How to respond to the "Expedite Heaven" argument from nonbelievers?

[fhansen]

That seems to imply that the death of biological organisms is not due to sin…

Well, the biological death of humans was due to sin, according to the CCC.

 

[tonyrey]

Surely there is more to life than suffering–at least for the vast majority of the living–but that’s not what the first noble truth is meant to show. Again, your repudiation of Buddhist belief, I feel, is more indicative by the great chasm between your thought and theirs than by any perceived fault…

The chasm is due to the denial of the self by Buddhists which is at odds not only with Christianity but also with every other main religion. If there is no self then self-control and responsibility must also be illusions - a belief at odds with legal presumptions throughout the world.

Unlike Gautama Jesus foresaw His death, accepted it as a means of overcoming evil and inspired many people to follow His example by forgiving their enemies rather than resorting to revenge. The Last Supper was not a cause of His death but a celebration of His self-sacrifice and victory over death which was intended to be commemorated and shared by His followers.

You’re missing my point. I was just saying that Gautama didn’t die of food poisoning as you allege and that by the logic applied to get to the conclusion that he had we could blame the crucifixion on the last supper (that one thing happened after another and hence must be because of it).

You’re missing my point. I was pointing out that Gautama’s death was unforeseen and unrelated to a decision on his part whereas Jesus foresaw His execution and accepted it as the inevitable outcome of His fight against evil and injustice.

I think you agree that to inflict needless suffering is morally wrong, i.e. objectively evil.

I think that follows from the self evident principle that ugliness ought not to be intentionally created.

To reduce evil to ugliness is to diminish its horrific impact on people’s lives.

But regardless of how we change events the biggest events are–unless you are with the singularitarians–fixed and unchangeable. We will die, as will everyone one we have ever known/loved/hated. All that we have ever done will be brought to dust.

Apparently! Are the noblest achievements of mankind of no lasting significance?

Do you mean things of which we are unaware are useless, valueless and purposeless? Is awareness the only significant criterion? If so we are the only living beings that matter.

Not necessarily, the universe is a fearsome big place.

Are we the only living beings on this planet that matter?

I do not find science and philosophy at odds as your statement above implies since they endeavor to answer radically different sorts of questions.

When science claims to explain the nature of human beings it is certainly at odds with philosophy because it is exceeding its brief by espousing physicalism .

The immense complexity of the brain does not lead to emancipation because it remains a physical mechanism no matter how complex it becomes. An increase in the number of neural connections does not alter the fact that they belong to a closed system. Where is the loophole?

I don’t understand what you’re asking. There is no loophole. You implied that free will defied the principles of thermodynamics which is blatantly false on the face of it and your comments above prove this. If the brain were a closed system as you imply it would not need the continual addition of energy and matter (i.e. heat and oxygen) to continue to function. To treat the brain as a closed system–that is to say, to cut it free of a human body–will show that free will or life for that matter does not persist in a closed system.

I don’t see what difference it makes whether the brain is connected to the body or not.
The entire body is a biological machine the functions of which are determined by physical laws. Since free will entails self-control where is the control-centre located in your scheme of things? In the brain? If there is no control-centre where does the decision-making occur?

How does matter exist? No one knows nor does anyone know how the mind exists and interacts with the brain. What we do know is that the brain influences the mind but the mind controls the brain. If it doesn’t freedom of thought and action is an illusion.

You didn’t answer my question and retorted with an almost wholly unrelated one.

It is directly related because no one knows how the mind exists and interacts with the brain, i.e. matter.

The answer to which, by the way, is that the question assumes that there ought not to be matter without justifying that assumption.

Necessity does not necessarily come into the picture! How matter exists need have no bearing on whether it must exist. I believe it need not exist but an atheist could hold the view that it just “popped up” for no reason.

If you are advocating an incorporeal mind then you are answerable as to how it interacts with a physical brain and just saying it does and we don’t know isn’t sufficient and is a huge strike against your claim.

Is your alternative more coherent and more intelligible? What **is **your alternative?

Philosophy is complicated and an online summary is (a) a secondary source at best and (b) is abridged which can therefore miss important points of the original text for space concerns.

The alternative is to reject all summaries as a waste of time - even though a summary by a specialist in the subject is hardly likely to miss the most important points.

That is part of a quote from my online summary, the whole of which read 'Quine objects in principle to Carnap’s proposed translation of statements like “quality q is at point-instant x;y;z;t” into his sense-datum language, because he does not define the connective “is at”.

So you accept Carnap’s proposed translation?

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the biological death of humans was due to sin, according to the CCC.

Not every statement in the CCC is infallible. Catholic doctrine develops in the light of scientific discoveries. What is certain and beyond dispute is the fact that sin leads to spiritual death. That is the message of Jesus who put it into practice by submitting to execution for our sake: “Fear not those who kill the body but those who kill the soul…”

 

[ThomasToo]

The chasm is due to the denial of the self by Buddhists which is at odds not only with Christianity but also with every other main religion. If there is no self then self-control and responsibility must also be illusions - a belief at odds with legal presumptions throughout the world.

Except Jainism, some strains of Hinduism, some strains of Taoism and so forth. The landscape of world religions is not nearly as small as you seem to think. Further, that’s not what the doctrine of anātman means regarding the self; it teaches that what we see as the self and want to assume/believe to be eternal is, like everything else, transitory. The name, in common translation, can be confusing but it’s not nearly as simple as you imply and causes no legal issues.

You’re missing my point…

I am indeed missing your point. I now see it but find it lacking; martyrs to any cause are useful for reasons too numerous to list here but I am by no means hesitant to say that (assuming Jesus existed) his cause could have been better served by his life than a death after only 3 years of public teaching. Maybe he could have actually lived to meet his biographers and perhaps even gasp spoken to them.

To reduce evil to ugliness is to diminish its horrific impact on people’s lives.

You’ve somewhat backed me into a corner on that issue and I have been talking about suffering not evil which is a different sort of contention all together.

Apparently! Are the noblest achievements of mankind of no lasting significance?

In the largest sense of the word ‘lasting,’ no, they’re of no signifigance.

Are we the only living beings on this planet that matter?

Matter in what sense. Suffering is suffering regardless of species experiencing the phenomenon.

When science claims to explain the nature of human beings it is certainly at odds with philosophy because it is exceeding its brief by espousing physicalism.

Physicalism is a philosophical not a scientific idea. In fact, a scientist–speaking qua scientist–will tell you as much; science can study the universe and answer all sorts of questions about it but its tools are useless in the face of things that cannot be sensed in any (physical) way.

I don’t see what difference it makes whether the brain is connected to the body or not. The entire body is a biological machine the functions of which are determined by physical laws. Since free will entails self-control where is the control-centre located in your scheme of things? In the brain? If there is no control-centre where does the decision-making occur?

