Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[Hurkyl]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena.

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)

 

[Another God]

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)

Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)

Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.

Only evidence can be relied upon.

 

[SF]

Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.

I am not a native English speaker and in my native language they are much more similar.

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)

Nobody claimed that math created the universe, or that there is a Guardian Differential Equation for each of us.
Not that I know of :)

 

[Hurkyl]

Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)

Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.

Only evidence can be relied upon.

Really?

(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}

Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.

The only way (*) can be false is if

(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.

But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).

Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical.


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}

Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?


(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)

 

[Another God]

Really?

(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}

Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.

The only way (*) can be false is if

(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.

But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).

Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical.


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}

Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?


(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)

I don't really understand the specifics of what you are trying to say, but I do get the concept, and the answer is as simple as a littl bit of Aristotelian logic.

A statement can be said to be true if it is sound and valid. It must be logical, and it must be accurate with respect to reality. Simple. So if a statement is absolutely logical, then it is true if its premises are true. If the premises are wrong, then the statement is false, regardless of how logical it is.

Simple no?

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't really understand the specifics of what you are trying to say, but I do get the concept, and the answer is as simple as a littl bit of Aristotelian logic.

A statement can be said to be true if it is sound and valid. It must be logical, and it must be accurate with respect to reality. Simple. So if a statement is absolutely logical, then it is true if its premises are true. If the premises are wrong, then the statement is false, regardless of how logical it is.

Simple no?

No wonder you reject rationalism: you have logic wrong! If I wanted to assert that both {postulates of QM} and {HUP} were true, I would say

{postulates of QM} and {HUP}​

which has an entirely different meaning than the implication

if {postulates of QM} then {HUP}.​

See Wikipedia's article on vacuous truth.

 

[Another God]

...but that statement shows nothing other than what would be the case IF {postulates of QM} was true. I don't know that they are true. Nor do I even know that HUP follows from them if they are...

In this instance, assuming the statement is accurate, we still need to validate the premises.

There is nothing 'wrong' with what I said. Being vacuously true, is still just vacuous...it is far from 'Real' which is all that 'really' matters.

 

[Doc Al]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

Exactly. Claims of "God" are claims about the world, which require empirical evidence to take seriously. They deserve the same skeptical treatment as do similar outlandish claims one sees every week in the supermarket tabloids.

Of course, what we need is rational empiricism--collections of statements must "hang together" logically. But, unlike pure mathematics, religionists are making claims about the actual, physical world--if they were just constructing abstract, theoretical models, who would really care?

 

[PIT2]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway.

Asking for something 'that cannot be part of physics' equals asking for proof that that god doesn't exist. But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.

But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

A stable, predictable continuity says zero about whether some god is involved. Human minds can create objects that behave according to stable and continuous patterns also (such as a computer chip), but a computer chip is no argument that humans don't exist. Also, our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.

See how easy it is to slice through some atheistic arguments when one let's them loose on our human minds (as opposed to god)? Actually... I am not aware of any good atheistic arguments at all.

 

[Hurkyl]

Exactly. Claims of "God" are claims about the world, which require empirical evidence to take seriously. They deserve the same skeptical treatment as do similar outlandish claims one sees every week in the supermarket tabloids.

Can you make an argument that would be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence?

 

[Doc Al]

Can you make an argument that would be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence?

Why would anyone waste time providing reasons for someone who doesn't appreciate reasons? And whether "reason and experiment" are the only source of knowledge is interesting, the issue at hand is does religion provide some secret source of knowledge not accessible to reason and experiment? (Or, less formally, clear thinking and experience.) If you believe so, state your reasons!

I'm curious as to what field of knowledge you are imagining where reason and experiment (where possible) are not relevant? (Please don't say theology! )

 

[Interposer]

...our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.

Where does that leave both human consciousness and this supposed entity’s consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena?

See how easy it is to slice through this argument?

 

[PIT2]

Where does that leave both human consciousness and this supposed entity’s consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena?

See how easy it is to slice through this argument?

