H
Hokomai
Guest
Um, no I don’t think I agree with this. Thoughts are obviously the first thing in observer error, but the scientific method allows us to reduce this. I am not sure what an intangible thought is.
- Status
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
He is more complex. He did accept the help of both Hitler and Mussolini in winning the Civil War in Spain. But the Republican forces against who he was fighting were by the way anti-Catholic and murdered large numbers of priests, nuns and monks and defiled churches and the graves of saints. You can still see churchs in Spain today that are in ruins because of what they did.
So whereas Franco was no saint by and stretch of the imagination, you ahve to look at the alternative to understand what was happening and why he was maybe not the worse thing to have happened to Spain.
Once the war was won, Franco swore never to go to war again unless in the defence of Spain and symbolically laid his gun on the altar. Hitler pleaded with him to enter WW2 on his side but Franco refused (although he did allow some volunteers to go and fight on Hitler’s side). Franco also refused to round up and hand over the Jews living in Spain when Hitler demanded this. In fact many Jews who fled the Nazis passed through Spain on their way to the Americas. Hitler then said he could at least attack Gibraltar as that was technically part of Spain and so he wouldn’t be breaking his vow, but Franco refused and made an idiotic claim that he wanted Hitler to give him all the French colonies in Africa and then he would reconsider. Franco knew full weel that Hitler had recently assured the French Vichy government that Vichy France could keep its colonies in return for their collaboration. Hitler went home from the Hendaye conference and suposedly said he would rather go to the dentist and have all his teeth pulled than negotiate with Franco again. Hitler feared the dentist more than anything else BTW.
Not to mention the fact that if you look at some of footage from Hendaye on Youtube you can’t help but think that Franco was outright making fun of Hitler. Look at some of the body language. Look at the way Franco gives Hitler the two-hand shake rather than vice versa, as if he was Hitler’s mentor rather than vice-versa.
But back on the topic of Catholic Church, it is entireyl understandable that the Church organisation sided with the sie that protected them rather than with the side that was out to destroy them.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The scientific method uses logic, the principles of reasoning and the laws of probability to minimise observer error - all of which are intangible and beyond the scope of the senses.
Can you see, smell, hear, taste or touch thoughts, facts, relations, physical constants, logical or moral principles, aesthetic values, mathematical or metaphysical concepts?
A
awatkins69
Guest
Tony, I am surprised to hear this coming from you; you are treading awful close to the Cartesian error of saying we are only immediately acquainted with mental phenomena!
A
awatkins69
Guest
The point is well-taken though. I don’t think materialism makes any sense at all. Mental phenomena are notoriously difficult to reduce to material particulars. Having the same body or psychology does not suffice for personal identity to be retained through time. The soul idea is more consistent with these aspects of our nature than materialism.
And if by soul we mean the substantial form of the body then, so long as the notion of substantial form makes sense, it is obvious that we have a soul; this is what Catholics of the Thomist (and broadly Aristotelian) school have traditionally meant by the term. The question is really whether this soul has any immaterial aspects.
And if by soul we mean the substantial form of the body then, so long as the notion of substantial form makes sense, it is obvious that we have a soul; this is what Catholics of the Thomist (and broadly Aristotelian) school have traditionally meant by the term. The question is really whether this soul has any immaterial aspects.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Well, you can record patterns in the brain as thoughts of different types occur, and as time goes on, these measurements will improve. A fact, I imagine (not my field) lights up different parts of the brain. I imagine something similar is true for all the others you mention). Thoughts of all sorts, and all beliefs, are the result of processes in a physical organ, the brain, possibly working in some way with other organs. Measurement is difficult, but at a simple level it is certainly possible to do. In fact I read somewhere recently (apologise for lack of citation) of an interesting experiment monitoring brain activity during prayer. I don’t recall any incoming being recorded at the same time, but a good scientist would watch out for it!The scientific method uses logic, the principles of reasoning and the laws of probability to minimise observer error - all of which are intangible and beyond the scope of the senses.
