Why are you an Atheist? - Catholic Answers Live - 12Nov2018

[Damian]

This is demonstratively false.

How so? How can you demonstrate that a deity exists? Everyone that is not religious and the scientific community has yet to do this it seems. There’s also a $1M prize from James Randy for anyone that can do this.

You assert positively that there is no God, claiming we cannot test for God.

Wrong, I positively assert that there is no demonstration of the supernatural, deities, ghosts, goblins, etc. Reference my meteor example from before. There could actually be a meteor coming to strike our planet right now. This is actually possible since we can demonstrate that meteors actually do exist and that they can and do strike planets. However, until we can actually detect this particular meteor, we are not justified in actually believing this is the case, but we have an internally logically consistent reason to conclude that this is an idea we need to investigate.
Once we actually can demonstrate something about reality, that is when we are justified in updating our internal model of reality because we checked it against reality and actually found what we were looking for. If reality has not demonstrated that idea yet, then we are justified in looking for that idea, but not to update our internal model of reality yet.

 

[Damian]

Your hidden premise is that the only consciousness that you are familiar with is your own, so when you observe “people” who are ostensibly similar to you responding to stimulus in a manner similar to the way you might, you might plausibly infer consciousness is at work, somehow, via inductive reasoning, but that isn’t anything like defining or explaining what consciousness is, exactly.

Sounds like you could change out the idea of “hunger” and make the exact same statement. Hunger is the just the label we use for people that express the process of being hungry. Consciousness is just the label we use for people that express the process of responding to external stimuli of their environment, it seems to me.

Sorry, but merely observing people responding to an external stimulus, by itself, does NOT imply consciousness.

Consciousness is just the label we use for people that express the process of responding to external stimuli of their environment, it seems to me.

Your claim isn’t anything like a proof, and neither does it mean consciousness just is the response or the capacity to respond to any stimulus.

So, again, you’re not liking the use of how I understand consciousness, but not explaining how you use the term consciousness. So what are you talking about then, because I’ve been pretty explicit it seems based on your response for you to understand what I’m talking about.

And relative to your God claim, it is also like you pointing at the material universe and saying, “No God!”

No, its not like, it is. Because no one can point to anything in reality and conclude “god” because no one has yet to demonstrate that a deity is actually part of reality at all first. You have to do this first before you can then point to anything in reality to claim that the deity had anything at all to do with that observation of reality.
Example: you find a burnt piece of wood and claim it was Janice that did it. However, no one has ever met Janice ever. So claiming it was Janice is not valid because you have to first demonstrate that Janice exists first of all. Then we can look to see if Janice had anything to do with the burnt piece of wood verse just a natural event of wood being burnt due to a brush fire from a lightning strike.

 

[Damian]

Swapping out information currently being processed to long or short term memory and responding to (name removed by moderator)uts are what CPUs in computers do all of the time. That isn’t consciousness by a long shot. It is information processing. Hardly the same thing.

No, you’re just pointing out that because a computer does what it looks like people do, then its not valid. That’s not the argument here. Its like arguing that because a pitch machine can pitch a baseball means that what a baseball pitcher does is not the same. That’s just wrong. They are both doing the same process, just one is a machine, the other is a biological entity.

The “hard problem” of consciousness is that neuropsychology has yet to identify any mental faculties or processes that explain or are involved in consciousness. Current thinking from the best philosophers of mind is that we are not even close to explaining consciousness. That is why it is called a “hard” problem.

So you’re arguing that no one can explain consciousness, so you’ve just been arguing that my version of consciousness is wrong because no one has an explanation of consciousness but we know it when we see it it seems? So my explanation works just fine then. It’s the label of the process that we observe and “know it when we see it” and call it consciousness. What’s the problem here?

Ergo, consciousness is not reducible to responding to stimuli, unless you are just trying to ignore consciousness altogether by pretending it isn’t a real phenomenon.

So you’re saying I’m ignoring an aspect of consciousness that no one can define yet? So I’m ignoring aspects of an undefined concept? That’s just word gibberish now.