There isn’t a control center at least not in the way you seem to be setting up; that concept–that there is a homunculus somewhere hidden away in the brain–doesn’t square with the reality of how the brain works. The multiple-drafts model of consciousness does a good job of explaining consciousness absent this error. In another way you can say the brain is the control-center but you cannot zoom in beyond that.

It is directly related because no one knows how the mind exists and interacts with the brain, i.e. matter.

And yet you (a) posit the existence of an unprovable mind and (b) insist it is a more reasonable explanation of the (epi-)phenomenon of consciousness than mine without explaining so much as the most basic mechanics of it. This is little more–if anything more–than asking me to take your concept of mind on faith.

Necessity does not necessarily come into the picture! How matter exists need have no bearing on whether it must exist. I believe it need not exist but an atheist could hold the view that it just “popped up” for no reason.

But the premise of your question (why is there something rather than nothing) assumes that there ought to be nothing rather than something without justifying that assumption. Asking how matter exists (which I cannot parse other than as another formation of ‘why does it exist?’ or ‘where did it come from?’) seems to me, at least from my current vantage point, to be missing the point in the discussions on philosophy of mind above.

Is your alternative more coherent and more intelligible? What **is **your alternative?

My alternative is that the brain is capable of producing all the phenomenon we have traditionally grouped under the category of ‘mind,’ in a similar way to how the clouds can produce lightning which was once classed as an act of Zeus (or insert other local weather deity here). I find my argument more coherent and intelligible because we can all see brains and see no problem attributing the actions of every other living thing to purely physical factors so to argue that there is something transcendentally complex about us–as a species–is anthropocentric to say the least and to posit some entity above and beyond those we know about is unparsimonious and introduces problems orders of magnitude more complex than any a physical account does (e.g. continual interaction of physical and incorporeal entities).

The alternative is to reject all summaries as a waste of time - even though a summary by a specialist in the subject is hardly likely to miss the most important points.

No the alternative is to use summaries as jumping off points to understand the main thrust of an argument and then actually read it instead of calling the summary good enough for intellectual discussion.

So you accept Carnap’s proposed translation?

Insofar as I understand it and haven’t read his argument I can only Quine’s objection seems a very flat to me.

 

[Betterave]

These days Creationist is usually understood to mean a literal interpretation of Genesis. Do you believe there was life on this planet before the advent of human beings?

Sure, “a literal interpretation of Genesis”… er, which one? I believe what the Church teaches, Tony. If you’re suggesting that “the literal interpretation of Genesis” is “young-earth creationist,” then I disagree, and the term Creationist is NOT, I believe, generally understood to refer specifically to such a view (the qualifying term “young-earth” is not simply redundant). (Obviously there was life on this planet before human life.)

 

[tonyrey]

…1…

The chasm is due to the denial of the self by Buddhists which is at odds not only with Christianity but also with every other main religion.

Jainists believe in individual souls. “some strains” <> “main”.

Further, that’s not what the doctrine of anātman means regarding the self; it teaches that what we see as the self and want to assume/believe to be eternal is, like everything else, transitory.

Buddhism Dictionary:

anātman (Sanskrit; Pāli, anattā). Non-self, the absence of self (ātman); the key Buddhist doctrine that both the individual and objects are devoid of any unchanging, eternal, or autonomous substratum…

Without an autonomous substratum responsibility is illusory.

I now see it but find it lacking…

So saving one’s own skin is your primary consideration - and the solution to violence and injustice?

.

…(assuming Jesus existed) his cause could have been better served by his life than a death after only 3 years of public teaching.

Has His example done far more harm than good? What was the alternative?

Maybe he could have actually lived to meet his biographers and perhaps even gasp spoken to them.

How do you know He didn’t? Is Christianity based on fiction?

I have been talking about suffering not evil which is a different sort of contention all together.

Natural evil occurs when suffering is due to natural causes and moral evil occurs when (unnecessary) suffering is caused deliberately.

Are the noblest achievements of mankind of no lasting significance?

In the largest sense of the word ‘lasting,’ no, they’re of no significance.

So your statement has no lasting significance? Meaningfulness is a freak of nature if originally everything was, and ultimately will be, meaningless…

Are we the only living beings on this planet that matter?

Matter in what sense?

In the sense of being valuable regardless of our existence. Are we the only ones on this planet who should be protected?

Where is the control-centre in your scheme of things?

There isn’t a control center at least not in the way you seem to be setting up; that concept–that there is a homunculus somewhere hidden away in the brain–doesn’t square with the reality of how the brain works.
The brain is the instrument not the director. I prefer to be brainless rather than mindless, i.e. out of my mind.

The multiple-drafts model of consciousness does a good job of explaining consciousness absent this error. In another way you can say the brain is the control-center but you cannot zoom in beyond that.

You must regard the brain as unwittingly responsible for what it does and somehow transcending the laws of nature… Are decisions made by the brain as a whole? What co-ordinates its activity?

And yet you (a) posit the existence of an unprovable mind

You posit the unprovable power of matter to create mind - or do you reject the existence of the mind?

…(b) insist it is a more reasonable explanation of the (epi-)phenomenon of consciousness than mine without explaining so much as the most basic mechanics of it. This is little more–if anything more–than asking me to take your concept of mind on faith.

“mechanics” aptly sums up your mechanistic concept of reality - which is certainly based on faith. What else?

Neither the mind nor consciousness need to be explained because they are our primary datum and the fundamental facts on which all our reasoning is based. Explain away those foundations and all you are left with is meaningless, valueless, purposeless dust…

But the premise of your question (why is there something rather than nothing) assumes that there ought to be nothing rather than something without justifying that assumption.

Your conclusion is unfounded. My question is based on the principle of causality.

Asking how matter exists (which I cannot parse other than as another formation of ‘why does it exist?’ or ‘where did it come from?’) seems to me, at least from my current vantage point, to be missing the point in the discussions on philosophy of mind above.

“How matter exists?” is a legitimate question, both philosophically and scientifically. Your vantage point is too parochial…

My alternative is that the brain is capable of producing all the phenomenon we have traditionally grouped under the category of ‘mind,’ in a similar way to how the clouds can produce lightning which was once classed as an act of Zeus (or insert other local weather deity here).

Lightning is a tangible phenomenon… What similarity is there between the formation of clouds and the formation of thoughts? Can clouds direct their thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

…2…

I find my argument more coherent and intelligible because we can all see brains…

 

[ThomasToo]

“some strains” <> “main”.

I never said main but to make such broad claims about religion and then ignore all contrary data because it is present in only some sects of religion is specious and, frankly, infantile.

Without an autonomous substratum responsibility is illusory.

