The word "faith" and the "jackpot fallacy"

[drmcpike]

In principle I agree with you. But not as the post you quoted, that is why I left it unanswered.

I started this tread to point out that not all types of “faiths” should be considered equal in merit, and his post dealt with something else, while accepting that truth is not decided by majority vote.

Pretty irrelevant to the topic, don’t you agree?

Point somewhat taken - you have to draw the line somewhere to respond to what is relevant. But I think your false understanding of history certainly is relevant. Faith is an historical phenomenon. Was your original intent here really to point out that the patently unreasonable faith of simpletons isn’t reasonable? Is your purpose in starting a thread like this really to talk about something so obvious, so far removed from what could be considered a topic of intelligent conversation? I’m confused.

In any case, Edwin’s posted responded directly to something you said. If you think that someone’s post is irrelevant to your topic, it would be nice of you to say so. It could just be the limitations of your viewpoint that make you think that certain posts are irrelevant to the topic of a thread (as I am quite certain was the case for my posts in your ‘human or not?’ thread). I just ask that you try to give your interlocutor a chance to explain their relevance (i.e., by letting them know when you think a point is irrelevant) before you dismiss them. Thanks.

(And I think you should certainly respond when someone asks you a direct question seeking clarification of what you have written as I did - it’s a matter of being accountable for your own claims, which I look at as a sine qua non of constructive dialogue. This prevents people from shooting off at the mouth about things which they don’t really know, nor care to know, anything about.)

 

[ateista]

Point somewhat taken - you have to draw the line somewhere to respond to what is relevant. But I think your false understanding of history certainly is relevant. Faith is an historical phenomenon. Was your original intent here really to point out that the patently unreasonable faith of simpletons isn’t reasonable? Is your purpose in starting a thread like this really to talk about something so obvious, so far removed from what could be considered a topic of intelligent conversation? I’m confused.

I wonder if it is really obvious to everyone. You see, it happened many times that I participated in a conversation about “faith” and someone said that since atheists also have “faith”, (for example that their wives do not cheat on them) it is unreasonable to dismiss faith-based claims - just because they are faith-based. Of course they do have a valid point.

The poor word “faith” is used in too many connotations, from the almost certain knowledge to the absolutely outlandish claims. Some people (not all by any stretch of the imagination) do not differentiate, and say “faith” is “faith”. And of course that is a very unreasonable position.

In any case, Edwin’s posted responded directly to something you said. If you think that someone’s post is irrelevant to your topic, it would be nice of you to say so. It could just be the limitations of your viewpoint that make you think that certain posts are irrelevant to the topic of a thread (as I am quite certain was the case for my posts in your ‘human or not?’ thread). I just ask that you try to give your interlocutor a chance to explain their relevance (i.e., by letting them know when you think a point is irrelevant) before you dismiss them. Thanks.

I am afraid that my words were somewhat frivolous in nature. I wish I had used some emoticons to indicate that. I should have but I did not, and that is my fault. I apologize.

The trouble is that there are so many interesting conversations going on, that it is impossible to devote equal attention to all of them. This thread pretty much wound down. If some interesting comment would come up, I would try to respond, but I might not have time.

In many instances I made posts, which were not reflected upon. That is fine. I am not upset, I simply understand that not all posts will be answered.

 

[tigers08]

Well, Aquinas would say that the immortality of the soul isn’t a matter of faith–it’s provable by reason. The resurrection of the body, now, that takes faith. . . .

However, I disagree with Aquinas on this one–I don’t think one can prove with certainty that the soul is immortal.

Edwin

You can’t even prove the existence of a soul. No one seems to even be able to define it. People want so badly to believe in life after death that they have invented this word with its entire definition dedicated to life after death. (Well some would say it is what makes decisions, feels emotions, etc, but we all know that’s the brain).

 

[tdgesq]

You can’t even prove the existence of a soul. No one seems to even be able to define it. People want so badly to believe in life after death that they have invented this word with its entire definition dedicated to life after death. (Well some would say it is what makes decisions, feels emotions, etc, but we all know that’s the brain).

Nobody said that existence of the soul is not provable, only the immortality of the soul, and then only from the required degree of knowledge from human reason alone. Please don’t misrepresent the poster.

