told you and you fixed them lunch trying to be nice but used peanut oil and they died, are you responsible for their death?

That seems to suggest we’re never responsible for anything. Or am I misreading you?

Love that little graphic btw

I hesitated before inserting it because I thought you might be offended, but then I remembered you like a joke.It’s one of the very best IMO… I couldn’t resist it but I think you need your revenge! :takethat:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Exactly, “god did it” is the exact same answer as “i don’t know”. If you believe god did it that is fine, the next question would be “how did god do it?”.

It’s also the wrong answer. Supposing the god of Christians to be as Christians say - supposing there to be an entity Who is such: He has no causal function in scientific questions. So:​

“Why is that man lying on the floor ?”
“I shot him, so he fell down”

is an appropriate answer. So is a description of the physics of shooting a bullet into living human flesh: it would lack a humane dimension - but it would be a valid description of what went on.

An inappropriate answer would be:

“Satan made me shoot him”;

or

“God told me to shoot Him - don’t blame me, blame God”.

The reason that Satan & God can’t be named as causes, is that neither is controllable - their causal functions, however genuinely actual, cannot be shown to be causal functions, because they are entities outside science. Because of this lack of control, there can be no verification of causal functions. Because of this, the possibility of other causes cannot be excluded: if Satan or God can be plausibly named as causes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be excluded; the FSM might be the cause of the shooting. Or the dragon in my garage, or the pink unicorn, or the god Baal. If one un-controllable possible cause is allowed - so must others be.

“But Christians believe God made the universe” Of course; but that is theology - it is not science. Christians have their beliefs about the origin of the universe - and so do others. If the God or devil of Christian belief can be given the status of causes in science - so can the beings of other religions. If the God of Christians can function as a cause for science to take note of - so can the elephants who support the world on their backs. That Christians believe in the one & not in the other, is neither here nor there: Hindus believe in those elephants, and they are as entitled to muddy the waters of science with religious dogma as Christians. The only way of privileging Christian beliefs as causes in science, is to say that no non-Christian is capable of being a true scientist: IOW, to bring in a religious test. And that is as reasonable as would be talk of Catholic gynaecology, Mennonite physics, Anglican aerodynamics or Baptist electricity.

To say God is the cause of the universe, as though God were a cause of things in the way that a lighted match causes fire, or fire causes warmth, is bad theology as well as bad science. It answers no scientific questions, and can be appropriate to science only at the price of undermining the theism it is supposed to clarify. It makes God into an object in the world - as though God were pinioned in a display case to be commented on, described, analysed. But if God is one cause among others, differing only from all others only in being the first link in the chain of causation, whereas all other links in it depend from Him, He is no different in nature from them. This is the theology of many ancient polytheisms: the gods were not transcendent, & not reducible to the created order: they were part of that order, differing only in being greater, more majestic, mightier than men, & (usually) immortal. God is not causal as created things are - to say that something (precious little) of Him can be known from His works, does not mean that, and cannot. God’s Holiness is His “otherness”, His separation from all that is not Him; this separation is the “difference” between the Uncaused God, & the caused universe. Creatures cannot bridge it - but God can.

Which AFAICS is why God is of no “use” for science, nor can be; & those who believe in a Creator-God have no reason to be alarmed by this, but should accept it as the good theology it implies. If Christians want scientific answers, they must use the appropriate methods; which are scientific ones. And that means they are not methods that have a god of any kind as an element in them. Why is it so important to Christians that God should be discoverable by science anyway ?

Just my 2d.

 

[liquidpele]

That seems to suggest we’re never responsible for anything. Or am I misreading you?

I hesitated before inserting it because I thought you might be offended, but then I remembered you like a joke.It’s one of the very best IMO… I couldn’t resist it but I think you need your revenge! :takethat:

I have a twisted sense of humour, I actually have to proof read before I post on here a lot, so never feel that a joke will be too much for me

As for the responsibility thing, I’m simply pointing out that responsibility is not black and white, and as such I don’t think responsibility would disappear if we are just meat robots. Think of it this way… why do we have insanity pleas in the courts? Shouldn’t they be responsible for their actions 100% of the time? Now, personally I don’t like that that plea exists as I think someone doing bad things while temporarily insane is no less of a threat, I think it’s important to note that intention is already recognized as a big part of responsibility. Maybe a better example is the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter.