Honest question without anger or spite, did you just look up that one sentence, paste it here and use it to reassert your (flawed) point or have you actually made any sort of study of eastern religions? As I said above, this doctrine is complex but does not eschew responsibility or karma would be a null concept.

So saving one’s own skin is your primary consideration - and the solution to violence and injustice?

No, but there are solutions to those problems–especially if we posit that one is all-powerful–that leave someone available to further the cause.

Has His example done far more harm than good? What was the alternative?

I don’t think we can extract the example from the body of Christianity as a whole and I am not prepared to say that that has done more good than harm.

How do you know He didn’t? Is Christianity based on fiction?

Because we know when the Gospels were written (between 65 [generous estimate for Mark] and 100 [general time frame for John) and the reported dates for the death of Jesus is between 30 and 33. Do you dispute any of these dates? In my opinion, Christianity isn’t based on fiction but is fiction.

Natural evil occurs when suffering is due to natural causes and moral evil occurs when (unnecessary) suffering is caused deliberately.
I find this terminology troublesome for several reasons but I now see the link you make between suffering and evil though I would dispute it (and the origin of evil since Church teaching, it seems, is that evil springs from sin).
tonyrey;6988446:

So your statement has no lasting significance? Meaningfulness is a freak of nature if originally everything was, and ultimately will be, meaningless.

Basically.

In the sense of being valuable regardless of our existence. Are we the only ones on this planet who should be protected?

Protected from what? From us? Surely; as I’ve said suffering ought to be avoided regardless of species.

You must regard the brain as unwittingly responsible for what it does and somehow transcending the laws of nature… Are decisions made by the brain as a whole? What co-ordinates its activity?

Why does the activity need coordinating? You’re still assuming a homunculus. A good book on this subject is Daniel Dennett’s Consciousness Explained. Since you have advocated online summaries, here is one written by Dennett: scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model

You posit the unprovable power of matter to create mind - or do you reject the existence of the mind?

I think the concept of mind is epiphenomenal to the biological facts of neural activity.

“mechanics” aptly sums up your mechanistic concept of reality - which is certainly based on faith. What else?

‘Mechanics’ is just a word. If you are forwarding that a physical body (i.e. the brain) can continually interact with a non-physical entity (i.e. the mind) then it is reasonable to expect that you–or at least someone–can explain how this interaction (a) is possible and (b) takes place.

Neither the mind nor consciousness need to be explained because they are our primary datum and the fundamental facts on which all our reasoning is based. Explain away those foundations and all you are left with is meaningless, valueless, purposeless dust.

And unweaving the rainbow diminished it’s beauty?

“How matter exists?” is a legitimate question, both philosophically and scientifically. Your vantage point is too parochial…

Then maybe I’m missing your point. Please restate the question.

Lightning is a tangible phenomenon… What similarity is there between the formation of clouds and the formation of thoughts? Can clouds direct their thoughts?

The clouds example was the first that came to my mind but others are more or less self-evident. For those thing that at one time we attributed to unseen entities (gods, minds, nymphs, underpants gnomes) we have come–and are continuing–to find purely natural and physical explanations. Why should we be any different?

 

[ThomasToo]

Can you see mental phenomena?

With sophisticated equipment, yes we can see neurological phenomena. If you’re asking if I can see thoughts then the answer is of course ‘no’ but we can observe the overwhelming mountain of data between the state of the brain and mental states including the excitement of certain parts of the brain (usually through trauma or disease) and the resulting effect on mental processes.

Not even actions resulting from the urge to survive?

I don’t see how this is even a criticism. Do you posit the existence of minds/souls in non-human animals?

To think that we are reducible to material objects is eccentric, i.e off-centre! We are aware of them but they are not aware of us. A ratiocentric view of reality is far more cogent.

Non-human animals are most surely aware of us.

Do you regard yourself as a automaton directed by neural impulses or an autonomous director? Which is more parsimonious?

We both know that what seems to be the case isn’t always so. The world is round not flat. It orbits the sun not the other way around. Solid objects are mostly empty space. The list goes on but what seems at first blush to be obvious or intuitive can be beyond wrong.

Can there be knowledge without posits? Are posits restricted to sense data? Do you accept Carnap’s proposed translation?

I said above, I accept Carnap’s idea as I understand it from my summary and insofar as I can without having read his original work. There is only one piece of knowledge available without posit and Descartes has claimed it. Posits are not restricted to sense data but such date is our sole referent for the structuring of our cognitive landscape.

 

[tonyrey]

…1…

Can you see mental phenomena?

You obviously do not equate states of the brain with mental states. Otherwise “the resulting effect on” would not make sense. You imply that it is a one way process, that the brain controls the mind but not vice-versa. Is that so?

Not even actions resulting from the urge to survive?

Do you posit the existence of minds/souls in non-human animals?

Of course. Don’t you believe an animal has a mind? Aren’t gorillas similar to us in many respects?

To think that we are reducible to material objects is eccentric, i.e off-centre! We are aware of them but they are not aware of us. A ratiocentric view of reality is far more cogent.

Non-human animals are most surely aware of us.

But not the pristine molecules which, you believe, have created animals

Do you regard yourself as a automaton directed by neural impulses or an autonomous director? Which is more parsimonious?

We both know that what seems to be the case isn’t always so. The world is round not flat. It orbits the sun not the other way around. Solid objects are mostly empty space. The list goes on but what seems at first blush to be obvious or intuitive can be beyond wrong.

That is true but it is reasonable to accept appearances as facts until they are shown to be deceptive. “can” is not a sound basis for a conclusion. So which view is more parsimonious at present?

Can there be knowledge without posits? Are posits restricted to sense data? Do you accept Carnap’s proposed translation?

I said above, I accept Carnap’s idea as I understand it from my summary and insofar as I can without having read his original work.

Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be defunct and no one today would refer to him or herself as a logical positivist for the simple reason that the verification principle cannot be verified!

There is only one piece of knowledge available without posit and Descartes has claimed it.
Posits are not restricted to sense data but such date is our sole referent for the structuring of our cognitive landscape.

Then the reality of thoughts is irrevocably established before anything else…

“some strains” <> “main”.

I never said main…

I did!

… but to make such broad claims about religion and then ignore all contrary data because it is present in only some sects of religion is specious and, frankly, infantile.

It is illogical to deduce that some divergences in religious beliefs invalidate the general acceptance of the reality of the individual. NB It is unnecessary and discourteous to use terms like “specious” and “frankly, infantile” in a philosophical discussion.

Without an autonomous substratum responsibility is illusory.

Honest question without anger or spite, did you just look up that one sentence, paste it here and use it to reassert your (flawed) point or have you actually made any sort of study of eastern religions?

My previous remark applies - (+ an ad hominem).

As I said above, this doctrine is complex but does not eschew responsibility or karma would be a null concept.

Religious beliefs are not always logically consistent!