 

[Damian]

The fact that it is a reality, yet immaterial, not measurable in a scientific sense puts in the metaphysical plane

We’re talking about different things then if you believe this is what consciousness is. There is no demonstration of any metaphyiscal plane of existence at all. You might as well be saying that consciousness resides in Never-Never land. That’s why I talk about consciousness as a process that the brain performs. That’s why its logically wrong to ask for a “bowl of consciousness” or a “molecule of consciousness” or a “storage location in the brain of consciousness”. It would be just as absurd to ask for a bowl of digestion or a bowl of running. These are processes, not things. The process of responding to external stimuli, that we are aware of, is the brain function I am labeling as consciousness. That’s why we can have the same processes going on in an unconscious level. Like hormone regulation or speech. Speech started off as a conscious process and then, once we became an expert in it, we can speak at an unconscious level since we don’t have to be conscious of trying to think of what words we want to use in response for creating intelligible sentences. All this can be demonstrated in reality without having to make up a whole other realm of existence because this realm of existence is the only realm we can actually demonstrate to be reality. If you think there is an overstep somewhere of justified conclusions, that’s fine. Because then the proper response is, We can justify conclusions up to X point and then we have to stop and say, “We don’t know.” It is not proper to say, “Oh actually the answer is there is a whole other realm of existence out there, that we can’t actually demonstrate to be part of reality, that answers this problem.” You can look for it, but the honest answer is “We don’t know.” My “We don’t know.” is actually more honest to say than your “metaphysical plane”. Might as well just say Magic and be done with it.

Every item in our universe is made of nothing as physics has revealed - all matter is energy, mass is due to the Higgs field reaction to the frequency of that energy and the sum total of energy + and - is zero.

So you’ll use science to argue your point but then drop science when it comes to justifying your conclusion of “metaphysical plane”. ‘Face-palm’

 

[Damian]

The public miracle at Fatima Oct 13th 1917 was predicted well before the day and 70 - 100 thousand people witnessed the most outrageous supernatural event - impossible to deny.

To deny that they claim this is impossible to deny. Its just fine to deny it actually happened because we can’t demonstrate that actually happened since reality demonstrates so far that this is impossible at this point. So you’ll believe that big foot exists and that people are being abducted by aliens as well. Thousands of people claim this all the time and you can actually go talk to them as well. Are you justified in believing their story is actually correct for what reality demonstrates to be the case? No, no you are not. You’re fine looking for the information if you want. Go hunt down a Yeti or go catch a space ship and then I’ll believe these stories. Do the same thing with your "miracle’ claims and then I’ll believe them too.

Any investigation into Joan of Arc leaves one the choice of accepting the supernatural of not being able to handle the truth.

Same with King Arthur. Guess I need to start swimming around more to find my magical letter opener or claim divine rule when a scimitar gets thrown at me.

 

[Damian]

What is in the “mind” of a termite is hardly the same thing as what is in your mind when you think “tunnel.”

I’m arguing that its all the same process but we’re more advanced, so our processes are more advanced and produce more advanced results. That’s all. Advanced biological creatures vs computers vs lesser biological creatures, still all the same process.

 

[Damian]

You claim God (anything like super-nature) does not exist because the material causal order is sufficient to explain itself.

No I’m not. Worries me that you’re starting off at this point from the get-go. I am only pointing out that to have an updated internal model of reality that matches reality, you have to first demonstrate your ideas of reality in your internal model of reality are actually found in reality. That you can demonstrate them in reality in some detectable way. That is the first step. Then you have to demonstrate a causal link between an observed event in reality with that deity/ghost/goblin/etc that you first found to actually be in reality. This process is call methodological naturalism. You find facts about reality and then see what conclusion you can make from them. Theologists/Religious do this exactly backwards. AKA painting the bulls-eye around the arrow. Starting off with presupposing a deity/ghosts/gremlins in the engine is always getting it backwards.

There is nothing like a subject or person that supersedes, superintends, or transcend brain activity.

Talk about this more. What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that the identity of the self is separate from a functioning brain?
Our brains are advanced enough to not only work with the (name removed by moderator)ut from reality, like sight, sound, etc. Its also advanced enough to detect itself as well. The brain is always detecting what is going on with the body, regulating temperature, hormones, etc. It advanced enough to detect its conscious processing ability as well. To review its conscious analytical processes before they move to unconscious processes after mastering that skill. That’s what reality demonstrates so far. And since, by the methodological naturalism process, no supernatural excuse is allowed to even be considered because the supernatural is not been demonstrated to be any different than a comic book series. Its the supernatural, its Thanos, its magic, its never never land, etc. there is no difference here, so none of it is allowed to be a solution to anything. Your bucket labeled “supernatural presuppositions” is my buck called “We don’t know” it seems. Just mine is more honest to say.