 

[tonyrey]

As for the responsibility thing, I’m simply pointing out that responsibility is not black and white, and as such I don’t think responsibility would disappear if we are just meat robots. Think of it this way… why do we have insanity pleas in the courts? Shouldn’t they be responsible for their actions 100% of the time? Now, personally I don’t like that that plea exists as I think someone doing bad things while temporarily insane is no less of a threat, I think it’s important to note that intention is already recognized as a big part of responsibility. Maybe a better example is the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter.

A temporarily insane person is no less of a threat than a serial killer but they should not be treated in the same way. The first requires medical attention and supervision whereas the second should be locked up for life. The first should not be punished because he is not responsible for his actions when insane whereas the second deliberately carries out his intention to kill. The meat robot comes into neither category: it knows what it is doing but it cannot do otherwise. It is a helpless spectator of its own actions all the time. Intention is a necessary condition for responsibility but it has to be accompanied by freedom - from coercion or an irresistible impulse or passion. The meat robot never has a choice and is compelled to act in a certain way in every situation.:frighten:

 

[liquidpele]

A temporarily insane person is no less of a threat than a serial killer but they should not be treated in the same way. The first requires medical attention and supervision whereas the second should be locked up for life. The first should not be punished because he is not responsible for his actions when insane whereas the second deliberately carries out his intention to kill. The meat robot comes into neither category: it knows what it is doing but it cannot do otherwise. It is a helpless spectator of its own actions all the time. Intention is a necessary condition for responsibility but it has to be accompanied by freedom - from coercion or an irresistible impulse or passion. The meat robot never has a choice and is compelled to act in a certain way in every situation.:frighten:

You agree that people that are having problems (insane) must be treated differently… but say a meat robot would always act the same. I would say that a person who is insane is just a malfunctioning meat robot (for arguments sake anyway).

 

[SonofMonica]

One of my psychology classes in college many years ago brought up the really interesting idea that we don’t really have free will, but our brains are just really good at “faking it”. A good analogy is a chat-bot on AIM or something… if it passed the Turing test (meaning you couldn’t differentiate between it and a human) then does it have free will? Why or why not? Anyway, the point is that the psychologists proposed that our minds simply learn to mimic really really well, so all our thoughts are rehearsing and choosing a mimicked behavior (or maybe combining them) and thus all our choices and actions are based off mimicking what we’ve seen. While that’s obviously the elevator pitch and it’s far more complicated than that, it’s really interesting to think about.

A fun video about “free will” is Derran Brown’s video where he subconsciously convinces people to rob a staged armored car.

vimeo.com/1677179

The realness of the video I suppose can be debated, but I think the general fact that we can so easily be manipulated does say loads.

I don’t really know where this thread has gone since I last checked it, but this comment reminded me of something funny. Whenever someone says humans don’t really have free will, I always tell them I’d rather not believe them, if it is something they were pre-programmed to tell me.

 

[Peter29]

Psychiatrists are generally the ones you need rather than neuroscientists. I worked in a psychiatric hospital for two years and know from personal experience that mental illness does not usually have a physical cause.

Reminds me of the brain surgeon not being able to see a mind analogy.

And, the odds are the person who will figure it out will not be christian.

Why do you say this?

 

[tonyrey]

You agree that people that are having problems (insane) must be treated differently… but say a meat robot would always act the same. I would say that a person who is insane is just a malfunctioning meat robot (for arguments sake anyway).

I’m a vegetarian in the UK so you don’t have to worry about me - but some steak addicts in your vicinity may look forward to enjoying a feast of liquidpele’s roast buttocks for Christmas… :bighanky:

 

[liquidpele]

I’m a vegetarian in the UK so you don’t have to worry about me - but some steak addicts in your vicinity may look forward to enjoying a feast of liquidpele’s roast buttocks for Christmas… :bighanky:

I’ll take that as British humour.