So saving one’s own skin is your primary consideration - and the solution to violence and injustice?

No, but there are solutions to those problems…

What are they? None seem to have been so successful. Gandhi is one outstanding example of non-violent resistance.

–especially if we posit that one is all-powerful–that leave someone available to further the cause.

Sometimes accepting death achieves far more than clinging to life at all costs. “Fear not those who kill the body…”

Has His example done far more harm than good?

I don’t think we can extract the example from the body of Christianity as a whole and I am not prepared to say that that has done more good than harm.

The death of the priest in Poland which hastened the overthrow of Communism is a recent example of Christ’s influence.

How do you know He didn’t? Is Christianity based on fiction?

Because we know when the Gospels were written (between 65 [generous estimate for Mark] and 100 [general time frame for John) and the reported dates for the death of Jesus is between 30 and 33. Do you dispute any of these dates? In my opinion, Christianity isn’t based on fiction but is fiction.

A fiction which has survived for two thousand years! As Hume would say, the effect is not proportioned to the cause. A negative conclusion based solely on a time lapse of thirty years (in a time of fierce persecution) is hardly sound. You need to substantiate your hypothesis…

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

…2…

Natural evil occurs when suffering is due to natural causes and moral evil occurs when (unnecessary) suffering is caused deliberately.

I find this terminology troublesome for several reasons but I now see the link you make between suffering and evil though I would dispute it (and the origin of evil since Church teaching, it seems, is that evil springs from sin).
Natural evil and moral evil are indisputable facts regardless of Church teaching - as you have made clear by your attitude to suffering.

So your statement has no lasting significance? Meaningfulness is a freak of nature if originally everything was, and ultimately will be, meaningless.

Basically.
A minute spark in the eternal darkness is not only meaningless but valueless and purposeless. The logical outcome of your view is nihilism which is self-contradictory. Nothing makes sense but nihilism!

In the sense of being valuable regardless of our existence. Are we the only ones on this planet who should be protected?

Protected from what? From us? Surely; as I’ve said suffering ought to be avoided regardless of species.

Give me just one good reason why…

You must regard the brain as unwittingly responsible for what it does and somehow transcending the laws of nature… Are decisions made by the brain as a whole? What co-ordinates its activity?

Why does the activity need coordinating? You’re still assuming a homunculus. A good book on this subject is Daniel Dennett’s Consciousness Explained: scholarpedia.org/article/…e_drafts_model
This simply confirms your mechanistic view of reality:

"A model of consciousness is a theoretical description that relates brain properties of consciousness (e.g., fast irregular electrical activity, widespread brain activation) to phenomenal properties of consciousness (e.g., qualia, a first-person-perspective, the unity of a conscious scene)…
Because consciousness is a rich biological phenomenon, it is likely that a satisfactory scientific theory of consciousness will require the specification of detailed mechanistic models. "

There is certainly no scope for free choice or responsibility in this deterministic system.

The conclusion is the most significant part:

“At present, however, no single model of consciousness appears sufficient to account fully for the multidimensional properties of conscious experience. Moreover, although some of these models have gained prominence, none has yet been accepted as definitive, or even as a foundation upon which to build a definitive model.”

scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness

You posit the unprovable power of matter to create mind - or do you reject the existence of the mind?

I think the concept of mind is epiphenomenal to the biological facts of neural activity.

Is the **concept **epiphenomenal?

“mechanics” aptly sums up your mechanistic concept of reality - which is certainly based on faith. What else?

‘Mechanics’ is just a word. If you are forwarding that a physical body (i.e. the brain) can continually interact with a non-physical entity (i.e. the mind) then it is reasonable to expect that you–or at least someone–can explain how this interaction (a) is possible and (b) takes place

.

Even if you reject interaction you still believe in the action of the brain on the mind. Can you explain the mechanism by which this occurs? What is the link between the tangible and the intangible? Your hypothesis faces precisely the same problem…

Neither the mind nor consciousness need to be explained because they are our primary datum and the fundamental facts on which all our reasoning is based. Explain away those foundations and all you are left with is meaningless, valueless, purposeless dust.

And unweaving the rainbow diminished its beauty?

No. Beauty is evidence of harmony and purpose. The reduction of colours to wavelengths does not alter their value, significance and effect on our minds. They do not exist due to their survival value but because they are a source and a result of inspiration and joy. Divine creativity and artistry are a more adequate explanation than aimless chance or physical necessity.

“How matter exists?” is a legitimate question, both philosophically and scientifically.

Then maybe I’m missing your point. Please restate the question.
It is not self-evident that matter is eternal or that it has spontaneously appeared. So how did it originate? What is the basis of its existence? How is its existence maintained? It is unscientific to say “It just exists” or “There is no explanation”.

What similarity is there between the formation of clouds and the formation of thoughts?

The clouds example was the first that came to my mind but others are more or less self-evident. For those things that at one time we attributed to unseen entities (gods, minds, nymphs, underpants gnomes) we have come–and are continuing–to find purely natural and physical explanations. Why should we be any different?

Because we are the ones who have made these discoveries! It is our intangible power of reason that is at the root of all knowledge. That is why it is reasonable to believe reality is ratiocentric rather than eccentric! We do not need to go off at a tangent to find out the source of existence. It is reflected not only within ourselves but in the order, beauty and intelligibility of the universe that only rational beings like ourselves can appreciate and begin to comprehend…

 

[ThomasToo]

You obviously do not equate states of the brain with mental states. Otherwise “the resulting effect on” would not make sense. You imply that it is a one way process, that the brain controls the mind but not vice-versa. Is that so?

Cartesian language is all but inescapable in a discussion like this. I think that those who posit the existence of a non-physical mind argue that it is a two-way street.

Of course. Don’t you believe an animal has a mind? Aren’t gorillas similar to us in many respects?

It depends on what you mean by ‘mind’ but I would agree that numerous non-human animals act in a way that is indicative of the presence of some manner of consciousness.

But not the pristine molecules which, you believe, have created animals

And your molecules aren’t aware of the existence of other molecules, people or for that matter you. If you look at animals at the subatomic, atomic, molecular or cellular level then you seem to be–intentionally or not–doing something similar to individual examining the letters of a manuscript and ignoring words, sentences and paragraphs and then complaining that the book is nonsensical.

That is true but it is reasonable to accept appearances as facts until they are shown to be deceptive. “can” is not a sound basis for a conclusion. So which view is more parsimonious at present?

Since parsimonious intends positing the fewest entities to explain a problem mine since while we agree on the existence of the brain but you are further positing a mind to explain the phenomenon of our consciousness. Under the strict definition of ‘parsimonious’ mine must be the one we choose.

Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be defunct and no one today would refer to him or herself as a logical positivist for the simple reason that the verification principle cannot be verified!