Can you see, smell, hear, taste or touch thoughts, facts, relations, physical constants, logical or moral principles, aesthetic values, mathematical or metaphysical concepts?
Thousands of years ago we attributed everything to work of gods and spirits. Now god and spirits are relegated to the areas in which science is least advanced. if the past trend continues, as science advances, god will retreat, as things though ‘intangible’ like the weather or volcanic eruptions are made tangible by science.
T
tonyrey
Guest
“seem” is more accurate!
Temporal conjunction does not necessarily entail causal dependence. Even if it does it is far more likely that brain patterns are caused by thoughts rather than viceversa. If your thoughts were caused by brain patterns your thoughts would be beyond your control and of dubious value! We know how fallible instincts are and thoughts would be in the same category.
The scientific method uses logic, the principles of reasoning and the laws of probability to minimise observer error - all of which are intangible and beyond the scope of the senses. Or do you disagree?
Can you see, smell, hear, taste or touch thoughts, facts, relations, physical constants, logical or moral principles, aesthetic values, mathematical or metaphysical concepts?
Science cannot explain everything and it requires an act of faith to suppose that it ever will! God is not retreating but giving you the power to choose for yourself what to think and how to live…
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Ah… Mr. Hitchens is dead? Thank God.
All the same, I will miss him. He had such a strong, daring voice. And while he was a fool, he was an intelligent and eloquent one. I hope the Lord does find him a place in His kingdom.
:heaven:
More than I can say for ole Stuff ‘n’ Nonsense. I wonder when he’ll get to brave the afterlife…
All the same, I will miss him. He had such a strong, daring voice. And while he was a fool, he was an intelligent and eloquent one. I hope the Lord does find him a place in His kingdom.
:heaven:More than I can say for ole Stuff ‘n’ Nonsense. I wonder when he’ll get to brave the afterlife…
H
Hokomai
Guest
Do you really believe that thoughts are not produced by the brain?
S
Sair
Guest
No - I don’t negate the good done by people who happen to have religious faith. I simply doubt that these same people would become indifferent if they didn’t subscribe to a religion. Any organisation is only as good as the people who comprise it.
The current understanding is that morality, as we know and practise it, is a set of innate inclinations and propensities that evolved as necessary adaptations to highly social living. I know that’s not the kind of grand presentation many religious folks like to think of, with their god handing humans our morality on a set of stone tablets, or perhaps magically injecting it into our souls, but the evolutionary model is as good an explanation of morality as we’re likely to get. I’ve seen objections that run along the lines of, “But no-one says you have to obey your innate inclinations!” Well, of course not - but the fact of the matter is, religious morality is not binding in this way either. People can and do choose to ignore and abuse it. The only thing religion offers, over and above the evolutionary model of morality, is the feeling of comfort that some people derive from the belief that those who don’t toe the line will get their comeuppance in some other life beyond this one.
Actually, my understanding is that the main goal of the Christian is to propagate Christianity by whatever means are necessary. Doing good comes as a matter of necessity (in the absence of brute force or coercion) either because people think others might be convinced by their example, or just because it is that much harder to convince people whose basic needs are not being met. Again, I’m not saying that people in religious organisations don’t do good to others, but if motivation counts for anything (and many think it does) what’s wrong with being motivated by simple concern for fellow beings, without superimposing the ultimate goal of winning converts?
S
Sair
Guest
If only because there are apparently still more non-atheists in the world. And as many folks here are fond of saying, correlation does not indicate causation!
You might have to explain your attempt at humour here. Did you want to add an actual response to my observation?
Well, now that there are more outspoken atheists, a lot of people like to claim that all atheists have an agenda. Furthermore, I felt some clarification was necessary, since I have in the past encountered some random vitriol thrown my way with regard to the fact that I identify myself as a pantheist.
Do I know this? Can you see inside my head? How very gifted you must be! My understanding was that on a discussion forum, the done thing was to offer an opinion with reasoned argument, regardless of what judgement I may or may not have formed of the comparative erudition of those to whom I direct my responses.