Human consciousness certainly is still here. What are u trying to say?

 

[Interposer]

sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanks

 

[Hurkyl]

Why would anyone waste time providing reasons for someone who doesn't appreciate reasons?

I don't know. But I didn't ask you to prove a rational argument that would convince someone who rejects rationalism.

And whether "reason and experiment" are the only source of knowledge is interesting, the issue at hand is does religion provide some secret source of knowledge not accessible to reason and experiment? (Or, less formally, clear thinking and experience.) If you believe so, state your reasons!

Less formally? You mean more loaded?

I don't know. But I presume that you believe pure reason and experiment do not yield evidence that, say, the Holy Trinity exists. So for the sake of argument, I'll assume that.

We also know that there is Biblical evidence that the Holy Trinity exists. (Whether or not you believe Biblical evidence is valid, surely you agree that it exists?)

So, it seems like we should conclude that religous sources do, in fact, provide evidence that cannot be attained through reason and experiment alone.

This seems a curious point to raise, though -- I suspect that the question you asked was not the question you meant to ask.

I'm curious as to what field of knowledge you are imagining where reason and experiment (where possible) are not relevant? (Please don't say theology! )

Huh?

I was imagining, for example, someone who adpots reason, experiment, and the Vedas as sources of truth.

I suppose that people who accept the Vedas as truth, but reject reason and experiment, would fall under the category of people who don't accept that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence.

If it makes you happy, we can limit this line of thought to people who accept reason and experiment and at least one other source of evidence as valid. (We can even limit the other sources to religous sources, if you like)

 

[PIT2]

sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanks

Im afraid I am not getting ur point.

Mine was that in the proces of denying god, some atheists use arguments that would equally deny the existence of our own consciousness.

 

[Another God]

in the proces of denying god, some atheists use arguments that would equally deny the existence of our own consciousness.

I don't mind that. Ever heard of Eliminative materialism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
That is pretty much what you are describing, and it is one of the few 'popular' philosophies of mind.

Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?

I would contend that the mind (consciousness et al) is an illusion created by the very real world phenomenon of our brains. In fact I have long drawn a strong correlation between our mind and God, where the evolutionary justification for our supposing others have minds is so beneficial (it allows us to empathise, relate, predict and so on with other people and animals) for our societal selves, that the process of imposing mind on objects is a constant side affect. Thus we start to suppose the rain has a mind "Please rain god, rain for us", "Please god of the wind, blow for us", "Please god of thunder, don't be angry", "Please god of pestilence, don't kill my baby" etc etc etc.

Gods come about because of this supposition that other intentional beings have minds, and thus we misplace the 'mind' phenomenon onto greater phenomenon.

This doesn't mean mind actually exists, Brains exist, and brains can quite accurately be manipulated to have the effects of "mind" doing just about anything.

Asking for something 'that cannot be part of physics' equals asking for proof that that god doesn't exist. But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.

rubbish. I probably should explain why...but I can't be bothered. Maybe try again later and I will.

A stable, predictable continuity says zero about whether some god is involved. Human minds can create objects that behave according to stable and continuous patterns also (such as a computer chip), but a computer chip is no argument that humans don't exist. Also, our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.

Humans aren't God. Humans are bounded by the limitations of our brain which is completely subject to the experiences of its past and the predictable chemical reactions driving it.

God must surely be completely creative, and thus able to do anything. Well so some religious folk believe.

See how easy it is to slice through some atheistic arguments when one let's them loose on our human minds (as opposed to god)? Actually... I am not aware of any good atheistic arguments at all.

You don't need to be. I know of plenty, but you are right, they are irrelevent. It is up to the religious ot have good arguments. Atheism is the default position, and you should be convinced otherwise away from atheism, not the other way around.

 

[SF]

So, it seems like we should conclude that religous sources do, in fact, provide evidence that cannot be attained through reason and experiment alone.

Why would that "evidence" be anything more than an unfounded claim

But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.

They don't "defy" physical explanations, they just haven't been explained as easy as 1, 2, 3 (we don't even know if that's possible). Anyway, the "appeal to ignorance" is not an argument.

Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?

Counsciousness interacts 100% with brain functions (a real world phenomena).
See: loss of counsciousness, black-out :)

that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.

Nope, it does not demonstrate that.
What you stated there is just a supposition as good as any other supposition without evidence to back it up. Not very good at all :)

What's the difference between your entity and Russel's teapot? About 50 years :) That's it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why would that "evidence" be anything more than an unfounded claim

Why would that evidence be an unfounded claim?

 

[Gokul43201]

I was imagining, for example, someone who adpots reason, experiment, and the Vedas as sources of truth.

And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?

 

[Hurkyl]

And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?

Why would it be any different than when a strict rationalist-empiricst arives at a contradiction?

 

[PIT2]

They don't "defy" physical explanations, they just haven't been explained as easy as 1, 2, 3 (we don't even know if that's possible). Anyway, the "appeal to ignorance" is not an argument.

In other words, u have faith that one day there will be a physical explanation. How is this faith different from the one that one day god will be proven to exist? While I am not appealing to ignorance (i was merely stating the fact that there is no physical explanation), u do seem to be appealing to faith.

Counsciousness interacts 100% with brain functions (a real world phenomena).
See: loss of counsciousness, black-out :)

I agree completely, but u cannot show to anyone that u are conscious. Do u see the parallels between all conscious entities, and the demands for 'evidence' that they exist?

Nope, it does not demonstrate that.
What you stated there is just a supposition as good as any other supposition without evidence to back it up. Not very good at all :)

Yes it is a supposition, but it is a logical one backed up by accepted evidence.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why would it be any different than when a strict rationalist-empiricst arives at a contradiction?

The rationalist-empiricist who arrives at a contradiction must accept that at least one of the two contradicting claims is incorrect. S/he then goes on to figure out which it is, and having done that (metaphorically, of course, for I'm referring to the body of people, rather than the individual), abandons it.

What does the rationalist-empiricist-vedist do?

Thousands of internal contradictions have been resolved by the body of rationalist-empiricists. Have, or even can the r-e-vs resolve contradictions through some kind of process other that having to convert to pure r-es or pure vs?

 

[SF]

In other words, u have faith that one day there will be a physical explanation.

Nope, you aren't even reading what I said, so attacking the straw-man will do you no good :)

There is no _complete_ explanation of counsciousness yet but we know a great deal about it.
There is no _complete_ (or easy) explanation because of the complexity involved (how the brain works, lol) but it's a falsifiable scientific field nonetheless. You can either prove or disprove things and we have an idea of how to do that, we just don't have the tools yet.

We know it's created in certain areas of the brain and this can be tested. (anesthetics have been known to affect counsciousness for several decades now, alcohol for even longer longer

And please! If you want to go on this ground: define counsciousness.
Vagueness is a characteristic of pseudoscience, so I'd expect you to move beyond that.

How is this faith different from the one that one day god will be proven to exist?

How is a rhetorical question an argument
For once: we can observe counsciousness (more details later in this post) and we know it exists, but to this day no one has observed god(s) much clearer than they observed fairies :)

While I am not appealing to ignorance (i was merely stating the fact that there is no physical explanation), u do seem to be appealing to faith.

Nope, "faith" by definition sais you are always right and there need not be any evidence.
My trust in science is in fact the opposite: i acquire evidence in order to prove myself wrong.
When I'm not wrong, the theory continues to live on to face another experiment.

I agree completely, but u cannot show to anyone that u are conscious.

Perhaps you can't, but I can :)
Again, define counsciousness.
To me, if you are a human and you can make voluntary decisions (move, talk, listen, act), you are a counscious human - the only experience I can relate to.
We have no idea if other creatures or devices have "counsciousness". It might very well exist in animals but surely in different forms.
We acquired this feat by evolution so it's obvious to accept that it evolved too.