Philosophy of knowledge is not a field I have studied and I have been very cautious to make only very simple claims that are hedged several ways.

Then the reality of thoughts is irrevocably established before anything else…

But that doesn’t tell us what does the thinking or how it does it.

It is illogical to deduce that some divergences in religious beliefs invalidate the general acceptance of the reality of the individual. NB It is unnecessary and discourteous to use terms like “specious” and “frankly, infantile” in a philosophical discussion.

‘Specious,’ meaning superficially plausible but ultimately faulty is a philosophically useful term though it is also appropriated in other less exact meanings. I was probably out of line saying the line of thinking is infantile but I don’t see how you can defend the notion that all religions have a given belief then dismiss all contrary evidence because it’s not sufficiently mainstream. It seems akin to saying Christians do not have women priests in 1950 and when presented of evidence of Li Tim-Oi saying that instance was not mainstream. One and only one contrary datum is necessary to refute a universal claim.

(+ an ad hominem).

This one I contest. That was an honest question asked without spite or anger. You seem to be using one sentence out of a dictionary to argue about a complex part of Buddhist doctrine and frankly I am doubtful that you’ve made an intensive study of eastern religions which could explain, again to speak frankly, your confusion.

Religious beliefs are not always logically consistent!

I’d ask if I could get that in writing but I suppose I have it. That said, I do find religious beliefs–at least on a level this fundamental–to be remarkably consistent.

What are they? None seem to have been so successful. Gandhi is one outstanding example of non-violent resistance.

Gandhi’s example is a fantastic one but he did what he could with what he had. If he was omnipotent I think he could have and would have done more and would have acted differently.

Sometimes accepting death achieves far more than clinging to life at all costs. “Fear not those who kill the body…”

Bodily death is meaningless for someone who knows he’s coming back after it’s over.

The death of the priest in Poland which hastened the overthrow of Communism is a recent example of Christ’s influence.

Now in addition to the influence of two thousand years of figures who aren’t Jesus there are also economic, social and political factors to contend with in the case you present. Trying to suss out the influence of one person who may or may not have even existed–though whose existence for the purposes of discussion of possible influence–is all but impossible so to try to say that X is an example of Jesus’s influence with any sort of certainty.

A fiction which has survived for two thousand years! As Hume would say, the effect is not proportioned to the cause. A negative conclusion based solely on a time lapse of thirty years (in a time of fierce persecution) is hardly sound.

I think there is a a conflation of my answers here. My point with the 30 year comment is that Jesus, again if he existed, could not have met his biographers. My thoughts on the Jesus Myth theory are much more intensive than this but we’ve already hashed out this territory. So you would also grant that all other religions are not fictitious; there was a Buddha who attained enlightenment sitting under a Bodhi tree &c&c? Illiterate Muhammad was revealed the Koran as the literal written word of God by the angel Gabriel? Since we were playing spot the fallacy above, this one is the argument from antiquity.

 

[ThomasToo]

Natural evil and moral evil are indisputable facts regardless of Church teaching - as you have made clear by your attitude to suffering.

I would not and in fact refuse to use the language of natural evil. Suffering exists but I don’t think talk of evil is sensical outside of moral questions but frankly I don’t know that our debates on terminology are important.

A minute spark in the eternal darkness is not only meaningless but valueless and purposeless. The logical outcome of your view is nihilism which is self-contradictory. Nothing makes sense but nihilism!

The logical conclusion is not nihilism. As Sarte argued, embrace the absurd and the freedom it implies. We can still try to make meaning and our attempts have value though it is not enduring.

Give me just one good reason why…

Because the subjective state we call suffering is, as we’ve discussed, objectively negative and the evidence that it is present in non-human animals is clear.

This simply confirms your mechanistic view of reality:…
There is certainly no scope for free choice or responsibility in this deterministic system.

I don’t think that’s so but I leave that question to neurologists and philosophers of mind. In my understanding of the issues and with the data I have Dennett’s model fits it best.

Is the **concept **epiphenomenal?

Cute… Pardon my verbiage.

No. Beauty is evidence of harmony and purpose. The reduction of colours to wavelengths does not alter their value, significance and effect on our minds. They do not exist due to their survival value but because they are a source and a result of inspiration and joy. Divine creativity and artistry are a more adequate explanation than aimless chance or physical necessity.

There are (or rather were) people who argued that an understanding of the mechanics of light did indeed diminish the value and significance of the rainbow. Chance involved in evolution is hardly aimless but is not the appropriate venue for that discussion.

It is not self-evident that matter is eternal or that it has spontaneously appeared. So how did it originate? What is the basis of its existence? How is its existence maintained? It is unscientific to say “It just exists” or “There is no explanation”.

I never said it was self-evident but it is also not self-evident that matter has not always existed and that’s my point. It is also unscientific to say ‘God must have created the universe,’ or even to try to ask this sort of question. Any time before the Plack time after the Big Bang is at least with our current tools wholly unavailable to us.

 

[tonyrey]

Cartesian language is all but inescapable in a discussion like this.

Not at all. I’ve had discussions with materialists who regard the mind as no more than brain activity and intangibles as no more than words.

I think that those who posit the existence of a non-physical mind argue that it is a two-way street.

A view supported by ample evidence, e.g. hypnosis and the power of the mind.

But not the pristine molecules which, you believe, have created animals

And your molecules aren’t aware of the existence of other molecules, people or for that matter you.

You are assuming that awareness is located in molecules.

If you look at animals at the subatomic, atomic, molecular or cellular level then you seem to be–intentionally or not–doing something similar to individual examining the letters of a manuscript and ignoring words, sentences and paragraphs and then complaining that the book is nonsensical.

Your analogy is apt because a manuscript presupposes intangible intelligence!

Since parsimonious intends positing the fewest entities to explain a problem mine since while we agree on the existence of the brain but you are further positing a mind to explain the phenomenon of our consciousness. Under the strict definition of ‘parsimonious’ mine must be the one we choose.

Since our starting point is consciousness - and the existence of the brain is inferred - one Mind is the most parsimonious explanation of reality.

Philosophy of knowledge is not a field I have studied and I have been very cautious to make only very simple claims that are hedged several ways.

I 'm not an expert but it is indisputable that the verification principle cannot be verified and reductive materialism is clearly false.

Then the reality of thoughts is irrevocably established before anything else…

But that doesn’t tell us what does the thinking or how it does it.

That is not surprising when we are confronted with basic reality. The fact that thoughts are intangible lays the burden of proof on the “brain>mind” advocate.

I was probably out of line saying the line of thinking is infantile but I don’t see how you can defend the notion that all religions have a given belief then dismiss all contrary evidence because it’s not sufficiently mainstream. It seems akin to saying Christians do not have women priests in 1950 and when presented of evidence of Li Tim-Oi saying that instance was not mainstream. One and only one contrary datum is necessary to refute a universal claim…
You seem to be using one sentence out of a dictionary to argue about a complex part of Buddhist doctrine and frankly I am doubtful that you’ve made an intensive study of eastern religions which could explain, again to speak frankly, your confusion.

