72 Responses to “Open Thread”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
October 9th, 2012 at 3:30 am
AOFM,
If all I had to do was declare my openness to the wonder of the universe in order to have you consider me worthy of common decency, we might have avoided a lot of nastiness. I'm chock-full of awe and wonder, I really am. But if the "potential" you speak of in me implies a chance that I will come to explain the deep questions by invoking Christian theology, I will say that it is no more likely than it would be for you to be convinced by Richard Dawkins that Darwinism accounts for everything.
I've no desire (or reason) to try and redeem anyone from theism per se, and my point isn't aimed specifically at Christians either. Rather, I am arguing against all people who hold particular hypotheses about these deep questions and believe them to be infallibly true (either because of "divine revelation" or "scientific proof").
Again, my goal is not to disabuse people of their beliefs. Despite all the assumptions from "the regulars" here, I have never thought that some sort of theism per se is an unreasonable belief, or an irrational belief. And even if I did think that people had unreasonable beliefs in the supernatural, I don't think there's a reason why people should be confronted about it.
The only thing I feel it is important to confront people about is their sense of exclusive certainty. When somebody feels that science is on their side, or that God is on their side, and so they feel a sense of authority, and ignore and ridicule dissent, then communication and cooperation suffers. (I believe there is a special certainty to well-established scientific results, but OOL and evolution and mind/brain relations are not well-established science).
Comment by aiguy — October 9, 2012 @ 3:30 am
October 9th, 2012 at 7:02 am
Yes I sure it's God's revealtion that is what he says afer all.
I'm not sure how it works. My home boy Calvin thought it was through a special sense "the Sensus divinitius" I'm very open to that possibility. It would explain the universal design inference.
The corruption of that sense would also explain the habit we have of attributing personhood to things around us that seem to act like humans. (IE the skynet supercomputer)
Of course this is all speculation on my part all the text says is that these things are know "in the things that have been made."
hope that helps
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2012 @ 7:02 am
October 9th, 2012 at 7:15 am
(I believe there is a special certainty to well-established scientific results, but OOL and evolution and mind/brain relations are not well-established science).
Ok You believe that things you deem to be well established science are certain. and I believe that only things that are revealed by God are.
Now what do we do?
We have established that your belief is based on faith and it's a faith that I don't share.
You are free to believe what you want my only problem is when you hold that your faith claim to be infallibly true
It's this "exclusive certainty" that you feel that causes you to "ignore and ridicule dissent, then communication and cooperation suffers".
That is my only problem with the Gospel you preach.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2012 @ 7:15 am
October 9th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Thanks for the open thread, chunk. The other one was giving my computer fits.
aiguy wrote:
Decency is not common.
That's one of the problems we have with visitors here; they're usually not very civil. And though you may not have intended to be uncivil, that was my first impression of you, especially after what I considered to be splitting hairs and nitpicking about beliefs and whatnot.
Let's let bygones be bygones with this fresh thread. I forgive your trespasses against me, I ask that you forgive mine.
We all have potential for all sorts of things that we have not foreseen. Certainly that was the case for the two people I mentioned in the reference, the Apostle Paul and C.S. Lewis, and no doubt innumerable others.
It's very possible that you may continue on without being convinced of Jesus Christ's love and sacrifice for you and all of humanity. This is true for, unfortunately, millions of people.
The thing is, I would be negligent in the eyes of God if I was the one who stood in the way of your being convinced. And the Bible tells me that there is a special, terrible fate for me if I am a believer and I lead others away from God through negligence or, worse yet, intentional misdirection.
Then I've misunderstood your use of the word "irredeemable".
Still, if there is no way to maintain a hypothesis after death, either of the individual or the entire species, why does it matter? Even if someone was 100% correct or 100% incorrect, wouldn't the ultimate futility of existence make it all worthless?
While I agree about dissent, there is such a thing as tact, which you've alluded to in your "common decency" remark.
But one misconception about Christianity is that it conveys some sort of authority to a believer. That mistaken belief is unfortunately perpetuated by some nominal Christians, like all stereotypes.
Our authority is not ourselves, but our God and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. He provides the standard that, as FMM noted, we use to test ideas and doctrines. Were it not for Him, all of our houses would have sand for their foundations and would be knocked down when the sea rose and the storm winds blew.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 9, 2012 @ 9:36 am
October 9th, 2012 at 10:17 am
aiguy:
Translation: It's ok to be a Christian. Just don't start actually believing that crap and DEFINITELY never talk about it in public.