Do cats and apes have counsciousness? We don't know, we're not cats or apes. What should counsciousness look like in a cat or an ape or an iPod?
Yes, please tell me that so I'll know what I'll be looking for.
What is counsciousness to you? I predict a pseudoscientific redefinition of terms :)
And don't restrict the definition to our form of counsciousness which is "human counsciousness".

Yes it is a supposition, but it is a logical one backed up by accepted evidence.

Just because PID2 states it on PF doesn't make it true :)
Now quit the weasel wording and tell me:
- why is it logical? What are the logical arguments behind it?
- what is that evidence you reffer to?

And hey, while you're at it: prove the "counscious creator entity" is more real than the "giant spagetti monster" or the "invisible pink unicorn".
You can even try to define your "counscious creator entity" and tell me: why should it be as counscious as humans are? We created the term and assume all other forms of "counsciousness" should be defined in relation to ours. I find that a bit biased.
Perhaps there is indeed a "counscious creator", but it's as counscious as a mouse. What do you think about that?

It should be easy for you to clear this out with all that evidence and logic you're hiding there :) Heheh.

 

[Another God]

Perhaps you can't, but I can :)
Again, define counsciousness.
To me, if you can make voluntary acts (move, talk, listen, act), you are counsciouss.
What is it to you? I predict a pseudoscientific redefinition of terms :)

Actually, it is technically far more difficult than that. That describes 'Behaviourism' which, I, and most other philosophers of mind would all agree is a terrible theory of mind. To say that something behaves as if it has a mind is acurate, and a good enough reason (in our day to day lives) to assume said thing has a mind, but their actions are not their mind.

This is easily understandable through introspection. I have consciousness and as such I know what green is like, and what f sharp sounds like, and what hot feels like etc. But that experience colour is not equal to my reaction to experienceing that colour. Hearing f sharp is independent to reacting to hearing f sharp. etc

Consciousness is defined differently by just about every philosopher of mind, so don't be too hard on the definition of it, but in general everyone agrees that reference to consciousness is a reference to the perceived experiences which don't seem to be 'physical' in themselves.

And just as this problem has so plagued philosophy (and hence science) for the last several thousand years, PID2 has targetted it as a problem, much like all "God of the Gaps" philosopher/theologians do.

God forbid humans admit to not understanding something!

 

[SF]

There is no indication to consider consciousness as more than a result of brain activity through the organism's interaction with the world. Thus, it's prone to scientific theories and research.

Descartes started from "I think therefore I am" and ended up proving god exists. Feynman showed him wrong.
Mind philosophers are not known for scientific research, but they are known for psychobabble :)

Consciousness is defined differently by just about every philosopher of mind, so don't be too hard on the definition of it, but in general everyone agrees that reference to consciousness is a reference to the perceived experiences which don't seem to be 'physical' in themselves.

Well, I know for once that christendom has had fights over their definitions for 2000 years. This doesn't mean that just because something has had strong controverses over it, then it's automatically hard to explain.

I have consciousness and as such I know what green is like, and what f sharp sounds like, and what hot feels like etc. But that experience colour is not equal to my reaction to experienceing that colour. Hearing f sharp is independent to reacting to hearing f sharp. etc

Sensations are the brain's language of the senses.
Give the brain lots of stimuli (psychedelics such as DMT, etc) and it will begin to "speak in tongues" :)

We might never find a way of "decoding" the brain due to it's sheer complexity.
I'll make an analogy but I don't know if it holds (it's not an argument, just an example). Just look at computers: a Hard-Drive is full of random electric potentials that mean nothing when you look at them, but plug it in and together with the other devices you get yourself the OS, music, communication, everything.
Similarry, we might not be able to "play" the brain unless it's "plugged in".

This does not make consciousness more special than any other piece of software.

 

[PIT2]

There is no _complete_ explanation of counsciousness yet but we know a great deal about it.
There is no _complete_ (or easy) explanation because of the complexity involved (how the brain works, lol)

In other words, there is no explanation. U are clearly appealing to faith: "we don't know yet, but we will!".

You can either prove or disprove things and we have an idea of how to do that, we just don't have the tools yet.