Consciousness just is reducible to the interaction between the environment and the neurochemical reactions taking place in the human brain.

I agree here

 

[Damian]

no actual person or conscious subject (as commonly understood) exists in 2).

Yes there is no soul, no duality, nothing that is separate. this is what reality actually demonstrates to be the case so far. We can argue about the idea of duality but we can not state there is duality though.

Your atheism regarding the person of God in

To me, there is no such thing as ‘atheism’. You can be an atheist or atheists but there is no -ism to being an atheist. -ism implies a world view. There is no world view of being an atheist. There are world views that tend to result in atheism, like methodological naturalism, skepticism, etc. But you can be spiritual and be these world views as well. Saying there is a world view of Atheism is like saying there’s a world view of “not-guilty-ism” from the jury members that were not convinced of the prosecutor’s arguments and evidences they presented. Being at atheist or atheists is a single position on a single question. “Are you convinced/believe that the supernatural exists?” If you say no, then you’re an atheist. That’s really all it is. Nothing more.

would appear to entail a lack of belief in the existence of human persons in

lack of belief in duality of people

You have no need for a God hypothesis with regard to the physical universe because the universe is sufficient unto itself explanatorily speaking.

No, the god hypothesis has yet to be demonstrated as part of reality yet, so its not allowed to be an explanation for anything, just like pixies have yet to be demonstrated or gremlins in the engine for example. I’m fine with logical arguments to be justified to go look for them, but not for concluding that they actually exist. Something has to actually be demonstrated to exist in reality first before you’re allowed to use it as an answer to any question at all.

Therefore, when you say you “love” your spouse what you really mean is that you don’t believe in the existence of an actual person that you love because there is no abiding person there to love.

There is no external duality to her outside of a brain it seems. But I still love her, even if what is her is her brain.
Understanding that we are a brain, does not reduce my affection and feelings for that particular brain.

You merely mean by “love”

Here’s the fundamental problem. Because reality can only demonstrate that we are brains, this gives you some sort of ick factor, so you would prefer it to be something more. Well tough. Reality doesn’t owe you what you would prefer. It only owes you what is.

 

[vz71]

Wrong, I positively assert that there is no demonstration of the supernatural, deities, ghosts, goblins, etc.

The you no longer claim athiesm?

 

[vz71]

To me, there is…

Making up definitions again.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Sorry, but merely observing people responding to an external stimulus, by itself, does NOT imply consciousness.

Consciousness is just the label we use for people that express the process of responding to external stimuli of their environment, it seems to me.

Perhaps I am discussing consciousness with an entity that does not actually possess consciousness, so their understanding of what consciousness is is merely a definitional one and not an existential or experiential one.

My bad.

You (loosely speaking) have no first hand experience with consciousness so the only way you can grasp what it is is by a label and abstract definition applied to an unfamiliar reality. I suppose that explains why you (loosely speaking) are missing my points.

It makes complete sense now.

 

[Benny44]

Hi Damian,

Do you believe Napoleon existed? – That man landed on the moon? The miracle at Fatima was witnessed by 70 – 100k people and photographic evidence still exists. The miracle of Guadalupe is there for all to see though impossible to science – Joan of Arc a 17yrs old girl who could neither read nor write, managed to bring together and lead the scattered remnants of the French army to drive the English out of France after neigh on 100 yrs occupation had France on the verge of becoming a colony of England. – Very well documented including her impossible predictions that were fulfilled, her directives in warfare strategy impossibly brilliant but successful – causalities of the French next to nothing – Mark Twain spent 12 yrs of investigation and a further 2 yrs writing what he called the work of his life finding only a supernatural explanation of what he found.