Aiguy, what I think you have failed to learn is that Jesus was extremely divisive. This is why He is referred to as "Stone of stumbling", and "Rock of offense". Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household.” Matt 10:34-36
Jesus' very mission was the thing that you claim to despise – divisiveness. He was about as NON-politically correct as one could imagine. Since you have made it clear that you despise divisive speech – to the point of actually speaking out against free speech in a public park – you have essentially declared that you despise Jesus and what He stands for. We all knew this of course, but it would be important for you to realize what you are actually angry about.
You aren't upset that people harbor beliefs aout God. And you are not upset about Richard Dawkins' beliefs or you would have spent even a single minute arguing with him at his website. No, aiguy, it is the assurance of salvation which you despise, and Jesus knew you would despise it. Not only that, but Jesus commanded those who have exclusive assurance of salvation to preach the message to those who He told us would despise it. And that upsets you even more and Jesus knew this as well.
So we can have a civil discussion, aiguy. Or we can trade insults – (Jesus had some choice ones for the Pharisees of His day). It does not matter the tenor of the debate. What matters is that you understand what it is you despise. It is not free speech. It is not religion. It is not people who are sure of their beliefs. It is not atheists. It is not "exclusive certainty".
It is the gospel that you despise. Jesus knew you would, because it is an offensive, divisive reminder of your eternal fate.
Comment by chunkdz — October 9, 2012 @ 10:17 am
October 9th, 2012 at 10:26 am
My guess is that aiguy despises when people tell him what he does and does not despise.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 9, 2012 @ 10:26 am
October 9th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I'm away from the computer for most of the day, so I'll have to respond later.
Interesting that Angry Old Fat Man isn't angry (at least at me) anymore… but chunkdz is just seething.
And yes, hrun got that right – there is a habit here of telling people what they love and hate and know and believe, and it's a bad habit. It really is so much better to ask.
I guess this grew out of people coming here trying to sucker you in and set you up, as AOFM has said. The way I deal with that is to be trusting and cordial until it becomes apparent the other person is in bad faith, and then I respond accordingly. But if the other person eventually drops the attitude and pretense, I do the same, right away. Apparently chunkdz thinks of Jesus as a big tough hard-ass who loved to insult people and punish them, but what I've heard is that he really was a very nice guy who preached love and forgiveness.
Comment by aiguy — October 9, 2012 @ 12:36 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
aiguy wrote:
The punishment? While He was walking around the Middle East 2,000 years ago, not so much. But the Bible portrays Him as both "a big tough hard-ass" (He was a carpenter by trade, after all –
) who insulted people AND a preacher of love and forgiveness.
He insulted and rebuked the temple priests and occasionally His own disciples. He said those things about divisiveness that chunkdz mentioned upthread. He also told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and even to love our enemies.
So both you and chunkdz are correct in that sense.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 9, 2012 @ 1:03 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Chunkdz,
First,you are assuming their Christian message was the problem
Silly me assuming that Christian evangelists are preaching a Christian message.
Apparently I need to be clearer,there is no evidence that the content,subject matter, was the issue.
Since evangelizing is constitutionally protected in airports, bus stations and train stations I'm not sure I understand your point.
From sharing your faith website
" Subject to local laws and ordinances, airport terminals, bus and train stations, and walkways surrounding government-owned coliseums, stadiums, and memorials may be appropriate locations for leafleting"
"The Court noted in Frisby, however, that some time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible depending on the nature of the streets at issue. Id. at 481"
" It is wise to look up local laws and ordinances ahead of time. You can always call the local police station if you have questions"
How do you know it wasn't Christians who were annoyed at being witnessed to?
Wouldn't matter. Still constitutionally protected free speech.
Earlier…Chunkdz
Notice how they actually think it's funny that police can shut down a person's right to speak in a park simply because nonbelievers might become "violent".
Then why label the crowd as" nonbelievers"? Better for the persecuted Christian spin?
Again…tell me this "rule" that has single handedly erased the constitutional right to free speech
9. (a) Persons shall conduct expressive activities in the designated areas of
the PATH system only pursuant to a permit obtained pursuant to Section D, for the use of one or more of the areas designated on the attached schedule and diagrams of the PATH system,
D. Permit application shall be made, and acted upon, as set forth below:
1. A permit application shall be submitted in writing no later than thirty-six (36) hours preceding the commencement of the activities far which the permit is sought,
Ok, now you're back to just being ridiculous. It's actually kind of funny watching you flail against the US Constitution from a standpoint of complete and utter ignorance.