In other words, it can't be measured. Again u appeal to faith: "in the future, we will have the tools!".

We know it's created in certain areas of the brain and this can be tested. (anesthetics have been known to affect counsciousness for several decades now, alcohol for even longer longer

False. We do not know how it arises, and the idea that it happens in the brain is an unproven assumption. Of course we know anesthetics and alcohol affect consciousness, but this only demonstrates interaction. I don't see how interaction between consciousness and the material world is an argument that god doesn't exist?

And please! If you want to go on this ground: define counsciousness.
Vagueness is a characteristic of pseudoscience, so I'd expect you to move beyond that.

Im talking about phenomenal consciousness here: to experience something (seeing red, feeling joy, tasting bread, etc. ).

For once: we can observe counsciousness (more details later in this post) and we know it exists, but to this day no one has observed god(s) much clearer than they observed fairies :)

Every conscious being experiences that it is conscious yes. And actually, there are many people that do claim to have experienced 'god'. They can do so repeatedly, on demand, and others who have tried their methods report the same.

Just because PID2 states it on PF doesn't make it true :)
Now quit the weasel wording and tell me:
- why is it logical? What are the logical arguments behind it?
- what is that evidence you reffer to?

I mentioned the logic and evidence in the same sentence as where i claimed it was logicalur brains are shaped by experience (aka consciousness) (source here). Just like one can infer a big bang from observing the expansion of the universe, one can also infer a conscious influence in the ogirin of the universe, from known conscious influences in the evolution of it.

And hey, while you're at it: prove the "counscious creator entity" is more real than the "giant spagetti monster" or the "invisible pink unicorn".

I don't know who invented the spaghetti monster, or who came up with the idea that it is somehow impossible, implausible or illogical that consciousness can create, but i sure am suprised that so many people buy into it, because guess what... humans are conscious creators aswell!

Have u ever considered how ridiculous our own existence is when one holds such views? Just imagine a bunch of aliens having a conversation on zeta reticuli:

"Are u mad??! U don't seriously believe that there exist pink-skinned two legged beasts that fly through the sky in metallic cones while watching fairy movies on spinning discs with laserbeams? Thats ridiculous!"

Thats the same reasoning as the spaghetti monster, and it turns human beings into paranormal creatures, instead of giving them a place in nature.

 

[SF]

In other words, there is no explanation. U are clearly appealing to faith: "we don't know yet, but we will!".

In your words, not "other words". :)

And please define faith, or tell me to which definition of faith you subscribed to.. or else I can accuse you of equivocation and using vague terms.

Here's my definition:
Religious "faith" by definition requires no evidence (and has no evidence to begin with).
My belief in science (which you erroneously call "faith") is based on evidence.

In other words, it can't be measured. Again u appeal to faith: "in the future, we will have the tools!".

Perhaps you don't know, but science doesn't claim it has the answer for everything.
Right now, "consciousness" is one of those things science doesn't say many things about (but it sais enough, as opposed to suppernatural gods).

Are you trying to imply that just because science doesn't have the answer to everything, god(s) MUST exist? LOL :)

False. We do not know how it arises, and the idea that it happens in the brain is an unproven assumption.

Ipse dixit, buddy, sorry.
Just because YOU don't know much about it, it doesn't mean other people are clueless too.

Researchers have studied people whose brains were injured in accidents.
- There are people who no longer recognise faces (a part of consciousness) and we know what area of the brain is responsable with that.
- There are people who can't coordinate their left and right side of the brain (a part of consciousness) and such we know what area of the brain is responsable for that.
- And many, many others.

All the evidence points that mind processes are intimately related to brain functions and unless you've got a better alternative this one stais for good.
Where can the mind rezide in, the "soul"? LOL.

Im talking about phenomenal consciousness here: to experience something (seeing red, feeling joy, tasting bread, etc. ).

Feelings of joy and such can be stimulated by low doses of certain substances (they naturally occur because of hormones).

Psychedelics that act strongly on the audio and visual parts of the brain will generate strong visual and auditory hallucinations.
No magic, just chemistry.