The immaterial is necessary to account for identity/change and for the universal/individual. No Christian or Jew gave us that understanding of being. It was a Greek philosopher by the name of Aristotle. All things are required to have a form. That for the person is the human soul. If you have a philosophical objection to that from nominalism or some other ontology, then let us hear it.

Here is a definition of the human soul:

An immaterial substantial form of a form-matter composite: in particular, since man is the only rational animal that we know of, the substantial form of man.

It is not an “invention” to deal with life after death, it is a way to make reality intelligible. The most basic things about human reality and knowledge; like the existence of universals, causation, and that there is something other than simply changeable being. I suppose if I had an enormous amount of blind faith I would be just like you and assume all of this without any stated basis. But I demand answers to these issues that make sense. That is why I am Catholic.

 

[tigers08]

The immaterial is necessary to account for identity/change and for the universal/individual. No Christian or Jew gave us that understanding of being. It was a Greek philosopher by the name of Aristotle. All things are required to have a form. That for the person is the human soul. If you have a philosophical objection to that from nominalism or some other ontology, then let us hear it.

No immaterial is necessary to account for that, all that is easily explained by an actual thing…the brain. It contains your personality, behaviors, instincts, etc. “Being” is just the illusion of consciousness.

It is not an “invention” to deal with life after death, it is a way to make reality intelligible. The most basic things about human reality and knowledge; like the existence of universals, causation, and that there is something other than simply changeable being. I suppose if I had an enormous amount of blind faith I would be just like you and assume all of this without any stated basis. But I demand answers to these issues that make sense. That is why I am Catholic.

So an intangible, invisible, immaterial helps you make reality intelligible? Why does there have to be more to humans than just the body? My assumption that an invisible, intangible, immaterial doesn’t exist is worse than your assumption that it does?

 

[Contarini]

You can’t even prove the existence of a soul. No one seems to even be able to define it. People want so badly to believe in life after death that they have invented this word with its entire definition dedicated to life after death.

You are misinformed. The soul simply means the thing that makes you alive. Animals and plants have souls as well. Souls are not necessarily immortal. Various philosophical and religious traditions claim that human souls are immortal, but the basic concept of the soul is independent of the question of immortality.

In Aristotelian philosophy the soul is the form of the body. And in traditional Christian theology the soul is immortal, but the focus falls on the concept of bodily resurrection, which would work quite well without an immortal soul (and many modern Christians claim that the immortality of the soul is a Platonic rather than a Christian concept and should be discarded).

(Well some would say it is what makes decisions, feels emotions, etc, but we all know that’s the brain).

A dead corpse has a brain. The soul is the principle that makes a plant, animal, or human being (on different levels in each case) function as a living organism.

Edwin

 

[ErikaA]

You can’t even prove the existence of a soul. No one seems to even be able to define it. People want so badly to believe in life after death …

And is that so bad? I’m not arguing philosophically here so much as asking you to consider a mother who has lost her son. Would you blame her for wanting to believe she will see him again? If that makes her loss more palatable, is this not a noble and wonderful thing to believe? (I have a personal story on this I could relate.)

 

[ateista]

A dead corpse has a brain.

Yes, it has a non-functioning brain. Just like a computer, which is permanently turned off.

The soul is the principle that makes a plant, animal, or human being (on different levels in each case) function as a living organism.

What is the difference between a living and non-living organism? The definition of “life” is complex responses to complex stimuli. Is a virus “alive”? It is a matter of definition. Some biologists consider viruses alive, others do not. Are crystals alive? They grow, absorb materials into their “body”. These kinds of activities are usually associated with living organisms. Where do we draw the line? It is up to us. There is no objective dividing line, under which something is non-living, above which something is living.

Computer viruses were named “viruses” because they exhibit a similar behavior to their organic counterparts. They propagate themselves, they act as parasites on the host. Some of them are harmful, others are beneficial. Are they alive?

Have you seen John Conway’s “Game of Life”? It is an extremely simple computer program, which exhibits very complex “behavior”. Worth to explore it, just for your entertainment.

 

[ateista]

And is that so bad? I’m not arguing philosophically here so much as asking you to consider a mother who has lost her son. Would you blame her for wanting to believe she will see him again? If that makes her loss more palatable, is this not a noble and wonderful thing to believe? (I have a personal story on this I could relate.)

