L
lemondiesel
Guest
If Atheists believe that there is no Prime Mover, wouldn’t that mean they believe that nonconsciouss matter formed a way of consciousness, therefore matter creates intellect?
- Status
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
That’s certainly what I believe. I can’t speak for any other atheist.
R
reggieM
Guest
True. Non-conscious, unintelligent matter would have to have created its own consciousness about itself.
As human persons, we are aware of a being called “ourself”. This being transcends even our physical characteristics, since we change physically through time, but we always remain “ourself”.
We member events from our early life. These are “our memories” that belong to this being called “ourself”. But these memories and “self” are not found in a physical location in the brain.
In fact, it could be said that every physical feature of a person undergoes change in life, but the concept of “myself” stays the same. It transcends the physical.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Yes, with the caveat that “prime mover” is a term sometimes assigned even such an impersonal reality. That is, that which is the ground of existence for the universe, the “head of the chain”, as it were, is your prime mover, even if it’s a perfectly impersonal something.
That aside, though, yes, there’s good consilience in all the evidence we have available that the universe is godless, impersonal, and yet creative in the sense that consciousness is an emergent property of matter; under the right conditions, matter and energy interact in complex and long-term (cumulative) ways that produces what Sagan referred to as “the cosmos beholding itself”.
This offends all kinds of intuitions and conceits, I understand. I share them. But the nature of disciplined, scientific thinking is to resist those influences as authoritative, and to subject them to modes and methods where they can be objectively falisfied or affirmed. Once those intuitions are accepted as intuitions, starting points and hypotheses, and not emotional., dogmatic a priori rules, a materialist view proceeds efficiently from what we can observe, test, and know.
-TS
B
BTW
Guest
In my original post, my rejection of the notion that the brain had infinite capacity was based on neuroscience, and I’ve never encountered any neuroscience argument to the contrary. I certainly didn’t say that I think that the brain is supernatural.
Terminology is important here. Brain describes a physical organ, while intellect describes a function, and mind is an overall term that in popular usage describes a set of functions that are accessible to consciousness.
It has been argued historically, as by Descartes, that the mind is supernatural. Moreover Descartes more or less equated mind with soul. That idea fell out of favor by the mid-nineteenth century.
Current neuroscience opinions on this topic fall roughly into three groups; materialistic monism, which regards mind as solely a product of brain, and denies the existence of souls; property dualism, which regards mind as an as-yet-unexplained emergent property of brain, but also doesn’t believe in the discrete existence of a soul; and finally, substance dualism, which believes that individual souls exist and can effectively interact with the individual’s brain.
None of these positions has been proven scientifically, but the first two are far and away the dominant positions among the neuroscientists who express themselves on the subject, while the last position, which is mine, is rarely expressed, at least in the published literature. Nevertheless I consider mine to be a rational belief, and one not contradicted by scientific evidence.
Terminology is important here. Brain describes a physical organ, while intellect describes a function, and mind is an overall term that in popular usage describes a set of functions that are accessible to consciousness.
It has been argued historically, as by Descartes, that the mind is supernatural. Moreover Descartes more or less equated mind with soul. That idea fell out of favor by the mid-nineteenth century.
Current neuroscience opinions on this topic fall roughly into three groups; materialistic monism, which regards mind as solely a product of brain, and denies the existence of souls; property dualism, which regards mind as an as-yet-unexplained emergent property of brain, but also doesn’t believe in the discrete existence of a soul; and finally, substance dualism, which believes that individual souls exist and can effectively interact with the individual’s brain.
None of these positions has been proven scientifically, but the first two are far and away the dominant positions among the neuroscientists who express themselves on the subject, while the last position, which is mine, is rarely expressed, at least in the published literature. Nevertheless I consider mine to be a rational belief, and one not contradicted by scientific evidence.
D
davidv
Guest
So? What is the name of this forum?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
He’s talking from the perspective of neuroscience.
Philosophy forum my arse. You can lead a redneck to culture, but you can’t make him think.