Not the constitutional argument rather for the notion
"A timely example of what it like for Christians in Aiguys world"
this group was being selectively being persecuted not from being in violation of the Transit Authority Rules and from smarting off to a cop but for being Christians.I believe that was the barb aimed at Aiguy.These Christians were being thrown to the metaphorical lions,which consisted of a citation by mail and a requirement to get a permit.Which of course I found irresistible
Now you have shifted,wisely,the argument away from religious persecution to free speech. I agree, police and politicians are constantly infringing on constitutional rights in the name of public safety,everyone's constitutional rights. So see we agree.
I'm pretty sure Don Quixote is reading this and saying "Can you believe this idiot Velikovsky?"
First,Don Quixote was a fictional 17th century character,so it is unlikely he has Internet access, if he did most likely he could say"puedes creer este idiota, velikovskys¿
However being a gentleman he would refrain from rude behavior
Comment by velikovskys — October 9, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Eugen,
I, otoh just want my buddy Velikovsky saved, the rest of them pfft.
I'll put in a good word for you if I get there first, not too soon I hope. Plan to watch the Orionids at McDonald Observatory with an adult beverage first.
Comment by velikovskys — October 9, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Ffm,
hope that helps
A bit, the certainty that every person has the same sense of the divine eludes me.
Comment by velikovskys — October 9, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
To aiguy, anybody who defends the gospel must be seething? Perhaps if I used more smiley faces…
There! See? I'm not seething!
Did you, or did you not, express outrage when atheists were not permitted to work for the Boy Scouts? And did you not express amusement when Christians were issued citations for talking to people in a park?
We don't need to tell you what you love or despise. You keep telling us over and over again.
(not seething)
Such is the understanding of an infant. A doctor giving an inoculation is an evil hurtful monster until he gives the lollipop and a My Little Pony sticker.
I do hope you grow in understanding. An infant like yourself cannot hope to appreciate why the inoculation is for your own good. And evil people give out just as many lollipops as doctors.
Comment by chunkdz — October 9, 2012 @ 1:44 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
chunkdz wrote:
Indeed.
"[T]hen your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods."
There isn't a bigger, more tempting lollipop that that one, that's for sure. That lie has worked since the beginning, literally.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 9, 2012 @ 4:01 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Velikovsky:
That's true. Except for the police statements to the press there is no evidence of this.
Frisby was a case about picketing a private residence.
Fine. I hereby concede your assertion that it was quite possibly Christians who threatened violence against the Christian evangelists.
I asked for the ordinance that overturns the first amendment. You show me an unconstitutional ordinance.
Yes, I understand that free speech can be very annoying and the constitution can be a horrible impediment to your not being annoyed.
Religious speech is free speech.
No. I think it's outrageous, you think it's laughable.
That's what I just said, moron.
Being a gentleman he would have the utmost contempt for those who would abridge his religious freedom.
"I came across a rosary of angry, wretched men, I did with them what my religion requires of me, and nothing else is any concern of mine; and to anyone who thinks ill of it – saving, reverend sir, your holy dignity and honorable person, I say that he is no judge of matters of chivalry, and that he is lying like a bastard and a son of a whore."
-Don Quixote
Comment by chunkdz — October 9, 2012 @ 4:27 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
AOFM,
No doubt. My beliefs have changed about all sorts of things over the years; I consider it a good sign that I am genuinely open to seeing new perspectives and reflecting honestly about what I see in the world.
It seems unimaginable to me that any one particular religious doctrine would begin to appear true to me now, just as I'm sure it would seem unlikely to you that you would come to the conclusion that Jesus wasn't divine after all.
My motivation here is internal; I feel no obligation or threat of punishment if I fail to convince people that my opinions are the most sound. And obviously it is exceedingly rare that arguments in these forums actually change anyone's beliefs, about anything, ever. Still, every few months (or years) I post for awhile, because it helps me understand my own arguments better, and mostly because I get a better sense for how other people think and feel.
First, I think it matters what people believe about the deep questions because it can affect their judgement and actions. Second, I don't feel that mortality (individual or species) somehow changes the reasons to reflect on these questions. Am I missing your point here?