If the body is flooded with the stress hormone cortisol, you will feel sad, etc.

Again, we got tonnes of evidence pointing to the fact that mind processes and brain functions are closely related, but just because we haven't figured out HOW certain substances produce certain sensations, you are ready to believe God exists?

Of course we know anesthetics and alcohol affect consciousness, but this only demonstrates interaction. I don't see how interaction between consciousness and the material world is an argument that god doesn't exist?

Nop, I'm not trying to prove god(s) does not/don't exist. I can't do that. I can't disprove fairies either, so I'm not even going to try.
Instead, I'm going to let god(s) and fairies disprove themselves through sheer lack of evidence :)

Aww, and you think cunsciousness is not part of the "material world"? Hehe, since all matter is also energy please tell me what other "world" is there.
The "spiritual world"? Cute. But wrong :) Where is it?

Every conscious being experiences that it is conscious yes. And actually, there are many people that do claim to have experienced 'god'. They can do so repeatedly, on demand, and others who have tried their methods report the same.

OOh, i can spot the scientific authority from faar away this time.
The "crowds", lol.

Which god(s)? Define it! Many people have claimed they experienced allah, yahweh and jesus... and just these three are contradictory. They can't all be true! Either allah is valid or jesus/yahweh is valid.

Further more, people have experienced the curse of the black cat, the luck of the four leaf clover, friday 13, ogres, goblins, leprechauns and the loch ness monster.
I'd say science disproved them pretty good :) Nope, evidence (and not claims) is the only valuable authority and no evidence to date has brought proof of the beings listed above.

Just like one can infer a big bang from observing the expansion of the universe, one can also infer a conscious influence in the ogirin of the universe, from known conscious influences in the evolution of it.

Nope, bad analogy - sorry. It doesn't work that way.

"Are u mad??! U don't seriously believe that there exist pink-skinned two legged beasts that fly through the sky in metallic cones while watching fairy movies on spinning discs with laserbeams? Thats ridiculous!"

Thats the same reasoning as the spaghetti monster, and it turns human beings into paranormal creatures, instead of giving them a place in nature.

I'm glad you agree the talk about bogus beings is ridiculous... because you've just described religion :)

 

[SF]

A nice discussion about "consciousness": http://www.godless.org/science/machine-of-the-soul.htm

 

[PIT2]

And please define faith, or tell me to which definition of faith you subscribed to.. or else I can accuse you of equivocation and using vague terms.

Not knowing something for certain, but believing it to be true. Thats what i call faith. I don't think there is anything special about religious faith that sets it appart from any other type of faith.

Right now, "consciousness" is one of those things science doesn't say many things about (but it sais enough, as opposed to suppernatural gods).

Are you trying to imply that just because science doesn't have the answer to everything, god(s) MUST exist? LOL :)

Quote me where i said that
U were appealing to ur faith in science, and i simply pointed out that u were doing it. Note also that the only claims about god i have made, is that the idea is logical, and that there are people who claim to experience 'it'.

U state that god is supernatural, but this is not something u can decide. U can't define what is supernatural without first finding out what constitutes 'nature'. God (to me) represents a number of ideas about reality, such as "the universe was created by an intelligence" and "life was created by an intelligence".

Feelings of joy and such can be stimulated by low doses of certain substances (they naturally occur because of hormones).

Eyes can be stimulated with light. So what? Does it mean the sun doesn't exist?

just because we haven't figured out HOW certain substances produce certain sensations, you are ready to believe God exists?

How can u use an argument of ignorance ("we don't know"), as an argument against god? It doesn't make sense.

Aww, and you think cunsciousness is not part of the "material world"? Hehe, since all matter is also energy please tell me what other "world" is there.

How much mass does the number 9 have? What is the size of joy? Matter and experiences are so different from each other that even a comparison becomes meaningless. I realize that u believe that experiences are material, but there is no secret experiment that has been carried out by some genius-ahead-of-his-time-scientist which has demonstrated this to be the case. Dont jump to conclusions, just accept that we do not know.