D
davidv
Guest
Offensive and disrespectful post reported.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Well, in that case I might as well make it worth my while.
You are the most narrow minded, idiotic, whining, snivelling pathetic son of a c**t that it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.
F**k you, all.
Dawkins is right, Hitchens too…
Religious bampots should be consigned to the purifying flames…
Cya all in hell. Hypocrites.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
I completely agree with it as well. I just didn’t wanna generalize every atheist in that category
Personally, I do not find our conscious THAT special. I mean yeah it is way more advanced than anything we have to compare it to, but there are other species that seem to have some form of consciousness. The issue of elephants mourning their dead is one example.
So maybe it is true, maybe the universe found a way to recognize its own existence. I mean, without a conscious like ours, what is the universe? It just is…i guess haha
T
Touchstone
Guest
I appreciate that rejection. It hardly seemed to need a rejection, but there it is.
Gotcha. I’m good with that.
Scientifically, sure. But it’s as intuitively popular as ever. Just read here a little bit. We don’t “feel” our brains thinking, and we have a meta-representational view of “self”… voilå! Instant intuition of the abstract, apart-from-brain mind.
Yeah, I know of a lot of different shades of dualism (and monism, for that matter), but I think those are useful categories.
Why is that?
There’s no way to prove substance dualism scientifically, so that strikes me as an odd way to frame it – for that matter, neither property dualism nor substance dualism can be established scientifically. These are philosophical extensions from the science.
I think it’s perfectly rational in the “proper function” sense of rational; humans have a pervasive intuition of their “I” as an non-physical something. It’s natural. But for a neuroscientist, thinking as a neuroscientist, familiar with all the evidence and models that are available now, it’s hard to see where the reasoning comes in – “rule based reasoning” sense of rational, there. “Irrational” sounds to strong, but maybe “non-rational”, or just “religiously driven”.
All that sits on top of good, solid knowledge of neuroscience. It just doesn’t derive from it. I use the example of “water pixies” as supernatural agents that help in the formation of water molecules, combining hydrogen and oxygen. That doesn’t conflict with the normal chemistry and physics we identify for water formation; it just supposes something “dualist” about the problem – water pixies are necessary, just unseen, undetectable, immaterial.
Is that “irrational”. I don’t see how that’s an apropos term. It’s really just trafficking in the unnecessary, the superfluous. There may be compelling emotional, psychological or cultural reasons for affirming belief in water pixies, but it’s not something that emerges from the study of hydrogen and water interactions.
-TS
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Correction:
There is no evidence that elephants are** capable** of insight into their own behaviour…!
There is no evidence that elephants are** capable** of insight into their own behaviour…!
B
BTW
Guest
QUOTE=BTW;7141482]
Current neuroscience opinions on this topic fall roughly into three groups; materialistic monism, which regards mind as solely a product of brain, and denies the existence of souls; property dualism, which regards mind as an as-yet-unexplained emergent property of brain, but also doesn’t believe in the discrete existence of a soul; and finally, substance dualism, which believes that individual souls exist and can effectively interact with the individual’s brain.
None of these positions has been proven scientifically, but the first two are far and away the dominant positions among the neuroscientists who express themselves on the subject, while the last position, which is mine, is rarely expressed, at least in the published literature.
Current neuroscience opinions on this topic fall roughly into three groups; materialistic monism, which regards mind as solely a product of brain, and denies the existence of souls; property dualism, which regards mind as an as-yet-unexplained emergent property of brain, but also doesn’t believe in the discrete existence of a soul; and finally, substance dualism, which believes that individual souls exist and can effectively interact with the individual’s brain.
None of these positions has been proven scientifically, but the first two are far and away the dominant positions among the neuroscientists who express themselves on the subject, while the last position, which is mine, is rarely expressed, at least in the published literature.
T
Touchstone
Guest
]
Hah. Maybe “water-pixiphilia”, rather?
Water-pixiephobia?