OK, you are advocating tact, which I agree is important. Is tact something that your religious teachings emphasize? Obviously there are lots of loudmouthed anti-thesists that love to denigrate religious belief without any sense of tact, but it seems that different Christians have radically different ideas about the importance of tact as well.
I'm sure you understand this from both sides, though. If a Scientologist declared that his ideas were infallible because his authority was conferred by the Thetans, you would likely think (as I would) that there really aren't any Thetans, and so whatever this Scientologist says doesn't gain credibility because he invokes Thetans. Likewise a muslim who says his authority is absolute because it comes from Mohammed probably would not sway you to believe him over anyone else.
So here's a point I tried to make to FMM, but apparently I wasn't clear enough; hopefully you can explain this to me.
Let's say Fred had a source that he thought was infallible, like, say, Wikipedia. Then you and Fred had a debate, and Fred said you should just admit he's right about everything because all of his knowledge is from Wikipedia, which he read every page of and committed it to memory. You would argue not only that (1) you don't have the same confidence in Wikipedia as Fred does, but also that (2) it is entirely possible that even if Wikipedia were infallible, Fred's memory and reading comprehension are not, and so there is always the possibility that what Fred says isn't true to Wikipedia in the first place.
Why would I not, in just this way, have these reservations about you telling me that you are faithfully representing an infallible source?
chunkdz,
That is a stupid and angry and incorrect interpretation of what I said.
You are confused. In my view people must stand up for what they believe – I'm no pacifist or appeaser. It is divisiveness for it's own sake – unprovoked hostility and meanness – that I object to. And don't bother telling me how I provoke your insults and deranged rants – somebody like you can always find a provocation wherever he looks.
Nobody here is talking about political correctness except you.
That is again an angry and perverse attempt to pretend I am attacking your religion. It is utterly preposterous for you to say "you despise Jesus". You are so bitter and angry and seething with hate, you are just spoiling for a fight. You're probably going to die young.
Comment by aiguy — October 9, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
aiguy:
Have you forgotten your rhetorical question?
Yup. Be a Christian, just don't talk about it. It's too "divisive".
Would you object to a valedictorian saying in his speech "Jesus Christ is The Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Him."?
How about "Gays don't go to heaven"?
I just finished saying that it is not religion that you despise. Try to pay attention.
Oh yeah,
Not seething.
Comment by chunkdz — October 9, 2012 @ 6:09 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
velikovskys
Do you believe that God if he chose to could reveal somthing in such a way that a person could know it for certain?
If you do then certainty in general should not befuddle you.
If you are OK with certainity in gereral but are confused about how a particular person could be certain about a particular thing we probably would need to have a discussion about the mind of Christ.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2012 @ 7:42 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Ffm,
Do you believe that God if he chose to could reveal somthing in such a way that a person could know it for certain?
That as before seems logical, but why should we assume He does? I can equally imagine that God would refrain from such activity in order to assure the maximum amount of free will to take place. Eliminating doubt seems to be putting " a thumb on the scales". Does this make sense?
Comment by velikovskys — October 9, 2012 @ 9:31 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
velikovsky
Who ever gets there first better save front row seats for Andromeda and Milky Way collision.
Fantastic. I'll watch it from my backyard. Drink I recommend is appropriately called Starry Night: mix of Goldschlager and Jagermeister. It helps on a cold evening here in northern latitudes.
Comment by Eugen — October 9, 2012 @ 10:12 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
aiguy wrote:
That is why you have potential to perceive beyond what you perceive now. That is true for all of us up to a point.
Many years ago, I stopped short of questioning Darwinian evolution. I stopped short at that point because I was taught that biologists had a lot of the details worked it out, and their evidence was solid. And I thought that scientists only had our best interests at heart because, once again, this is what I had been taught.
Age, experience, and autonomous thinking led me to other conclusions. Conclusions I would have thought were foolish only ten years before that.
I am telling you about Jesus Christ because it is my duty. I have done my duty. Were your mind completely closed off and you heart hardened, like many who visit here, I would probably not bother. But I am taking your word at face value, as naive as that may sound.
This is not an attempt to convert you. I can't do that. Only two people are responsible for any conversion you may undergo – Christ and you.
It may seem unimaginable now. I'm sure Paul thought the same way on that day he was traveling down the road to Damascus, hurrying to make sure as many followers of Jesus Christ as possible were executed. Not that anyone here, even the atheists, are guilty of murder or even thinking earnestly about murdering anyone. But it goes to show you how much even the most vile and wretched among us can be changed.