My initial remark was a reference to “The Perennial Philosophy” in which it is evident that the religions are not tribal but those which uphold the basic values of civilisation and base them on supernatural reality:

"**Rudiments **of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions…

Religious beliefs are not always logically consistent!

I’d ask if I could get that in writing but I suppose I have it. That said, I do find religious beliefs–at least on a level this fundamental–to be remarkably consistent.

You are having it both ways!

Gandhi’s example is a fantastic one but he did what he could with what he had.

Proving that Christ’s teaching was not so absurd after all.

If he was omnipotent I think he could have and would have done more and would have acted differently.

How?

Bodily death is meaningless for someone who knows he’s coming back after it’s over.

The prospect of being taunted, reviled, scourged and crucified is hardly meaningless…
nor is the temptation to despair when one is in agony…

Now in addition to the influence of two thousand years of figures who aren’t Jesus there are also economic, social and political factors to contend with in the case you present. Trying to suss out the influence of one person who may or may not have even existed–though whose existence for the purposes of discussion of possible influence–is all but impossible so to try to say that X is an example of Jesus’s influence with any sort of certainty.

All the figures and factors you mention are insignificant in the light of the fact that Fr Jerzy Popieluszko was following the example of Jesus in denouncing injustice regardless of the threat to his life. He was neither a social nor a political activist yet there was a massive public demonstration with over 400,000 people in attendance at his funeral, official delegations of Solidarity appeared from throughout the whole country for the first time since the imposition of martial law and since then 17 million people have visited his tomb…

A fiction which has survived for two thousand years! As Hume would say, the effect is not proportioned to the cause. A negative conclusion based solely on a time lapse of thirty years (in a time of fierce persecution) is hardly sound.

My point with the 30 year comment is that Jesus, again if he existed, could not have met his biographers.

Why is that significant?

So you would also grant that all other religions are not fictitious…

The truth is not restricted to one religion nor is any one religion restricted to the truth!

 

[tonyrey]

I would not and in fact refuse to use the language of natural evil. Suffering exists but I don’t think talk of evil is sensical outside of moral questions but frankly I don’t know that our debates on terminology are important.

Many atheists cite natural evil as evidence against theism.

A minute spark in the eternal darkness is not only meaningless but valueless and purposeless. The logical outcome of your view is nihilism which is self-contradictory. Nothing makes sense but nihilism!

The logical conclusion is not nihilism. As Sartre argued, embrace the absurd and the freedom it implies. We can still try to make meaning and our attempts have value though it is not enduring.

How can we make meaning if it does not exist? How does absurdity imply freedom? It amounts to wishful thinking and self-delusion. All thoughts become electrical byproducts. All values become arbitrary fictions in a pointless universe. You are not entitled to isolate religion on that account! Humanism is as futile as everything else in your scheme of things. The truth would not only be harsh but a merciless monument to life if materialism were true. According to one member of this forum the correspondence of belief to reality is no more than an isomorphism of atomic particles. You cannot descend lower than that… unless you regard everything whatsoever as an illusion - but even then there remains one solitary thought!

Because the subjective state we call suffering is, as we’ve discussed, objectively negative and the evidence that it is present in non-human animals is clear.

I’m delighted you accept objective negativity as a fact. Yet that alone is not a reason for deploring it. One could argue that all suffering is inevitable and - as many do - that it is not our business whether others suffer. That is where the principles of equality and fraternity need a foundation.

This simply confirms your mechanistic view of reality:…
There is certainly no scope for free choice or responsibility in this deterministic system.

I don’t think that’s so but I leave that question to neurologists and philosophers of mind. In my understanding of the issues and with the data I have Dennett’s model fits it best.

I cannot see how the biological nature of a machine endows it with autonomy and initiative.

No. Beauty is evidence of harmony and purpose. The reduction of colours to wavelengths does not alter their value, significance and effect on our minds. They do not exist due to their survival value but because they are a source and a result of inspiration and joy. Divine creativity and artistry are a more adequate explanation than aimless chance or physical necessity.

There are (or rather were) people who argued that an understanding of the mechanics of light did indeed diminish the value and significance of the rainbow.

Do you?

It is not self-evident that matter is eternal or that it has spontaneously appeared. So how did it originate? What is the basis of its existence? How is its existence maintained? It is unscientific to say “It just exists” or “There is no explanation”.

I never said it was self-evident but it is also not self-evident that matter has not always existed and that’s my point.

Then the question is valid, remains open and should be considered.

It is also unscientific to say ‘God must have created the universe,’ or even to try to ask this sort of question.

Of course there are limits to science but it does not follow that such questions are meaningless or irrelevant. At some stage metaphysics takes over.

Any time before the Plack time after the Big Bang is at least with our current tools wholly unavailable to us.

I’m sure scientists are not deterred by the existing limits to knowledge.

 

[ThomasToo]

Not at all. I’ve had discussions with materialists who regard the mind as no more than brain activity and intangibles as no more than words.

Then perhaps the failing is not entirely universal. That said, it was simply a poor choice of words on my part.

You are assuming that awareness is located in molecules.

I am assuming no such thing and you know that. Awareness is an emergent property of very specific arrangements of molecules and to imply that awareness is ‘located in molecules’ is at best misleading for rhetorical advantage and at worst indicative of willful ignorance of that point I’m actually making.

Your analogy is apt because a manuscript presupposes intangible intelligence!

No analogy is perfect.

Since our starting point is consciousness - and the existence of the brain is inferred - one Mind is the most parsimonious explanation of reality.

The existence of the brain is not inferred, it is assumed, unless you ware stipulating one mind and nothing else but that seems like demonical madness.

That is not surprising when we are confronted with basic reality. The fact that thoughts are intangible lays the burden of proof on the “brain>mind” advocate.

And I’ve laid out the theories, as advocated by persons more studied in these matters than either of use, of why consciousness is an emergent process of biological activity without resort to a paradoxical incorporeal mind. Frankly, to try and shift the burden of proof such that your point is assumed without presenting much if any evidence or explaining the paradoxes in your theory seems, at best, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

My initial remark was a reference to “The Perennial Philosophy” in which it is evident that the religions are not tribal but those which uphold the basic values of civilisation and base them on supernatural reality:

"**Rudiments **of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions…

But this assumes what it seeks to prove. Religions do not lay on a hierarchy–just as species do not–and to argue that a given set of religions are more fully developed or higher than others because they share a given set of characteristics you (or Huxley) see as valuable and important is to get things entirely backwards and seems to represent an isotope of the true Scotsman fallacy since you–though I do not know about Huxley on this point–seem to wave off all contrary evidence as insufficiently developed.

