Joint Discussion between ATHEIST and CATHOLIC

[littlestsouls2]

Here is how this thread works:

FORMAT:
Post #1 poses a question to the atheist.
Post #2 responds, and then asks a question (to keep the discussion going).

Thereafter, the formula is the same as Post 2: respond, then ask a question.

• For the sake of simplicity, the discussion is between an ATHEIST and a CATHOLIC.
• For the sake of clarity, set your posts out as follows:

Atheist:
(Insert text here)

OR

Catholic:
(Insert text here)

RULES:

• Keep posts succint. Try to avoid mini-essays.
• Try not to change topics too soon - give them a chance to be explored.

ADDITIONAL INFO:
Feel free to play “the Devil’s advocate.” The purpose of this discussion is, first and foremost, to discern the truth. Personally, I hope to hone my reasoning skills, to clarify my thoughts, and to draw closer to Truth Incarnate.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Catholic:
Is atheism the product of blind chemical processes in the brain, or something else?

 

[littlestsouls2]

Atheist:
*
Blind chemical processes in the brain?*
Um, no. Though I’m not even sure what you mean by that.

Most of the time, Atheism isn’t a “product” of anything…it’s the starting point. People are not born thinking there is a God, they are taught it or told it.
So many people are born Atheists.
It might be more correct to say that* Theism* is a product of something. There are many books written about the psychology of religious belief and indoctrination and the varied reasons why people are willing to believe in a god.

If Atheism is the product of anything, it’s usually the end result of researching the origins and evolutions of religions and the history and nature of gods and the psychology of belief…and coming to the conclusion that there really is no convincing evidence so far that leads them to the belief that a god exists.

Sometimes, Theists become Atheists because they have a bad religious experience and are angry about it, and angry at their god…but many times those seem to be rash, emotional decisions and I’m not always sure if, in those cases, the person has done the research and truly thinks there is no god.

QUESTION: Do many Catholics research outside their faith to hear what other religions or what Atheists have to say about their own beliefs and about Catholicism…and why they believe what they believe? I see on this forum that many Catholics often discourage others from doing so, for fear of “the slippery slope”…
If they do research outside their faith…what kind of conclusions do they reach?

.

Firstly, I’ll respond to your response - it will be brief, because I need to go to bed!

The previous question related to epistemology. Either atheism (or theism, for that matter) is a belief that one can arrive at freely, through discovery, research etc, OR, one’s beliefs are determined by material processes in the brain. In other words, if materialism is true, our beliefs are determined by factors beyond our control.

In response to your question, I can only answer from personal experience. Of those Catholics I know that take their faith seriously, they are inclined to at least watch atheist vs theist debates, or Catholic vs Protestant debates. As to researching other faiths etc., I would say that this is less common, although I do know a few people that know a reasonable amount about Judaism and Islam.

The conclusions of such research, varies. I know a few people who, in researching different faiths, have become somewhat relativistic; but I believe that this propensity preceded their research. For others, their research has deepened their faith.

Question:
Is matter (i.e. physical “stuff”) all that exists? If so, do our beliefs carry any intellectual weight?

 

[littlestsouls2]

.
(So…I’m supposed to let *another *Atheist answer now, right??)

.

Anyone can answer - as many times as they like, and for either side. I want to edit the original post to make this more clear, but I am unable to do so.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Here is how this thread works:

FORMAT:
Post #1 poses a question to the atheist.
Post #2 responds, and then asks a question (to keep the discussion going).

Thereafter, the formula is the same as Post 2: respond, then ask a question.
Jump in at any time. Answer as many questions as you like.

• For the sake of simplicity, the discussion is between an ATHEIST and a CATHOLIC.
• For the sake of clarity, set your posts out as follows:

Atheist:
(Insert text here)

OR

Catholic:
(Insert text here)

RULES:

• Keep posts succint. Try to avoid mini-essays.
• Try not to change topics too soon - give them a chance to be explored.

ADDITIONAL INFO:
Feel free to play “the Devil’s advocate.” The purpose of this discussion is, first and foremost, to discern the truth.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Here is how this thread works:

FORMAT:
Post #1 poses a question to the atheist.
Post #2 responds, and then asks a question (to keep the discussion going).

Thereafter, the formula is the same as Post 2: respond, then ask a question.
You can respond to any post(s).