Yes, obviously you are far above meeting arguments and discussion with an attempt to belittle and dismiss others… Oh, wait…
S
Sair
Guest
Hmm… Having now actually read the article to which this thread is a response, as well as some of the comments following, I was interested by the commenter who posted about ‘abstract universals, including god’ and claimed that such things as truth, beauty, love and so forth are in the same category as divine beings and therefore, if an atheist believes in the existence of these ‘abstract universals’, then he or she has no business in asserting the nonexistence of gods.
Two things, I think, are worth mentioning here - since I suspect it’s more relevant to discuss them in this forum than on the article itself (which is, after all and despite the obvious focus on their shared interests in regard to opposing religion, intended as a mark of respect to a departed friend) - and these are the dissimilarity of gods to abstract universals, and the nature of the existence of such abstract universals.
Gods are conceived as specific beings - immaterial yet somehow personal, creative, directly involved in the universe, interested in and responsive to the needs and desires and motivations of humans - and that’s not even getting into any of the debate about the ‘omni’ qualities ascribed to the God of Classical Theism. Gods are very much not abstract concepts, but beings imagined with very specific attributes - such that one might be able to say, “This is a god, but this other thing isn’t a god”.
It is these very specific attributes that allow hardline atheists to argue that there is in fact no evidence, of a direct or unambiguous nature, pointing to the existence of such beings as gods; and that since if gods existed, we could expect evidence to be forthcoming, the absence of such evidence is good reason to believe no such beings with the attributes ascribed to gods actually exist. The only possible counter to this - and it is one I have often seen employed on this forum and elsewhere - is to actually make the god-concept increasingly abstract and nebulous, in order to claim that there is no way for us to pin down exactly what might constitute evidence of god(s).
Which brings me to my next observation about the nature of the existence of abstract universals, or what in certain cases might be called ‘absolutes’. I will endeavour to convey some sort of sense of my thoughts on this, since they are by no means fully formulated - apologies in advance if I merely ramble.
The conscious minds of humans are generally so constituted as to seek to categorise and make sense of the teeming abundance of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut they receive from the external world. We seek similarities and relationships between objects, and we also have emotional responses to certain beings and situations - these responses are often also subject to categorisation by our conscious minds. When we find similarities between objects, we form a concept that encapsulates that similarity - we find that there are certain objects through which we cannot pass; ‘solidity’ thus becomes a thing that these objects have in common, and a concept within our conscious awareness. However, ‘solidity’ is not a thing in and of itself, one that exists somewhere in the universe as an abstract entity - it is an attribute that we as conscious beings ascribe to certain objects. It’s not a bad example to illustrate my point about abstract universals, actually, since physics has taught us that there is far more empty space in what we perceive as ‘solid’ objects than there is actual matter.
On the other hand, ‘solidity’ is at least a concept with a specific attribute - the inability of us to physically pass through it without a degree of force which breaks the solid object in some way. Other concepts like beauty, truth and love are far more nebulous (who can confidently claim to know what these things actually are, and what they are definitely not?), based as they are upon our emotional and intellectual responses to certain objects and situations and relationships. True, some scientific study has been done into why we recognise certain things as beautiful and others as ugly or simply not-beautiful; it seems to have something to do with symmetry of form, but I should think that an object - let’s say a cube, for example - could be perfectly symmetrical without exciting anyone to respond to it as being beautiful. And there’s a reason that the saying, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ has been bandied about for centuries.
It seems that there is a reluctance to acknowledge that these ‘abstract universals’ such as truth, beauty and love are not things that exist in their own right, to which we merely respond, but are actually contained within our responses, as conscious beings, to the world of which we are part. I would be quite happy to accept the claim that gods are in the same category, but I have generally not seen this argument advanced in support of religious faith!
Two things, I think, are worth mentioning here - since I suspect it’s more relevant to discuss them in this forum than on the article itself (which is, after all and despite the obvious focus on their shared interests in regard to opposing religion, intended as a mark of respect to a departed friend) - and these are the dissimilarity of gods to abstract universals, and the nature of the existence of such abstract universals.