My duty is not to convince others. My duty is to inform them of their destination if they keep going down the path they're going.
It may surprise you that I'm not talking about an eternal afterlife in an some sort of inescapable fire. In my opinion, that's a cartoon version of Christianity, a straw man that atheists love to pull out, beat up, and claim victory over.
I'm talking about oblivion. The very fate that atheists supposedly believe we all will suffer. The one fate that the Bible explicitly tells us we can avoid if we trust in God and His Son.
I want to take you at your word here, but I'm uneasy about doing so.
You have used the words "you are wrong" and "I'm right" in your comments, which shouldn't be necessary if you're trying to understand your own arguments better and assess others' thoughts and feelings.
Also, it shouldn't have taken you so long to do so. Most others figure out where we're coming from after a few exchanges, whether they agree with us or not.
It's plain to me that you're not lacking in brainpower, so I don't think that's the problem I see here. There's some other impetus that is unclear. Maybe we could explore that.
Yes, I think you are missing the point.
Let's recap a bit to avoid confusion.
You wrote here:
Likewise, if I considered religious people to be irredeemable, I would not try to convince them their some of their various beliefs are less justified than they believe, or that they are specious (ill-defined), and so on.
I asked you here:
The problem here, aiguy, is what would Christians ultimately be redeemed from?
At which point you replied a couple of times that you didn't wish to redeem Christians from their theism, but that you wanted to argue against all "who
hold particular hypotheses about these deep questions and believe them to be infallibly true".
My point is, let us say you accomplish the goal you set out for yourself in the first statement above – that you considered religious people to be redeemable and "convince them their (sic) some of their various beliefs are less justified than they believe, or that they are specious (ill-defined), and so on."
My point is your accomplishment has no value should there be no Ultimate Arbiter. Once you die, you personally cannot accomplish this goal any longer; you can't even enjoy the feeling of past accomplishments any longer. Once all the people you know die, your accomplishments will no longer be remembered. And once humanity goes extinct, all human accomplishments, great or small, good or evil, will not have mattered in the slightest.
This is futility. This is oblivion.
That's all I have energy and time for tonight, sorry. If you want something else in your comment addressed, I'll be glad to do it tomorrow, time permitting.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 9, 2012 @ 10:40 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Eugen wrote:
Whoa.
And I had to pick this decade to stop drinking.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 9, 2012 @ 10:44 pm
October 9th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
AOFM
Ah, too bad. Old native guy told me it's a medicine.
Also, St Augustin said:
"Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."
Quit drinking maybe good for you, but not yet.
Comment by Eugen — October 9, 2012 @ 11:01 pm
October 10th, 2012 at 1:44 am
AOFM,
I never went through that experience. When I learned of Darwinism, my response was that it was an interesting hypothesis, but it would require evidence in order to be believed as true. There is – in my non-biologist opinion – a lot of evidence for common descent, but certaintly not for the proposition that RM&NS accounts for the creation of the complexity we see. As an undergraduate I formed the opinion that evolutionary theory was fundamentally incomplete.
I've presented my views quite authentically – I'm no stealth Darwinist, materialist, or militant atheist – and I'm continuously surprised when folks here attribute nefarious ulterior motives to me. But as part of that I don't want to mislead you to think that telling me about Jesus is going to move me to accept Christian doctrine – or any religious doctrine – as truth.
Again, thanks for the concern, but to get a sense of how likely it might be that I would begin to believe in a theistic religion, just introspect and imagine how likely it would be that you would turn away from Christianity and accept, say, Wicca, or Scientology, or some other belief system you feel utterly estranged from.
This is an interesting point. It seems to me that what happens to us when we die is likely the same as what happens to us before we are conceived. It isn't actually that nothing happens to us; rather, it is that there is no "us" that something could happen to. In order to experience oblivion, there must be a personal identity with a conscious awareness that survives death and lives on in a void. I don't think many atheists believe this; I certaintly don't. We lose consciousness from something as simple as a bump on the head or a little shot of anesthetic; it would seem that something more traumatic (like the utter decomposition of our entire brain and body) would most likely also cause us to lose consciousness.
If you want to know what I think and understand my motivations, simply continue to engage in the sort of productive give-and-take we're been doing in this thread. Relying on my responses when I was being attacked and provoked is not informative – there is no effective communication when people act like that.