• For the sake of simplicity, the discussion is between an ATHEIST and a CATHOLIC.
• For the sake of clarity, set your posts out as follows:

Atheist:
(Insert text here)

OR

Catholic:
(Insert text here)

RULES:

• Keep posts succint. Try to avoid mini-essays.
• Try not to change topics too soon - give them a chance to be explored.

ADDITIONAL INFO:
Feel free to play “the Devil’s advocate.” The purpose of this discussion is, first and foremost, to discern the truth. Personally, I hope to hone my reasoning skills, to clarify my thoughts, and to draw closer to Truth Incarnate.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Question:
Is matter (i.e. physical “stuff”) all that exists? If so, do our beliefs carry any intellectual weight?

Evidently, as a Christian, I don’t believe that physical matter exhausts all forms of existence. I don’t see why an atheist needs to necessarily be a materialist, since there could be any number of non-physical existent things, such as abstract objects and possibly spiritual entities.

However, it is difficult to see how rational thought, freedom, and other elements we consider essential for free discourse could be possible under materialism.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Evidently, as a Christian, I don’t believe that physical matter exhausts all forms of existence. I don’t see why an atheist needs to necessarily be a materialist, since there could be any number of non-physical existent things, such as abstract objects and possibly spiritual entities.

However, it is difficult to see how rational thought, freedom, and other elements we consider essential for free discourse could be possible under materialism.

Catholic:
Atheists are generally materialists. Once we admit the existence of immaterial entities, we have to account for their cause or mode of existence. This leads us to an immaterial cause, namely, God.

Question:
If abstract concepts are non-physical, can they be empirically verified?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Catholic:
Atheists are generally materialists. Once we admit the existence of immaterial entities, we have to account for their cause or mode of existence. This leads us to an immaterial cause, namely, God.

Question:
If abstract concepts are non-physical, can they be empirically verified?

Atheists may be generally materialists but atheism doesn’t imply materialism. If one is a materialist, matter has always existed without a cause. If you can accept this, why not accept that immaterial entities can exist always without a cause? In fact, a Platonist could be an atheist and accept such a proposition. Moreover, a materialist may argue that immaterial things, like the mind, are epiphenomena of matter, so could posit matter as a cause of the immaterial.

Nothing that is non-physical can be empirically verified, at least, directly.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Atheists may be generally materialists but atheism doesn’t imply materialism. If one is a materialist, matter has always existed without a cause. If you can accept this, why not accept that immaterial entities can exist always without a cause? In fact, a Platonist could be an atheist and accept such a proposition. Moreover, a materialist may argue that immaterial things, like the mind, are epiphenomena of matter, so could posit matter as a cause of the immaterial.

Nothing that is non-physical can be empirically verified, at least, directly.

True. But it is worth mentioning that many atheistic arguments are based on materialistic assumptions.

I agree with the implication of your question.

An atheist might choose to be a Platonist, but this is problematic; how, then, do we come to know the (immaterial) Forms?

If the mind is immaterial, it cannot be an epiphenomenon of a material brain; this would necessitate a substance change in which the cause does not contain the effect’s features either formally or eminently. Also, if epiphenomenalism is true - in one way or another - this does not explain how our thoughts have any causal power, and therefore any relevance to the intellect, morality etc.

Question:
Sam Harris and many other atheists, deny free will - at least implicitly. Is this consistent with a belief in morality?

 

[jonathan_hili]

True. But it is worth mentioning that many atheistic arguments are based on materialistic assumptions.

I agree with the implication of your question.

An atheist might choose to be a Platonist, but this is problematic; how, then, do we come to know the (immaterial) Forms?

If the mind is immaterial, it cannot be an epiphenomenon of a material brain; this would necessitate a substance change in which the cause does not contain the effect’s features either formally or eminently. Also, if epiphenomenalism is true - in one way or another - this does not explain how our thoughts have any causal power, and therefore any relevance to the intellect, morality etc.

Question:
Sam Harris and many other atheists, deny free will - at least implicitly. Is this consistent with a belief in morality?

I suppose an atheist Platonist would say we know the Forms the same way Plato does: through reasoning and abstraction.

I think epiphenomenalism would fail if one was arguing that the mind is identical to the brain, but it need not if one is contending the immaterial mind is merely a product of a material brain, much like wetness is a product of H2O. Consequently, an epiphenomenalist wouldn’t argue that there is a substantial change.