Gods are conceived as specific beings - immaterial yet somehow personal, creative, directly involved in the universe, interested in and responsive to the needs and desires and motivations of humans - and that’s not even getting into any of the debate about the ‘omni’ qualities ascribed to the God of Classical Theism. Gods are very much not abstract concepts, but beings imagined with very specific attributes - such that one might be able to say, “This is a god, but this other thing isn’t a god”.
It is these very specific attributes that allow hardline atheists to argue that there is in fact no evidence, of a direct or unambiguous nature, pointing to the existence of such beings as gods; and that since if gods existed, we could expect evidence to be forthcoming, the absence of such evidence is good reason to believe no such beings with the attributes ascribed to gods actually exist. The only possible counter to this - and it is one I have often seen employed on this forum and elsewhere - is to actually make the god-concept increasingly abstract and nebulous, in order to claim that there is no way for us to pin down exactly what might constitute evidence of god(s).
Which brings me to my next observation about the nature of the existence of abstract universals, or what in certain cases might be called ‘absolutes’. I will endeavour to convey some sort of sense of my thoughts on this, since they are by no means fully formulated - apologies in advance if I merely ramble.
The conscious minds of humans are generally so constituted as to seek to categorise and make sense of the teeming abundance of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut they receive from the external world. We seek similarities and relationships between objects, and we also have emotional responses to certain beings and situations - these responses are often also subject to categorisation by our conscious minds. When we find similarities between objects, we form a concept that encapsulates that similarity - we find that there are certain objects through which we cannot pass; ‘solidity’ thus becomes a thing that these objects have in common, and a concept within our conscious awareness. However, ‘solidity’ is not a thing in and of itself, one that exists somewhere in the universe as an abstract entity - it is an attribute that we as conscious beings ascribe to certain objects. It’s not a bad example to illustrate my point about abstract universals, actually, since physics has taught us that there is far more empty space in what we perceive as ‘solid’ objects than there is actual matter.
On the other hand, ‘solidity’ is at least a concept with a specific attribute - the inability of us to physically pass through it without a degree of force which breaks the solid object in some way. Other concepts like beauty, truth and love are far more nebulous (who can confidently claim to know what these things actually are, and what they are definitely not?), based as they are upon our emotional and intellectual responses to certain objects and situations and relationships. True, some scientific study has been done into why we recognise certain things as beautiful and others as ugly or simply not-beautiful; it seems to have something to do with symmetry of form, but I should think that an object - let’s say a cube, for example - could be perfectly symmetrical without exciting anyone to respond to it as being beautiful. And there’s a reason that the saying, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ has been bandied about for centuries.
It seems that there is a reluctance to acknowledge that these ‘abstract universals’ such as truth, beauty and love are not things that exist in their own right, to which we merely respond, but are actually contained within our responses, as conscious beings, to the world of which we are part. I would be quite happy to accept the claim that gods are in the same category, but I have generally not seen this argument advanced in support of religious faith!
I
Ian_Ward
Guest
Why Doesn’t Richard Dawkins stick to Science? what is the guy so upset about anyways, him and all other crusaders against the Church, guilty conscience? Don’t like being told their beliefs and behavior are wrong, disgusting, immoral, stupid? What would make somone so cold and have such a hatred of something thats basic principal is Everlasting Life and Eternal Happiness? Who in the world would not make that their life long doctrine Christian or not, so the next step is the once Religion that has proclaimed it for 2000 years and then its pre cursor Judaism which also preached it as long its been around.
Who would get upset at believing that a God wants you to exist first of all instead of not existing, wants you to exist forever and wants to hold your hand every step of the way to make sure you get there?
But who is going to refute Dawkins? The Day Dawkins gets converted would be a miracle, or pigs fly. But its a good things we have such a devil’s advocate to keep us on our toes or we my loose our edge.