 

[Leela]

I’m sorry you are upset by my analysis of your argument. You misinterpret my intentions if you think my sole aim is to disagree with you. If I disagree with a statement you have made surely I am entitled to do so if I explain why courteously. I am grateful when some one points out to me where I am mistaken or thought to be mistaken and when questions are fired at me. The purpose of these discussions, in my opinion, is not to win but to clarify our ideas and follow the argument wherever it leads. Our discussions are duels but not duels to the death! Hopefully they are duels that enrich our lives and understanding…

I am not upset, I’m just not interested in participating in the sort of argumentation that I see so often here where neither side seems to be following what the other’s broad arguments are because both sides are picking nits sentence by sentence.

For example, I wrote to you:

“The Cartesian self does have such a problem. It’s a good thing that I am not interested in playing metaphysics or it would be a problem for me as well. Ok, I like to play a little bit, but the project of trying to get all are ideas to cohere in a philosophical system is just one among lots of other human projects. If I think about metaphysics, I am thinking of it as such a human project rather than as an attempt to get myself in the proper relation to something great, nonhuman, and ahistorical like God or Reality.
I don’t see anyway to stand outside of history like Descartes thought he could in making himself the source of ultimate reality.”

And you chimed in with:

“You misinterpret Descartes. He simply pointed out that our starting point is the fact that we are thinking. Reality does not begin there nor end there.”

Whether I am getting Descartes right or not is a philosophological question rather than a philosophy question and has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. What I was saying is that I see metaphyics as just one human practice while metaphysician sees metaphysics as Reality. But as soon as you catch what you think is an error in interpreting Descarte, you have your zinger response even though it has nothing to do with my point.

My issue is not a some discomfort with having my ideas challenged. It is that in this forum we tend to chop up one another’s arguments in so many little bits and miss the forest for the trees. My issue is that our ideas don’t get properly challenged with this practice and are never even understood…

My position is quite simple.

1. I believe it is impossible to avoid making metaphysical assumptions.
2. Physicalism and neoDarwinism are metaphysical theories.
3. I believe physicalism and neoDarwinism are inadequate explanations of reality.
   4.I do not believe a person is a web of relations of properties but a rational, creative being with free will, responsibility, a right to life and a capacity for love that cannot be explained by science because science is restricted to the physical aspect of reality…
4. I believe the most economical, adequate explanation of reality is a rational, loving Creator.

Where you say that it is impossible to make metaphysical assumptions, I would just say that we all make assumptions. And while we can’t question all of our assumptions at once, we can call any of our assumptions into question with respect to our other assumptions.

Where you deny the adequacy of of physicalism and neodarwinism, we probably don’t disagree on their usefulness for certain purposes. Since I don’t subscribe to a metaphysical system that takes these to a metaohysical level of saying what reality REALLY is beyond all appearances, I don’t view these as metaohysical theories. They me be for some people, but not for me.

Where you deny that a person really is a web of relations you are taking my assertion to be a metaphysical claim about a what a person REALLY is beyond all appearancs. I’m not making such a claim. On the contrary, what I am saying that talk about what a person REALLY is will find it self with little if anything to talk about beyond how a person is related to other things. All sentences can do is relate things to other things, so even when you deny my claim and say that a person “has free will, responsibility, a right to life, the capacity for love,” etc., I view all of these claims to the properties that people have as relating people to other people or other things.

So while I also don’t see any description of a person or reality as adequate to the-way-things-really-are, I never get to your step 5 or to some other metaphysical foundation because I never make the metaphysical assumption that it is possible to give a complete verbal representation of Reality. I don’t think my experience would be enriched by thinking of reality as a person, but that fact does not imply that I must be thinking of reality only as a material object. There are aspects of reality that I do think of in that way like when I am trying to catch a softball, but I don’t feel compelled, as you seem to think nonbelievers must be, to think of everything as material objects.