In terms of the causal power of the mind’s thoughts, perhaps it could be argued that it is like the causal power of a computer programme on effecting changes in hardware, e.g. the cd drive opening, lights flashing, etc.

 

[Bahman]

Catholic:
Atheists are generally materialists. Once we admit the existence of immaterial entities, we have to account for their cause or mode of existence. This leads us to an immaterial cause, namely, God.

There are problems here: How the existence of immaterial entities could be verified when we are solely surrounded with material entities? How they could interact assuming that they both exist? Is that correct to put them into two distinct subcategory if they interact? How existence immaterial entities leads to God (you are missing an argument)?

Question:
If abstract concepts are non-physical, can they be empirically verified?

Concepts exist in consciousness (Consciousness by definition is essence of any being with the ability to experience and create.) as mode of experiences. The world can be divided into two part, consciousness and what we experience.

 

[littlestsouls2]

I suppose an atheist Platonist would say we know the Forms the same way Plato does: through reasoning and abstraction.

I think epiphenomenalism would fail if one was arguing that the mind is identical to the brain, but it need not if one is contending the immaterial mind is merely a product of a material brain, much like wetness is a product of H2O. Consequently, an epiphenomenalist wouldn’t argue that there is a substantial change.

In terms of the causal power of the mind’s thoughts, perhaps it could be argued that it is like the causal power of a computer programme on effecting changes in hardware, e.g. the cd drive opening, lights flashing, etc.

A brief, somewhat incomplete response:

Platonic Forms are essentially universals. In order to know them, sensory knowledge will not suffice; the senses deal with particulars. Given that we do know universals, such as redness, triangularity, being, humour etc., it follows that the intellect is immaterial, like the universals it comprehends. This is problematic for the atheist who denies the existence of the soul.

Epiphenomenalism maintains that the mind is a byproduct of physical events or the brain. It is said that the mind has no causal power. But if the mind is itself another physical thing, then it would be part of the brain, and in turn, would effect it.

 

[littlestsouls2]

There are problems here: How the existence of immaterial entities could be verified when we are solely surrounded with material entities? How they could interact assuming that they both exist? Is that correct to put them into two distinct subcategory if they interact? How existence immaterial entities leads to God (you are missing an argument)?

Concepts exist in consciousness (Consciousness by definition is essence of any being with the ability to experience and create.) as mode of experiences. The world can be divided into two part, consciousness and what we experience.

Unless universals, like “existence” and “material entities” are physical, then our knowledge of them is abstract and non-physical.

The existence of immaterial or spiritual realities necessitates a spiritual cause. To assert the contrary would entail a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. There are other problems, too.

How does the material interact with the immaterial? I am not sure. But we do grasp universals - all the time, in fact e.g. in science (mass, heat) and maths (infinity, triangularity).

Is consciousness physical? But how can the knowledge of X be a part of X? If it were, it would change the moment we knew it.

 

[Bahman]

Unless universals, like “existence” and “material entities” are physical, then our knowledge of them is abstract and non-physical.

Again, the world can be divided into consciousness and what we experience in general. Material and immaterial distinction is wrong since we could experience both.

The existence of immaterial or spiritual realities necessitates a spiritual cause. To assert the contrary would entail a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. There are other problems, too.

What is primary is consciousness and it doesn’t need a cause since it is primary. I don’t understand how second law of thermodynamics plays any role here.

How does the material interact with the immaterial? I am not sure. But we do grasp universals - all the time, in fact e.g. in science (mass, heat) and maths (infinity, triangularity).

They interact all the time because dividing them into two subcategories is wrong.

Is consciousness physical? But how can the knowledge of X be a part of X? If it were, it would change the moment we knew it.

Consciousness is not part of our experience hence it is not physical. Our experience happens in consciousness.

 

[inocente]

A brief, somewhat incomplete response:

Platonic Forms are essentially universals. In order to know them, sensory knowledge will not suffice; the senses deal with particulars. Given that we do know universals, such as redness, triangularity, being, humour etc., it follows that the intellect is immaterial, like the universals it comprehends. This is problematic for the atheist who denies the existence of the soul.