Regarding consciousness as immaterial, yet real - the correlation between brain activity and conscious states breaks down in certain cases. Certain conscious states like Near Death Experiences occur when no brain activity is present (this is verified in peer reviewed studies)The human consciousness is self-aware or reflexive while material objects lack self-awareness. There is no explanation of how material brain events such as neural firings give rise to the qualitative and non-spatial features of conscious experience. I am not saying consciousness is supernatural but am saying it cannot be explained or measured by science yet we accept it as a reality. – Accepting the possible existence of a God (with a very wide understanding of what that may mean) is not unscientific but a hypothetical answer to numerous unanswered questions relating to our existence and self awareness.

John

 

[HarryStotle]

So you’re arguing that no one can explain consciousness, so you’ve just been arguing that my version of consciousness is wrong because no one has an explanation of consciousness but we know it when we see it it seems? So my explanation works just fine then. It’s the label of the process that we observe and “know it when we see it” and call it consciousness. What’s the problem here?

The fundamental problem is that simply or objectively “explaining” consciousness does not equate to being conscious or having consciousness.

There is a great deal about reality that defies explanation, and one of those aspects of reality that isn’t explained well at all is consciousness, even though we, as human beings, presumably have consciousness.

It isn’t that we can know it when we see it, it is that consciousness is integral to what we are and the manner in which we exist, and what it means to exist isn’t completely explicable.

Your version of consciousness is “wrong” not because you have failed to properly define it (although you have,) nor even that you claim to have explained it (which you haven’t,) but that you have completely left out of both what anyone who possesses consciousness would know is integral to it, even while both explaining and defining it are beyond our current capacity.

You leave what is central to consciousness out of both the explanation and the definition, and thereby depict consciousness as something it just isn’t, which is why I am beginning to suspect you may not be as intimately familiar with consciousness as you claim to be.

 

[Damian]

I never once claimed “atheism” as a label I use or a term I use. I do use Atheist and Atheists.

Sorry about “making up terms” that you don’t like, but tough. I care about communicating ideas regardless of the label. I’ll use what ever label you want as long as we both know that we are talking about the same concept.

The vast majority of atheists I talk to distinguish between a belief claim and a knowledge claim. Both are degrees of certainty.
Gnostic statements are statements about what you claim to know as fact of reality.
Theistic/Atheistic claims are what you’ve been convinced of without first hand knowledge of the experience.

Example:
Gnostic claim: I am gnostic to the fact that I am sitting in a chair.
Belief Claim: The 3 jury members were not convinced of the prosecutor’s presentation while 9 jury members were convinced of the prosecutor’s presentation. No one on the jury actually witnessed the event that the trial was about though.

So to the question about the existence of a deity,
I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t claim to know there actually is one or not and I am unconvinced that there is one based on the fact there is zero evidence that we can point to that indicates the existence of the supernatural at this point.
Just like I am gnostic atheist to the claim of a meteor is on its way to strike our planet. I am know that meteors actually exist and that they have the ability to strike planets. However, I am unconvinced that one actually exists that is on its way right now to strike our planet based on the lack of data that indicates this.

Hope that clears things up.
As to the idea of Atheism - No that word doesn’t make sense to me that it is a term at all. Because there is no world view of atheism. Being an atheist is not a world view, its just not being convinced of someone else’s positive claim about the existence of the supernatural.
Example: If I tell you that I met Bob yesterday and you don’t believe I did. You’re an atheist to the idea of Bob. Okay, now what’s your political position? World view? Education level? Position on anything else about reality? You can’t know this. All those other questions have nothing to do with the question of why you don’t believe I met Bob yesterday. Your world view of Skepticism may have caused you to land on this position of not believing I met Bob yesterday, but you don’t have a world view of A-Bob-ism. Just like a jury member doesn’t have a world view of “Not-Guilty-ism”.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

What is in the “mind” of a termite is hardly the same thing as what is in your mind when you think “tunnel.”

I’m arguing that its all the same process but we’re more advanced, so our processes are more advanced and produce more advanced results. That’s all. Advanced biological creatures vs computers vs lesser biological creatures, still all the same process.

Sure, and the birthing of the universe from a singularity is “still the same process” as the birthing of a child.

And conceiving an idea or story is “still the same process” as conceiving a child.

Birthing or conceiving or thinking or consciousness are “still the same process” as any of their analogs because one definition covers all possible analogs, according to you.

That might be true for an extreme literalist or fundamentalist, but not necessarily so for a careful thinker.