I would not blame her. If she wants to believe in afterlife, that is her choice. When I lost my mother, of course it would have been very nice to belive that we can meet again. But it is just self-deception. For me it is better to face reality, harsh as it may be. Nevertheless, we are all different, and what is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose.

 

[ErikaA]

Nevertheless, we are all different, and what is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose.

Exactly. There is either certain despair or uncertain hope. It is a choice we each must make. But when we try to convince others of the validity of our choice, do we do it out of genuine love and concern for others or because “misery loves company”? That’s the question to keep before yourself.

 

[ateista]

Exactly. There is either certain despair or uncertain hope. It is a choice we each must make. But when we try to convince others of the validity of our choice, do we do it out of genuine love and concern for others or because “misery loves company”? That’s the question to keep before yourself.

I am not sure about the “certain despair”. It all depends on what you concentrate on. Naturally, losing a parent is worlds apart from losing a child. When my mother passed away, we concentrated upon the good times we had, the happy memories she left behind. There was no despair, only passing sadness and the acceptance that death is part of life. (And for the time being: death and taxes are mutually exclusive - which is some small consolation )

 

[tigers08]

A dead corpse has a brain. The soul is the principle that makes a plant, animal, or human being (on different levels in each case) function as a living organism.

Edwin

I meant the brain performs those functions, not that a brain by itself is alive.

Here is the “conventional definition” of life:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

No where is there mentioned a soul.

 

[Contarini]

I meant the brain performs those functions, not that a brain by itself is alive.

Here is the “conventional definition” of life:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

No where is there mentioned a soul.

I see. So if you choose to define life in terms of functions without asking metaphysical questions, you have made the metaphysical questions go away simply by ignoring them? This is very convenient.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What is the difference between a living and non-living organism? The definition of “life” is complex responses to complex stimuli.

Whose definition?

Scientists define “life,” and everything else, in ways that help them solve scientific problems. That’s quite appropriate. But it’s both amusing and annoying to see apologists for atheism tout such reductionistic definitions as if they were presuppositions for a metaphysical argument.

Is a virus “alive”? It is a matter of definition. Some biologists consider viruses alive, others do not. Are crystals alive? They grow, absorb materials into their “body”. These kinds of activities are usually associated with living organisms. Where do we draw the line? It is up to us. There is no objective dividing line, under which something is non-living, above which something is living.

Viruses and crystals are interesting borderline examples, but just because it’s hard to tell when something is alive doesn’t mean that there is no soul that makes things live. It just means that it’s sometimes hard to tell whether an entity has a (vegetative or animal) soul or not. No doubt there are many more kinds of souls than ancient and medieval philosophers believed.

Computer viruses were named “viruses” because they exhibit a similar behavior to their organic counterparts. They propagate themselves, they act as parasites on the host. Some of them are harmful, others are beneficial. Are they alive?

I would say not, but I’m certainly open to the possibility that a computer program might develop sentience. When one clearly does, I’ll deal with it.

Edwin

 

[ateista]

Whose definition?

Biologists I would say.

Scientists define “life,” and everything else, in ways that help them solve scientific problems. That’s quite appropriate. But it’s both amusing and annoying to see apologists for atheism tout such reductionistic definitions as if they were presuppositions for a metaphysical argument.

You see, metaphysics is just an abstract concept. Suppose we are confronted with an entity and have to make a decision if that entity is alive or not. Metaphysics does not help there, does it? Suppose I would say that a rock is alive. It moves, it procreates, it engages in deep philosophical conversation with it peers, it consumes material for its metabolism, but it does all these things in a very slow way. Its lifespan is around 70 million years, so one “second” of its life equals to our whole lifespan. How could we detect that it is “alive”? Metaphysics does not help, does it?

Viruses and crystals are interesting borderline examples, but just because it’s hard to tell when something is alive doesn’t mean that there is no soul that makes things live. It just means that it’s sometimes hard to tell whether an entity has a (vegetative or animal) soul or not. No doubt there are many more kinds of souls than ancient and medieval philosophers believed.

Yes, I would think so. Those ancient and medieval philosophers came up ith many ideas. Why should they be taken seriously? Aristolotele asserted that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Should we take that assertion seriously?

I would say not, but I’m certainly open to the possibility that a computer program might develop sentience. When one clearly does, I’ll deal with it.