I hesitate to say this lest I endanger this newfound level of respectful discourse, but we may have come to a better understanding much sooner if you weren't obsessed with baiting and humiliating me for the first few hundred exchanges.
You seem to predicate the meaning and value of present accomplishments on future rememberance of them. I can't imagine doing that.
Imagine you accomplish something wonderful tonight. Tonight you would feel that all your hard work and your accomplishment was meaningful and worthwhile. Tomorrow you will have the memory of your accomplishment, and it will feel great to remember how well you did. In twenty years, you will probably remember your accomplishment with pride, but the rush of enjoyment – and the details of the memory – will have faded somewhat. Has the meaning and value of your accomplishment faded commensurately? Perhaps senility will set in one day, and you will lose the memory of the event entirely. Does the accomplishment somehow lose all meaning and value at that moment?
I don't think so. And so neither do I think that our accomplishments lose meaning when we die, even if we truly disappear and remember nothing after death.
I appreciate your earnest communication.
Comment by aiguy — October 10, 2012 @ 1:44 am
October 10th, 2012 at 6:57 am
Because I don’t know how God could create or interact with creation at all with out the incarnation and the incarnation means that a least one mind knows things for certain
Not to me I’m a Calvinist.
I believe that my rejection of God was not due to my lack of knowledge or my libertarian free will but to my slavery to my sin.
By the same token I freely (in the compatiblist sense) rejected God with the full knowledge that he existed and that my rebellion demanded punishment.
God won’t punish anyone for ignorance.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 10, 2012 @ 6:57 am
October 10th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Eugen,
Fantastic. I'll watch it from my backyard. Drink I recommend is appropriately called Starry Night: mix of Goldschlager and Jagermeister. It helps on a cold evening here in northern latitudes.
Sounds lethal. More inclined toward as good a bourbon as I can afford with the optional few cubes of ice , though lately I've discovered reposado tequila.
Comment by velikovskys — October 10, 2012 @ 9:46 am
October 10th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Ffm,
Because I don’t know how God could create or interact with creation at all with out the incarnation and the incarnation means that a least one mind knows things for certain
Perhaps God is not quite so interested in mankind as humans are in Him.
I believe that my rejection of God was not due to my lack of knowledge or my libertarian free will but to my slavery to my sin.
Certainly you have company in that view. Doesn't free will play a part in the slavery to sin?
By the same token I freely (in the compatiblist sense) rejected God with the full knowledge that he existed and that my rebellion demanded punishment.
Sounds reasonable .
God won’t punish anyone for ignorance
Does Calvinism consider,for instance Catholicism, as ignorance,rebellion or acceptable?
Comment by velikovskys — October 10, 2012 @ 10:16 am
October 10th, 2012 at 10:23 am
AOFM:
Angry Old Fat Drunk Man must have been a hoot!
Comment by chunkdz — October 10, 2012 @ 10:23 am
October 10th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Eugen & chunkdz:
LOL! You guys.
Oh yeah, I did like me some drinkin', and it was (and I was, so I've been told) a hoot.
Drinkin' didn't like me too much, though (especially my pancreas), so we had to part ways. Sobriety ain't as much fun, but it's a good bit healthier, and I figure I've had my share of that kind of fun already.
Still doesn't make a Starry Night sound less intriguing.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 10, 2012 @ 12:37 pm
October 10th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
So this drunk wakes up completely hungover, and realizes he's late for a job interview.
He cleans himself up the best he can, throws on a suit, and heads out to the interview. But when he arrives, he realizes there are no parking spaces available. He drives around and around but can't find an open parking spot.
"God!" he cries out. "Lord, just give me a parking space and I SWEAR – I will NEVER take another drink for the rest of my life".
Just at that moment, the car immediately in front of him quickly pulls out of the parking space and speeds off.
"Nevermind", says the drunk. "I found one".
Comment by chunkdz — October 10, 2012 @ 1:01 pm
October 10th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
aiguy wrote:
I think you're taking the word "oblivion" too literally here. When I wrote "oblivion", I meant non-existence, not an eternal life in a void.
You've compared our non-existence before we were conceived to our non-existence after death. There is a difference, of course. Between conception and death there is a lifetime of experiences, ever how short or long that lifetime is.
If there is no afterlife, then those experiences are gone when we die.
Given this, when all humanity ceases to exist, all human experiences – in all of its possible extremes – will do so as well.