Which god(s)? Define it! Many people have claimed they experienced allah, yahweh and jesus... and just these three are contradictory. They can't all be true! Either allah is valid or jesus/yahweh is valid.

Go to the search section on this forum, and read through some topics opened by les sleeth. He (and i think someone else on this forum) seem to have experienced 'god' (they don't usually call it god) through meditation. Many other people throughout history and all over the world have had similar experiences.

Some people instantaneously reject their claims, because they cannot be demonstrated through usual experiment. But this is an invalid argument, because no experience can be (u cannot prove that u love ur mother, that ur happy, etc.).

 

[SF]

Not knowing something for certain, but believing it to be true. Thats what i call faith. I don't think there is anything special about religious faith that sets it appart from any other type of faith.

Almost.
Religious faith is the same as the "faith" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Religious faith is not the same as my knowledge that the Earth is round even if I haven't actually been into space to see it with my own eyes.

U state that god is supernatural, but u cannot define what is supernatural without first finding out what constitutes 'nature'. God (to me) represents a number of ideas about reality, such as "the universe was created by an intelligence" and "life was created by an intelligence".

The only intelligence we know has evolved - from lower forms (bacterias) to us (humans).

Do you have any proof that an intelligent being(s) exist(s) ? You stated it, you have to prove it.
We don't need to disprove anything. It's only after you bring some evidence that we can debate on them.

There is a possibility open for everything, but when the probability is so small (we're talking ~0.(..0..)1..% here) then it's not worth taking into consideration over the rest 99.(..9..) %
I'm all open for evidence though. Evidence can be both direct (apples fall) and indirect (planet Mars has a solid core).
Without evidence, i could say something is as if it didn't exist.
My position is: why try to disprove something that doesn't exist

How can u use an argument of ignorance ("we don't know"), as an argument against god? It doesn't make sense.

I'm not trying to disprove god(s) as I have already stated.
I'll let god(s) disprove him/themselves by lack of evidence :)

Eyes can be stimulated with light. So what? Does it mean the sun doesn't exist?

Nope, what I was trying to prove is that we have found brain areas that correspond to certain mind processes.

Your theory sais that there is something extra "out there" (soul?), so now you have to make two things
1) Show it exists.
2) Explain the findindgs of the scientists about the relation between sensations and brain areas.

How much mass does the number 9 have? What is the size of joy?

Rhetorical questions are not arguments.
Does number 9 have to have a mass? Why is that? You must show me before you ask me what you just did.
The same about the size of joy.

Here's a question for you: what is the weight of your mouse cursor? :)

Matter and experiences are so different that even a comparison becomes meaningless. I realize that u believe that experiences are material, but there is no secret experiment that has been carried out by some genius-ahead-of-his-time-scientist which has demonstrated this to be the case. Dont jump to conclusions, just accept that we do not know.

The theory that experiences are natural is a scientific theory that can be falsified.
You can falsify it by showing another possible cause. Not just showing it as in telling me on the forum about it. I mean bring forth evidence supporting the claim.

Meanwhile, neurology and psychiatry have made strong connections between experiences and brain functions, connections that must be explained by your theory.
- where is this "soul" located?
- what is it made of?
- how does it interact with the "material world"?

You can't just say that my "faith" that counsciousness is a result of natural processes is the same thing as your faith that we have a soul.
Why?
- there is no evidence for souls
- there is tons of hard evidence linking consciousness and the brain and absolutely no evidence that sais otherwise.
- in fact, statistics[/url] have pretty much narrowed the probability of the supernatural's existence to a minimum.

The problem is not of posibility (yes, we can't disprove spagetti monsters, god(s) or souls) but of probability (yes, they are indeed highly unlikely).

Go to the search section on this forum, and read through some topics opened by les sleeth. He (and i think someone else on this forum) seem to have experienced 'god' (they don't usually call it god) through meditation. Many other people throughout history and all over the world have had similar experiences.

I don't doubt they think they did.