Ok. But we don’t talk about sentience, just talk about “life”. They exhibit complex behavior, they propagate themselves, and that is a feature which we usually attribute to living organisms. Why would you deny that they are “alive”?

And for sentience… how will we decide it that program is sentient or not? There is no abstract way to do it, but there is a practical way. If it passes the Turing test, we must assume that it is sentient.

 

[drmcpike]

You see, metaphysics is just an abstract concept.

I don’t know if he sees, but I don’t. Is this one of your ‘frivolous’ comments or something to be taken seriously? Care to explain what your point here is? This is an awfully thin definition of metaphysics. (It begs the question, how it is that you’ve arrived at these conclusions that you so matter-of-factly air.) Perhaps the Turing Test is ‘just’ an abstract concept too, as is biology, as is the concept of a concept, as is the concept of a definition, etc… so what?

 

[tigers08]

I see. So if you choose to define life in terms of functions without asking metaphysical questions, you have made the metaphysical questions go away simply by ignoring them? This is very convenient.

Edwin

What metaphysical question could you ask? “Does it have a soul?”?. I don’t see how that would help you determine if something is alive or not.

 

[ateista]

I don’t know if he sees, but I don’t. Is this one of your ‘frivolous’ comments or something to be taken seriously? Care to explain what your point here is?

I don’t know what is frivolous about it, but if you do not wish to take it seriously, then… don’t.

When one talks about life, then the biologists are the ones who study it. Philosophers might be welcome on the side line, making comments, but they are not the referees to decide what the “game” is all about. (Maybe this is another “frivolous” comment. Please feel free to disregard it.)

This is an awfully thin definition of metaphysics. (It begs the question, how it is that you’ve arrived at these conclusions that you so matter-of-factly air.)

It was not a definition, just an assessment how useless philosophy is when it comes to evaluate the claims of actual sciences. Philosophy may be an interesting mind-game, with some limited uses.

When I read some essays about the “existence” of “non-existent objects” I almost fell off the chair laughing. There are these people, sitting in their ivory towers (instead of doing something productive) and contemplate “non-existent objects” or how many angels could dance on the tip of a needle. And they are held in high regard (by their peers - no one else) and being paid for it… It is really ironic.

 

[drmcpike]

I don’t know what is frivolous about it, but if you do not wish to take it seriously, then… don’t.

When one talks about life, then the biologists are the ones who study it. Philosophers might be welcome on the side line, making comments, but they are not the referees to decide what the “game” is all about. (Maybe this is another “frivolous” comment. Please feel free to disregard it.)

It was not a definition, just an assessment how useless philosophy is when it comes to evaluate the claims of actual sciences. Philosophy may be an interesting mind-game, with some limited uses.

When I read some essays about the “existence” of “non-existent objects” I almost fell off the chair laughing. There are these people, sitting in their ivory towers (instead of doing something productive) and contemplate “non-existent objects” or how many angels could dance on the tip of a needle. And they are held in high regard (by their peers - no one else) and being paid for it… It is really ironic.

[Edited by Moderator]

G.W.F. Hegel wrote something like the following in the preface to Die Phaenomenologie des Geistes: there are three levels of understanding of a philosophical position: First, and easiest, it is possible to criticize. Second, and considerably harder, it is possible to come to a sympathetic understanding. Third, and hardest, is to have a sympathetic understanding that is at the same time critical. It is only the criticism of those who have taken the time and effort of thinking to reach the third stage whose criticisms of ‘philosophy’ surpass the mere frivolity of ignorantly rejecting something they don’t understand.

Now with this in mind, let me ask a serious question: honestly, how seriously do you think I should I take your ‘assessment’ of what philosophy is (or what metaphysics is) and of its usefulness? (And, though it should go without saying, please try to justify your answer, should you choose to attempt one.)

 

[drmcpike]

What metaphysical question could you ask? “Does it have a soul?”?. I don’t see how that would help you determine if something is alive or not.

[Edited by Moderator]

From what experience of beings/being, or from what horizon of understanding, does the concept of the ‘soul’ bring to light something essential about the being (i.e., meaning, i.e., truth) of ‘life’? (And in this context, obviously, we would be looking for something essential that surpasses the list of functional characteristics that Edwin apparently finds insufficient.)

…of course Edwin may have other suggestions for appropriate questions to ask!