You are having it both ways!

Internally consistent and right are two very different things.

Proving that Christ’s teaching was not so absurd after all.

Not at all. Satyagraha was a principle enacted to raise the world’s ire in an age of international media to raise the hackles of the British people at the actions of their government in India. If Gandhi could have simply removed the British from India and made their attempts to reconquer it fall to naught with no loss of blood (I am here positing the same omnipotence you attribute to Jesus) then I would have expected that of him. As I said, he did what he could with what he had and if he had more (e.g. omnipotence) he could have done more or at least done what he did differently.

The prospect of being taunted, reviled, scourged and crucified is hardly meaningless…

Jesus had a bad weekend for your sins but that is several worlds different than dying with the baggage that carries for people (i.e. staying dead).

All the figures and factors you mention are insignificant in the light of the fact that Fr Jerzy Popieluszko was following the example of Jesus in denouncing injustice regardless of the threat to his life. He was neither a social nor a political activist yet there was a massive public demonstration with over 400,000 people in attendance at his funeral, official delegations of Solidarity appeared from throughout the whole country for the first time since the imposition of martial law and since then 17 million people have visited his tomb…

You cannot pick out one of numerous influences in the zeitgeist of a person’s life and attribute all his or her good actions to that cause. Things are far more complicated than that. Further, if you want credit for the good I’m sure you are prepared to take blame for the bad caused by the influence of Jesus–however tenuous.

Why is that significant?

Because you asked how I knew he didn’t speak to his biographers and it is impossible that he had at least not without a gap of at least thirty years and their writing which isn’t really the best system for getting books to bear even the most passing relationship to reality.

The truth is not restricted to one religion nor is any one religion restricted to the truth!

So the Quran is the literal word of God? Nirvana is the way to escape the suffering of rebirth? My question was not whether or not other religions contained some truth but if their doctrine should be assumed to be true because it too has persisted for millennia as you argued was a (or the) reason to assume Christianity to be true. Religions are contradictory (that is one religion contradicts most others) and to try and attribute truth to all of them is schizophrenic.

 

[ThomasToo]

Many atheists cite natural evil as evidence against theism.

That’s nice for them. I, for one, am put off by that use of language and for a third–and hopefully final–time I don’t know that debating terminology is a fruitful use of either of our time.

How can we make meaning if it does not exist? How does absurdity imply freedom? It amounts to wishful thinking and self-delusion. All thoughts become electrical byproducts. All values become arbitrary fictions in a pointless universe. You are not entitled to isolate religion on that account! Humanism is as futile as everything else in your scheme of things. The truth would not only be harsh but a merciless monument to life if materialism were true. According to one member of this forum the correspondence of belief to reality is no more than an isomorphism of atomic particles. You cannot descend lower than that… unless you regard everything whatsoever as an illusion - but even then there remains one solitary thought!

In the words of Camus, an embracing of the Absurd allows one to ‘live without appeal.’ For more on how an acceptance of the Absurd does not imply nihilism and does–or at least can–imply freedom I would suggest Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus: And Other Essays though a rudimentary start can probably be found at secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus .

I’m delighted you accept objective negativity as a fact. Yet that alone is not a reason for deploring it. One could argue that all suffering is inevitable and - as many do - that it is not our business whether others suffer. That is where the principles of equality and fraternity need a foundation.

To say something is unavoidable does not imply it oughtn’t to be stopped. Everything everyone does is an attempt to hold back the unavoidable (i.e. fight entropy).

I cannot see how the biological nature of a machine endows it with autonomy and initiative.

I’ve noticed. I don’t think that we’re meat machines instead of silicone ones is why we are autonomous as a sufficiently advanced artificial life form (read: AI) could one day achieve the same–or more–but our technology simply isn’t there yet.

Do you?

No but I think scientific explanations are beautiful. In the words of Richard Dawkins, I think ‘science is the poetry of reality’ with all the metaphorical parallels that term implies.

Then the question is valid, remains open and should be considered.

The question is only valid if you can justify its implicit assumption.

Of course there are limits to science but it does not follow that such questions are meaningless or irrelevant. At some stage metaphysics takes over.

Science is not set up to answer every sort of question even if it is more than helpful in many questions strictly outside its realm. I grant that other types of inquiry fill many of the gaps science has left standing empty.

I’m sure scientists are not deterred by the existing limits to knowledge.

I should hope not or we’d be sitting in a cave eating raw meat we took down with stone weapons. Science is about pulling back man’s ignorance a millimeter at a time and replacing it with knowledge and understanding. If, however, that will happen regarding the state of the universe 10^(-32) seconds after the Big Bang is another question.

 

[tonyrey]

Many atheists cite natural evil as evidence against theism.

You cite those whose views you share and ignore the consensus of others. And it’s not simply a question of terminology -

The logical conclusion is not nihilism. As Sartre argued, embrace the absurd and the freedom it implies. We can still try to make meaning and our attempts have value though it is not enduring.

“try” is the operative word, but “pretend” is more appropriate in a meaningless context.

For more on how an acceptance of the Absurd does not imply nihilism and does–or at least can–imply freedom I would suggest Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus: And Other Essays though a rudimentary start can probably be found at secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped…th_of_Sisyphus .

I wrote a critique of Camus in a dissertation more than thirty years ago…

To say something is unavoidable does not imply it oughtn’t to be stopped.

If something is unavoidable it cannot be stopped! The question of “ought” does not even arise…

Everything everyone does is an attempt to hold back the unavoidable (i.e. fight entropy).

How is that related to morality?

I don’t think that we’re meat machines instead of silicone ones is why we are autonomous as a sufficiently advanced artificial life form (read: AI) could one day achieve the same–or more–but our technology simply isn’t there yet.

Your faith in science is touching but unjustifiable.

I think scientific explanations are beautiful. In the words of Richard Dawkins, I think ‘science is the poetry of reality’ with all the metaphorical parallels that term implies.

Then beauty is simply a matter of taste…

The question is only valid if you can justify its implicit assumption.

There is no implicit assumption either way. It remains a valid question.

I grant that other types of inquiry fill many of the gaps science has left standing empty.

Then physicalism is not a satisfactory theory.

I’ve had discussions with materialists who regard the mind as no more than brain activity and intangibles as no more than words.

Then perhaps the failing is not entirely universal. That said, it was simply a poor choice of words on my part.

Do you believe the mind is brain activity and intangibles are words?

I think that those who posit the existence of a non-physical mind argue that it is a two-way street.

A view supported by ample evidence, e.g. hypnosis and the power of the mind.

You are assuming that awareness is located in molecules.

I am assuming no such thing and you know that.