Which of those camps do you fall into?

 

[Damian]

Do you believe Napoleon existed? – That man landed on the moon?

Are any of these claims the equivalent of believing that the laws of nature were suspended?
Not all belief claims are equal. If you tell me you have a new puppy. I’ll just take that on face value. If you tell me you have a nuclear war head in your garage, I’ll want to verify that since it directly impacts my life and those actually exist. If you tell me you have a pet dragon, I’ll assume you’re rehearsing a character for a play and not take your seriously at all and not even have to bother to check your garage.

Miracles are the equivalent of claiming you have a pet dragon to me because its no different than claiming you ran into Hagrid yesterday and now you believe you can cast spells.

Napoleon was reported to do nothing out of the boundaries of any other human could perform. Same with landing on the moon.
Also we actually have evidence of the event of a moon landing. We have moon rocks, we have technology that can reach the moon, we placed reflective devices on the moon so that anyone can measure the distance to it with a laser, I can see how the moon’s gravity actually affects reality here on earth by the tides, etc. There is additional evidence of this mass out there other than just an assertion. The only evidence of the supernatural is all just logical argument and assertions at this point. Okay, then since you can’t tell the difference between that level of evidence, then I’ll assert that I went to Diagon Alley last week and Hogwarts.

There is no explanation of how material brain events such as neural firings give rise to the qualitative and non-spatial features of conscious experience.

So the answer is “We don’t know.” until you can actually demonstrate the supernatural is there and what it can do and how it interacts with this realm, it’s not allowed to be an explanation for anything in this realm. We can always find a point where we don’t know something, but the honest answer is “We don’t know.”. I’m fine with all the logical arguments to explore where we should spend our time looking for the answer, but I’m not fine with people that claim that they actually found the answer when they can’t demonstrate it.

 

[Damian]

I agree there are differences in each exact process, but here’s where it still works for me and where it breaks down with your use of the word “consciousness”. I’ll use the example of chewing food. A blender can do the same process as me chewing food. But you’re claiming that since I’m a human, that I have a duality to the process of “chewing” that the blender doesn’t have. I have a special ghost in me that allows me to chew food, even though reality does not demonstrate that at all. Now change “chewing” with “processing data and responding to that data” (which is what I call the conscious process) and its the exact same thing. Some special ghost is allowing me to process data and respond to it even though reality does not demonstrate this at all. It also appears that you don’t like the idea of there not being this special ghost not being there. Well tough, until you can demonstrate that special ghost is there at all, reality doesn’t owe you a special ghost just because you don’t like the idea that what reality actually demonstrates to be the case is that you are a biological machine, just a highly advanced one.

 

[Damian]

Perhaps I am discussing consciousness with an entity that does not actually possess consciousness

Nope I actually do. That’s why I am able to take in data from this discussion and respond to it. The conscious process. I’m aware that I am responding but not aware that I have to think of how to write these words or how to create a logical sentence since I’ve practiced that to the point where I can do it unconsciously.

 

[Damian]

You leave what is central to consciousness out of both the explanation and the definition, and thereby depict consciousness as something it just isn’t, which is why I am beginning to suspect you may not be as intimately familiar with consciousness as you claim to be.

I don’t claim to have an intimate knowledge of this concept, just I’m explaining it as I understand it. That’s all. I could be wrong, but I don’t know if I am or not until I can understand where I am wrong.

 

[Damian]

but that you have completely left out of both what anyone who possesses consciousness would know is integral to it

Such as?

even while both explaining and defining it are beyond our current capacity.

So what are we arguing about? I am explaining it based on what reality actually demonstrates to be possible. What reality demonstrates to be the case is the only tools I’m allowed to reference for explaining something. If we run into a wall where we think there is more to reality to solve this problem than what we can be justified to use, that is the wall where we have to stop and say, “We don’t know after this point.” So we know where we need to investigate further, but we are not allowed to make positive claims about reality in that area beyond, “We don’t know.” That is the break down it seems in our philosophies. I’ll stick with “We don’t know” and the religious are fine with logical conclusions being just as valid as actual tests with positive results. Well that’s not a correct process for having justified beliefs about our internal model of reality in reference to actual reality since reality has to show us what is possible for it, not our imagination.