Hah. Maybe “water-pixiphilia”, rather?
OK, got it. I was almost 40 before I seriously questioned my faith (as I was preparing for RCIA, and reading here, as it happens), and though I am now an atheist, I can understand the “trajectory” answer.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Touchstone
*
That aside, though, yes, there’s good consilience in all the evidence we have available that the universe is godless, impersonal, and yet creative in the sense that consciousness is an emergent property of matter; under the right conditions, matter and energy interact in complex and long-term (cumulative) ways that produces what Sagan referred to as “the cosmos beholding itself”.
This offends all kinds of intuitions and conceits, I understand. I share them. But the nature of disciplined, scientific thinking is to resist those influences as authoritative, **and to subject them to modes and methods where they can be objectively falisfied or affirmed. **Once those intuitions are accepted as intuitions, starting points and hypotheses, and not emotional., dogmatic a priori rules, a materialist view proceeds efficiently from what we can observe, test, and know. *
This is a perfect summation of scientism: one result of which is the view that God cannot be objectively falsified or affirmed. If God exists and were more considerate, He should have made himself visible through a telescope, or microscope … whatever.
Ergo, God does not exist. 
*
That aside, though, yes, there’s good consilience in all the evidence we have available that the universe is godless, impersonal, and yet creative in the sense that consciousness is an emergent property of matter; under the right conditions, matter and energy interact in complex and long-term (cumulative) ways that produces what Sagan referred to as “the cosmos beholding itself”.
This offends all kinds of intuitions and conceits, I understand. I share them. But the nature of disciplined, scientific thinking is to resist those influences as authoritative, **and to subject them to modes and methods where they can be objectively falisfied or affirmed. **Once those intuitions are accepted as intuitions, starting points and hypotheses, and not emotional., dogmatic a priori rules, a materialist view proceeds efficiently from what we can observe, test, and know. *
This is a perfect summation of scientism: one result of which is the view that God cannot be objectively falsified or affirmed. If God exists and were more considerate, He should have made himself visible through a telescope, or microscope … whatever.
Ergo, God does not exist.
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s an important thing to recognize – that there is this other evidence.
An intelligent, well-educated, credentialed scientist observes, over a 20 year period of time, that prayer has definite effects in his life. He recognizes that his prayers are answered – and he concludes that God has been communicating with him in this way through prayer.
This is rational evidence for him. It’s not scientific evidence because it’s not a scientifically measurable process.
Now, for anyone hearing his testimony also – this is evidence. We see a person who has no reason to lie about this, and he is sane, rational and experienced in scientific research. He has drawn conclusions about his personal prayer.
It would not be reasonable to immediately dismiss what was said. There is no basis to distrust the testimony – why not believe that it actually happened just as he said? Why not accept that God does answer his prayers?
We can add to it that his claim is not that unusual. Many others make similar claims (I would myself after 30 years of daily prayer and Catholic practice).
But now we will see that some simply dismiss this evidence. Skepticism will prevail – and that means that there’s immediately a distrust of what the person has said.
To me, that says something about a bias that is present before the information has been received. If there was no bias, then the evidence would be accepted, through a reasonable trust in the words of an honest person. Or, at worst, the testimony would be investigated with an open mind (and interested heart).
When the evidence is blocked immediately, however, without further investigation or discussion – then there’s some other factor at work.
That’s how I see it anyway.
T
Touchstone
Guest
I thought scientism was the idea that science is the means of determining all the answers to life’s questions? I can’t see science as beginning to inform me why I should like the Rolling Stones over my beloved Pink Floyd, or Lichtenstein over Kandinsky, or even why it has some role in such questions, but I do understand that Catholics claim that God is real entity that can be known as real in some way, as an objective fact – God exists whether we want him to, or know he does or not, right?Touchstone
*
That aside, though, yes, there’s good consilience in all the evidence we have available that the universe is godless, impersonal, and yet creative in the sense that consciousness is an emergent property of matter; under the right conditions, matter and energy interact in complex and long-term (cumulative) ways that produces what Sagan referred to as “the cosmos beholding itself”.