Let's say I get high on crack, and experience the fact that god doesn't exist (because we know that "spiritual" phases just enhance what's on the person's mind).
What does that say? :)

I don't doubt les sleeth thinks he's experienced god(s), but as far as I know: the appeal to the ipse dixit of a false/anonymous authority is illogical.

Further more, many of those experiences are contradictory (as in the case of allah and god). They can't all be true, now can they?

But this is an invalid argument, because no experience can be (u cannot prove that u love ur mother, that ur happy, etc.).

Wrong analogy.
You can prove you love your mother by measuring your levels of cortisol (stress hormones) if she dies. (We could turn this into a little experiment, but I doubt your mother would agree .
You can prove you're happy by measuring the levels of dopamine and other "happiness" hormones in your head.
That was just to show you how science stands on those issues.

Now, returning to your "argument": Just because certain things are true without being proven does not mean all things that can't be proven are true .

 

[Another God]

In other words, there is no explanation. U are clearly appealing to faith: "we don't know yet, but we will!".
In other words, it can't be measured. Again u appeal to faith: "in the future, we will have the tools!".

I can't finish reading your post when you start by saying such nonsense.

You don't understand what faith is do you? Or more importantly, what the problem with it is...

Not knowing the answer, but hoping, or even expecting an answer is not faith.

<<Personal insult deleted by mentor. Please read the Physics Forums Global Guidelines.>>

 

[Hurkyl]

I'll let god(s) disprove him/themselves by lack of evidence :)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

- in fact, Bayesian statistics have pretty much narrowed the probability of the supernatural's existence to a minimum.

I didn't realize theology was a subfield of mathematics!

 

[PIT2]

You don't understand what faith is do you? Or more importantly, what the problem with it is...

Not knowing the answer, but hoping, or even expecting an answer is not faith.

I mentioned my definition of faith in my previous post. I don't think religious faith has anything special that sets in apart from any other type of faith. There is no god required for someone to have faith in something. Of course i am familiar with the problems of religious faith, and I am not argueing for the acceptance of certain behaviour associated with it, but sadly i see shimmers of the exact same behaviour on the other side of the fence.

U deny that he appeals to faith, only to replace it with 'hope' and 'expectations'. Someone can hope and expect jesus to return, and appeal to this as much as he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[PIT2]

Religious faith is the same as the "faith" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Religious faith is not the same as my knowledge that the Earth is round even if I haven't actually been into space to see it with my own eyes.

Tell me the difference. Is 'faith' in the invisible pink unicorn actually created by a real invisible pink unicorn?

Do you have any proof that an intelligent being(s) exist(s) ? You stated it, you have to prove it.

Look in the mirror.

Your theory sais that there is something extra "out there" (soul?), so now you have to make two things
1) Show it exists.
2) Explain the findindgs of the scientists about the relation between sensations and brain areas.

The something 'extra' (as u call it), is called consciousness. And like i said before, of course there is interaction between consc. and brain. So what? Light can interact with a http://www.cglapocatiere.qc.ca/techno/banque%20de%20photos/prism.jpg also, but that doesn't make the prism the creator of light. Also, music comes from a radio, but that doesn't mean there is an orchestra inside ur radio. There are plenty of examples in nature that provide analogies for other options.

Does number 9 have to have a mass? Why is that? You must show me before you ask me what you just did.
The same about the size of joy.

Actually, u were making the claim that consciousness is material. Please demonstrate this.

The theory that experiences are natural is a scientific theory that can be falsified.
You can falsify it by showing another possible cause. Not just showing it as in telling me on the forum about it. I mean bring forth evidence supporting the claim.

This entire sentence is really meaningless unless u can define what u mean by 'natural'.

Further more, many of those experiences are contradictory (as in the case of allah and god). They can't all be true, now can they?

Neither can all scientific theories be true, does that mean that are all false?

You can prove you love your mother by measuring your levels of cortisol (stress hormones) if she dies.

This is simply false, experiences cannot be measured. U can measure a whole bucket of cortisol, but that doesn't mean the bucket loves u