I don’t know anything of the kind >>

Awareness is an emergent property of very specific arrangements of molecules…

"**is an emergent property"? How do you know **that?The term “emergent” refers to the unsubstantiated theory that everything is the product of molecular activity.

Your analogy is apt because a manuscript presupposes intangible intelligence!

No analogy is perfect.

This one is apt nevertheless!

…

unless you are stipulating one mind and nothing else but that seems like demonical madness.

On the contrary it is divine reasonableness! One Mind is the most parsimonious explanation of reality.

And I’ve laid out the theories, as advocated by persons more studied in these matters than either of us, of why consciousness is an emergent process of biological activity without resort to a paradoxical incorporeal mind.

Those theories have also been found wanting by specialists in the subject.

Frankly, to try and shift the burden of proof such that your point is assumed without presenting much if any evidence or explaining the paradoxes in your theory seems, at best, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Your entertaining image does not affect the fact that the reality of intangible thoughts is our starting point. As Quine correctly remarked, the existence of tangible objects is posited, not known. The burden is therefore on the positer to prove tangible objects exist prior to intangible thoughts.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see how you can defend the notion that all religions have a given belief then dismiss all contrary evidence because it’s not sufficiently mainstream… One and only one contrary datum is necessary to refute a universal claim…

The prospect of being taunted, reviled, scourged and crucified is hardly meaningless… nor is the temptation to despair when one is in agony…

Jesus had a bad weekend for your sins but that is several worlds different than dying with the baggage that carries for people (i.e. staying dead).

Of course it is. Yet that does not make bodily death meaningless, i.e. a matter of no concern. On the contrary death is meaningful because it is a test and a proof: “Greater love hath no man than this…”

All the figures and factors you mention are insignificant in the light of the fact that Fr Jerzy Popieluszko was following the example of Jesus in denouncing injustice regardless of the threat to his life. He was neither a social nor a political activist yet there was a massive public demonstration with over 400,000 people in attendance at his funeral, official delegations of Solidarity appeared from throughout the whole country for the first time since the imposition of martial law and since then 17 million people have visited his tomb…

You cannot pick out one of numerous influences in the zeitgeist of a person’s life and attribute all his or her good actions to that cause. Things are far more complicated than that.

Are you suggesting that Fr Jerzy was not primarily motivated by his vocation?

Further, if you want credit for the good I’m sure you are prepared to take blame for the bad caused by the influence of Jesus–however tenuous.

What evils have been caused by the influence of Jesus?

You asked how I knew he didn’t speak to his biographers and it is impossible that he had at least not without a gap of at least thirty years and their writing which isn’t really the best system for getting books to bear even the most passing relationship to reality.

You are making at least six assumptions:

1. Oral tradition is unreliable.
2. Few books written more than thirty years after events “bear even the most passing relationship to reality”.
3. There were no intervening accounts of the life of Jesus.
4. There were no books that were rejected by the Church.
5. The first Christians were superstitious, gullible and untrustworthy.
6. They could write and distribute their accounts freely in a time of persecution.

The truth is not restricted to one religion nor is any one religion restricted to the truth!

So the Quran is the literal word of God? Nirvana is the way to escape the suffering of rebirth?

The truth <> the whole truth.

Religions are contradictory (that is one religion contradicts most others) and to try and attribute truth to all of them is schizophrenic.

You need to justify that contention with regard to the fundamental truths I have listed.

My question was not whether or not other religions contained some truth but if their doctrine should be assumed to be true because it too has persisted for millennia as you argued was a (or the) reason to assume Christianity to be true.

Time is one of the best tests of any belief but it has to be taken in conjunction with its adequacy, coherence, simplicity and fertility.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[ThomasToo]

You cite those whose views you share and ignore the consensus of others. And it’s not simply a question of terminology -

There is no consensus on atheists on any question other than that there is insufficient evidence to believe in gods of any sort and to claim otherwise is indicative of misunderstanding–at best–of our group. It is a matter of terminology, you’re trying to term natural disasters, the existence of disease &c as ‘natural evil’ and my continued claim with regards to that is that I dispute the terminology as I do not deny the presence of these realities in our world, terrible as they may be.

I wrote a critique of Camus in a dissertation more than thirty years ago…

I would be interested, really and truly, to read it.

If something is unavoidable it cannot be stopped! The question of “ought” does not even arise…

How is this related to morality?

The example I gave before is apt here. Everything we do is an attempt to stave off the inevitable (i.e. fight back entropy and stave off death) but surely you would not argue that death ought always and everywhere be welcomed with open arms. We take medication, get vaccinations and undergo surgery and other treatment to live longer (and hopefully healthier) lives but we will die regardless. Many however would argue that there is a moral imperative–barring extraordinary means–to safeguard or life.

Then beauty is simply a matter of taste…

In a great many things, yes.

There is no implicit assumption either way. It remains a valid question.

I don’t understand how you see there to be no implicit assumption. I would grant, perhaps, that the two questions (‘why ought there to be nothing rather than something?’ and ‘why ought there to be something rather than nothing?’) could be considered together but the question ‘why does the universe exist?’ is itself invalid without justifying its foundation.

Then physicalism is not a satisfactory theory.

That’s not what I said. Science cannot answer mathematical questions, for example, but that doesn’t dispute the physicality hypothesis.

Do you believe the mind is brain activity and intangibles are words?

I believe the mind is brain activity. I’m not quite sure what you mean about intangibles being words.

A view supported by ample evidence, e.g. hypnosis and the power of the mind.

But that doesn’t prove that the mind is a separate existing thing or whether hypnosis is attributable tp purely physical phenomena.

I don’t know anything of the kind >>

"**is an emergent property"? How do you know **that?The term “emergent” refers to the unsubstantiated theory that everything is the product of molecular activity.

My point is that–to take a very simple example–if you just look at the molecules of a rock you lose the rock-ness of it just as if you look to closely at any individual tree you lose sight of the forest.

On the contrary it is divine reasonableness! One Mind is the most parsimonious explanation of reality.

But you’re not only positing one mind; you’re positing all of the same reality I am plus almost seven billion minds plus one Mind.

Those theories have also been found wanting by specialists in the subject.

They are also deeply and carefully defended by other specialists in the subject. We are both, I take it, amateurs in that field and if we are down to saying simply ‘well some specialists say X’ and ‘but other specialists say negation(X)’ then perhaps it is best to end this line of discussion.

Your entertaining image does not affect the fact that the reality of intangible thoughts is our starting point. As Quine correctly remarked, the existence of tangible objects is posited, not known. The burden is therefore on the positer to prove tangible objects exist prior to intangible thoughts.

As I’ve said before philosophy of knowledge is not my field and trying to box me into trying to argue against a piece I have not read what was written in response to another piece I have not read is neither fair, realistic nor charitable.