This offends all kinds of intuitions and conceits, I understand. I share them. But the nature of disciplined, scientific thinking is to resist those influences as authoritative, **and to subject them to modes and methods where they can be objectively falisfied or affirmed. ***Once those intuitions are accepted as intuitions, starting points and hypotheses, and not emotional., dogmatic a priori rules, a materialist view proceeds efficiently from what we can observe, test, and know.
This is a perfect summation of scientism: one result of which is the view that God cannot be objectively falsified or affirmed. If God exists and were more considerate, He should have made himself visible through a telescope, or microscope … whatever.
If so, you’re making a knowledge claim, a claim about the reality we all share. That separates the question from other more subjective and visceral dispositions, like my love for the guitar playing of David Gilmour and it’s “rightness” for my tastes.
If God as an idea is neither something that proceeds from my tastes and preferences and desires, nor something that can be verified or falsified by any means at our collective disposal, it seems to be a complete nothing, conceptual. To say it’s “true” that God exists is meaningless, disingenuous even.
As for God being considerate, I’ve no problem with a hidden, ‘godless-mode’ God. If God exists, and he wants to operate in perfect stealth mode, that’s just fine by me. Knock yourself out, God. Divinity has its privileges, I guess.
I can’t be bothered. If that’s God’s choice, then he’s begging for reasonable and serious minds to dismiss him, to pay him no mind. We should oblige. It seems the considerate thing to do. If he wants to show himself in ways that reasonable people will acknowledge, he’s ostensibly got all the skills he needs to make that happen.
So yeah, God may exist and be operating in godless stealth mode. I grant that. But that’s no reason to embrace the idea. That’s unreasonable, if it’s a logical possibility. If If I’m dealth a pair of kings in blackjack, I’d be fool to hit, with the dealer showing a six. It might work, and in fact, might be necessary to win, but I’d still be fool to “hit” in that situation.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
I grew up in a Baptist home, and had the misfortune to run in circles dominated by Calvinist theology for a long time. Catholics sure do seem (vivid counterexamples to this right here on this forum notwithstanding) a pretty reasonable, genial and benevolent bunch, as Christians go. But really, if you think that’s what reasonable people should take as compelling, I’d have to be a Mormon. I think there’s even less reasoned basis for being a Mormon, but based on what you are appealing to here, the LDS pwn you guys, and will prevail in the end, if this is the thing.
It’s a tricky situation. I’m sure his life experiences are reinforcing for the paradigm he adopted – I know mine were for the same (or very similar) paradigm as a Christian. But if by ‘rational’ we mean “the product of reason”, there’s a problem. The Christian paradigm reinforces itself NO MATTER WHAT happens. There is just about nothing that will not reinforce the paradigm if you accept it on its own terms. It’s a bit like a “mind virus” or something that way – it defeats alert mechanisms in the thinking routine the way my little bits of mischievous code would insert itself on a co-worker’s machine in a bit of prank hanking and defeat the machines ability to detect and signal problems first.
That means that this recipe:
- Accept Christian paradigm
- Live life for a bit
- Review and see if life experiences reinforce Christian paradigm
Or nearly always. If one understands that one is taking on a paradigm that is rigged to produce self-validating conclusions, one has a handle on beating the self-deception.
We always have a reason to lie, to ourselves, others. That is not to say such reasons always or even often prevail. But it’s another, compounding level of self-deception to say what you’re saying here. We are skeptical of others and ourselves, because we understand the complex cauldron of emotions and interests that are human beings, and that this introduces risks in the process.
Moreover, it’s quite likely that the Mormon (or Catholic) witness just isn’t aware that the paradigm they’ve adopted is self-validating, a bit of self-deception, a way to defeat an otherwise critical part of their thinking. In that case, it’s not dishonest so much as it’s just the witness being unaware.
-TS
- Status