Epiphenomenalism maintains that the mind is a byproduct of physical events or the brain. It is said that the mind has no causal power. But if the mind is itself another physical thing, then it would be part of the brain, and in turn, would effect it.

It’s known for certain that the mind does affect the brain and the brain affects the mind.

For instance, racism is linked directly to specific areas of the brain. One area generates a fear response when looking at faces of a less familiar ethnicity. Another area responds by controlling and perhaps suppressing the fear. Both are learned responses, and vary in strength according to an individual’s history (i.e mind affecting brain). Control of the fear response can be enhanced by a simple procedure which fools the brain (i.e. brain affecting mind). It’s too soon to know whether this instant reduction in racism lasts permanently.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_race
bbc.com/news/science-environment-23709836

Question: Do you believe a Christian can be a neuroscientist?

(I’m neither Catholic nor Atheist so maybe shouldn’t be posting on this thread. )

 

[jonathan_hili]

A brief, somewhat incomplete response:

Platonic Forms are essentially universals. In order to know them, sensory knowledge will not suffice; the senses deal with particulars. Given that we do know universals, such as redness, triangularity, being, humour etc., it follows that the intellect is immaterial, like the universals it comprehends. This is problematic for the atheist who denies the existence of the soul.

Epiphenomenalism maintains that the mind is a byproduct of physical events or the brain. It is said that the mind has no causal power. But if the mind is itself another physical thing, then it would be part of the brain, and in turn, would effect it.

I don’t think it is sound to argue that because we know a certain substance (immaterial universals) that our minds are that substance (immaterial) or share in it. Don’t we know physical substances too? Does that mean our minds are material as well as immaterial? If we then say that the brain is material, you would have to say that the brain (and not just the mind) is capable of intellection. However, if matter is capable of intellection, then that undermines the argument of like knowing like.

An epiphenomenalist does not believe that the mind is physical (a part of the brain), only that it derives from and is dependent on the physical for existence.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Thanks for those who are participating. Unfortunately I will need to step out of the ring for a bit; I won’t have the time to provide worthwhile answers.

If anyone wants to step in, feel free.

I will say something brief, however. Knowledge can certainly come through the senses; but it is the intellect that strips away individuating features of particular things and considers their universal form or essence.

Human consciousness, being contingent, requires a cause.

 

[Bahman]

Thanks for those who are participating. Unfortunately I will need to step out of the ring for a bit; I won’t have the time to provide worthwhile answers.

If anyone wants to step in, feel free.

I will say something brief, however. Knowledge can certainly come through the senses; but it is the intellect that strips away individuating features of particular things and considers their universal form or essence.

Human consciousness, being contingent, requires a cause.

Consciousness does not need a cause since it is primary. We are consciousness as God is consciousness. The rest of things as it was stressed are what we experience whether it is knowledge or intellect. Intellect is provided by body allowing that knowledge to be comprehended.

 

[ynotzap]

It’s known for certain that the mind does affect the brain and the brain affects the mind.

For instance, racism is linked directly to specific areas of the brain. One area generates a fear response when looking at faces of a less familiar ethnicity. Another area responds by controlling and perhaps suppressing the fear. Both are learned responses, and vary in strength according to an individual’s history (i.e mind affecting brain). Control of the fear response can be enhanced by a simple procedure which fools the brain (i.e. brain affecting mind). It’s too soon to know whether this instant reduction in racism lasts permanently.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_race
bbc.com/news/science-environment-23709836

Question: Do you believe a Christian can be a neuroscientist?

(I’m neither Catholic nor Atheist so maybe shouldn’t be posting on this thread. )

By all means, what prompted you to ask the question? If by neuroscience you mean a science that deals with the functions and abnormalities of the nervous system. the mind has a definite effect on the nervous system, a good understanding of psychology is also a great help to understanding the functions of the nervous system, and visa-versa the nervous system can affect the mind. eg. Panic attacks, too much stress on the nervous system caused by mental stress, can trigger the parasympathetic nervous system to produce fainting, hyperventilation, high blood pressure etc, various phobias, immobility etc. And the mind is a faculty of the soul, an immaterial entity. The brain is not the mind, but a tool of the mind, The mind is extrinsically dependent on the brain, they co-exist in this life. We are Christian Catholics, Christian is our name, and Catholic is our surname said by a Catholic Bishop of the 4th century (I forgot his name)