Best,
Leela

 

[SonofMonica]

I find it odd that some folks think that, when we find evidence of spiritual feelings or experiences being physically caused or experienced by the human brain at the physical level by measuring brain activity or the firing of neurons or some other such thing, that somehow means that spirituality does not really exist. I think it confirms just the opposite. The Catholic Church has never said that human spirituality is something separate from the rest of humanity–something tacked on. It’s something that is a part of who we are. Our whole story is about God interacting with the world in human form, and our whole mission is essentially to be that interaction through being authentically human. I just don’t see the conflict. Even if we stopped calling things “spiritual,” it would not change the nature of things–only the descriptor used. So if you proved that all things were physical, I don’t really think it would discount the Catholic faith one bit. We’re fine with the whole God using physical means bit. We’ve never separated physical from non-physical. That’s the very nature of the sacraments, after all. We believe God acts through matter.

 

[AnAtheist]

I find it odd that some folks think that, when we find evidence of spiritual feelings or experiences being physically caused or experienced by the human brain at the physical level by measuring brain activity or the firing of neurons or some other such thing, that somehow means that spirituality does not really exist. I think it confirms just the opposite.

Wouldn’t that apply to feelings, justice, love etc. as well?
I find it odd either that some folks think that, when we find evidence that those things are being physically caused or experienced by the human brain at the physical level, that somehow means those things do not really exist. Or have somehow lesser value then.

 

[liquidpele]

Wouldn’t that apply to feelings, justice, love etc. as well?
I find it odd either that some folks think that, when we find evidence that those things are being physically caused or experienced by the human brain at the physical level, that somehow means those things do not really exist. Or have somehow lesser value then.

I think it’s because many don’t understand how awesome the physical can actually be. A lot of people think “physical matter” and think of rocks, or simple chemistry experiments where you made some bubbles or something. I highly doubt they think to themselves “DNA copying itself” as physical… but just look at how insanely organized and wondrous it is… and that’s just one of the functions in a cell so small you can’t even see! I can’t get how people think consciousness and decision making can’t be physical.

wimp.com/dnacopies/

And with that, I’m sure I’ll get some ID people to post

 

[SonofMonica]

Wouldn’t that apply to feelings, justice, love etc. as well?
I find it odd either that some folks think that, when we find evidence that those things are being physically caused or experienced by the human brain at the physical level, that somehow means those things do not really exist. Or have somehow lesser value then.

Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying. On top of that, I’m also saying that I find it odd that when we see these things experienced on the physical level, some folks say that it forecloses God. I mean, in Genesis, the first thing that God creates after light is matter. Not pushing for a literal account of Genesis creation, but I think the point I’m trying to make is that, to our God, matter matters. It’s part of the reason science does not shake my faith–nor vice versa.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll take that as British humour.

Please don’t blame it on the British. I’m very untypical… :blushing:
The point is that if people are led to believe we’re just meat robots our lives will become even more precarious than they are now… :console:

 

[tonyrey]

I highly doubt they think to themselves “DNA copying itself” as physical… but just look at how insanely organized and wondrous it is… and that’s just one of the functions in a cell so small you can’t even see! I can’t get how people think consciousness and decision making can’t be physical.

Insanely? Ah, yes!
You’ve selected just the right word…
That is the very best description of the random mutations-natural selection version of organization.

And with that, I’m sure I’ll get some ID people to post

You can’t scare me off with that remark… :tsktsk:

 

[tonyrey]

My issue is not discomfort with having my ideas challenged. It is that in this forum we tend to chop up one another’s arguments in so many little bits and miss the forest for the trees.

You are saying in effect that if we disagree with a particular statement we shouldn’t point out why we disagree with it.

Since I don’t subscribe to a metaphysical system that takes these to a metaohysical level of saying what reality REALLY is beyond all appearances, I don’t view these as metaphysical theories.

The point I was making is that if you always confine yourself to appearances you imply that the only things that are important are appearances.

So while I also don’t see any description of a person or reality as adequate to the-way-things-really-are, I never get to your step 5 or to some other metaphysical foundation because I never make the metaphysical assumption that it is possible to give a complete verbal representation of Reality.

I agree it is impossible to give a complete verbal representation of Reality but if one ignores it altogether it is tantamount to regarding the universe as the sole reality.

The weakness of pragmatism is its interpretation of everything solely in terms of utility. Utility for what? What are the criteria by which we determine whether something is useful? They must be related to our concept of the nature of human beings. Whether we exist by Chance or Design radically affects our concept of what is useful…