Who would get upset at believing that a God wants you to exist first of all instead of not existing, wants you to exist forever and wants to hold your hand every step of the way to make sure you get there?
But who is going to refute Dawkins? The Day Dawkins gets converted would be a miracle, or pigs fly. But its a good things we have such a devil’s advocate to keep us on our toes or we my loose our edge.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
- If truth is “contained” in our responses we fabricate truth
- If we fabricate truth there is no reason to believe truth exists
- If there no reason to believe truth exists there no reason to believe anything
- If there no reason to believe anything there no reason to believe we fabricate truth
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your posts to this forum presuppose that you are motivated by:
the ultimate goal of winning converts to your point of view rather than simple concern for fellow beings
or
simple concern for fellow beings which entails the assumption that your point of view is infallible
S
Sair
Guest
Why don’t you like your faith being criticised? Guilty conscience? Do you know of anyone who actually likes their beliefs being labelled as wrong, disgusting, immoral and stupid?
Um, maybe the strong likelihood that these principles are, in fact, pipe dreams? And that a considerable amount of happiness and even life in this present existence have been sacrificed on the altar of this undemonstrable fantasy…
Actually, it’s doubtful whether the early Jewish faith had much belief in eternal life. But be that as it may, again with the pipe dream - there is no reason to believe that our lives will somehow last forever, even if we want them to, so finding happiness and fulfilment and making an impact on the world despite our temporality is actually a very worthy goal, and one which Dawkins commends Christopher Hitchens for upholding.
Rather than knowing that you just exist for no ultimate purpose but have to stand on your own two feet and build your own meaning? I can’t imagine…
Well, there are certainly plenty of folks who have tried to refute Dawkins - The God Delusion prompted a forest’s worth of books in response from the faithful of various denominations. I know that I would personally be utterly astonished if Richard Dawkins ever declared belief in any ultimate immaterial divine being. But doesn’t your camp believe in miracles?
S
Sair
Guest
Honestly, I have no expectation of winning converts. I do, however, believe that my views are as worthy of an airing as any others, and I will certainly attempt to defend them against ignorance and spite, or discuss why I don’t hold different views. If people are convinced by my perspectives, great. If not, that is not something over which I will lose any sleep. I don’t believe that a person’s ultimate and eternal fate is on the line when they choose what they believe or don’t believe.
I believe that my point of view is right, to the best of my ability to discern what is true. Why would I hold to it if I believed it to be wrong? I don’t think there’s any immaterial being standing over my head saying, “believe this or else!” - and so I don’t feel compelled to declare beliefs despite being doubtful of their truth. Concern for fellow beings is part of my motivation, certainly, but I don’t consider my views infallible - I also don’t consider any religious views infallible, and don’t believe anyone should be compelled to believe them so. This caused me enough misery in my youth that I would be happy to spare others the same pain.
S
Sair
Guest
Wow, way to go with the circular argument!
If we fabricate truth, then at some level, truth exists as long as we, as conscious beings, exist. There’s no reason to doubt that the relationship we comprehend as truth has no existence at all just because it’s not an independent object in the universe. Truth is what we consider our best representation of reality as it is, and that is almost certainly going to change as we learn more about the universe. This doesn’t make it a nonentity, even if it doesn’t have the solidity and permanency some people like to claim.
S
Sair
Guest
Yet we are physical entities, objects in the universe. None of our abilities can be separated from our physical manifestation.
What do you suppose ‘we’ are if not these? How do you make the blanket claim that physical objects lack insight when we humans are physical objects which exercise insight and comprehension of the world around us?
What is consciousness in the absence of anything of which to be conscious? What is thought in the absence of anything about which to think?
You apparently claim that it is conscious thought that influences brain states, rather than vice versa. What, then are these things - consciousness and thought - such that they have influence over the biochemical entity that is the human brain, as opposed to the alternative hypothesis - that thought and consciousness are what we experience when our brains respond to stimuli in the physical world, including stimuli from the rest of our bodies and, indeed, the substance of the brain itself?
- Status