I don't know if I understand your position here, unless you are saying there is some place outside the universe where humanity's collective memories are stored, or there is some extra-universal spreadsheet or scoreboard where accomplishments are tallied. These ideas (if a bit cartoonish) echo Christian beliefs, as I'm sure you're aware.
I vaguely remember you mentioning retrocausality in another thread, though I may be wrong. It may be that you believe it is a possible end-run around the futility of existence, but that's speculation on my part. I personally see it as an even larger "leap of faith" than the belief in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.
Otherwise, if there is no God and no afterlife, there is nobody to keep score. Nobody to update the spreadsheet. Nobody to remember all of our accomplishments once we are all gone.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 10, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
October 10th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
So in your view, one who accepts Christ has an eternal conscious existence after death, but otherwise death brings non-existence? The non-existence part makes sense to me, and certainly doesn't seem like a terrible fate (just as it wasn't bad for me before I was conceived). The consciousness after death part still sounds unlikely, again because it is so easy for us to lose consciousness it would be surprising to suddenly regain consciousness if one's entire brain and body was destroyed.
Let me be careful to understand you here. To me, the "experience" exists only while it is occurring; after that we have only a "memory" of that experience. Therefore, our experiences are gone when we die whether or not there is an afterlife. All that we can preserve if there is an afterlife are the memories of our experiences. Unless you mean that we continue to have new experiences in the afterlife?
Again, by definition, all human experience ceases if there are no more human beings, right?
No, that is not my position at all. Again, it seems to me most likely that upon death we lose consciousness – as we always do when something goes wrong with our brains – and do not regain it.
My point about remembering the accomplishment was that our experiences are valuable in their right, and not because we or other people will remember them for eternity. Eternity just doesn't seem to be required in order to make our experiences meaningful and valuable. If I have a successful piano recital, or publish a book, or raise a child… all these things are valuable, meaningful experiences, whether or not there is an afterlife.
My ideas about retrocausality are hugely speculative, yes, and they have nothing to do with what happens to an individual after death. I don't see a need for an end-run around the futility of existence, because it just never seemed futile to exist. I think a nice ninety year life is just terrific, not futile at all.
This is the exactly part I do not understand. Why you need somebody to keep score or "update the spreadsheet" in order to make your experiences meaningful?
Again: Imagine I experience something I feel is valuable and meaningful. Then forty years hence, I become senile, and no longer remember what I had experienced. To my way of thinking, the value and meaning of my experience doesn't disappear just because my memory went bad. And then when I die, if there is no afterlife then I will have no memories, but that doesn't suddenly render my life's experiences meaningless either. And if there was an afterlife, and (I presume) upon death I somehow regained consciousness and all the memories I had lost (something I find highly unlikely), that wouldn't somehow make all my life experiences meaningful again.
Comment by aiguy — October 10, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
October 10th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
It’s not just mankind it’s creation in general that is off limits to a god sans the incarnation
Depends on what you mean freewill. Ever read Luther or Edwards on the subject?
Not sure what you mean by Catholicism? Do you mean The Catholic church as an institution, Catholic culture, individual members of the CC?
Generally speaking Calvinists like all christians I know believe that what a person calls himself has very little to do with his standing before God.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 10, 2012 @ 9:10 pm
October 10th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
aiguy wrote:
The "executive summary" of Christianity says just that.
John 3:16, KJV:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe that.
The rest of your paragraph is questioning the mechanisms of eternal life. I don't and won't pretend to know how it's going to work. Nobody knows how a lot of things work, like consciousness, etc., but that doesn't mean these things should be disavowed simply because of that.
Well, if you want to define it like that, I meant both experiences and memories of those experiences; I tend not to be so literal and narrow with definitions and use language more colloquially.
The Bible does speak of experiences after death, though it is unclear after a certain time interval what kind of experiences those will be. There are hints and glimpses in the words of Christ, Paul, and John of Patmos, as well as a few Old Testament prophets, but words by their nature are limited, so even the most voluminous of libraries would probably be inadequate to describe such experiences, especially if they are indeed eternal.
That's exactly what I was trying to convey, yes.
I don't equate death with unconsciousness. The brain is still alive when we are unconscious. Whatever storage mechanisms the brain uses for memory (though we don't understand them fully) would still function at some level, even though they would essentially be "on hold" under some conditions.
Death is death, though. Death is the complete ceasing of life functions.
While your definition of "experience" in the earlier paragraphs were very restrictive, your definitions of "meaningful" and "valuable" seem to be very loose here.
"Meaningful" implies that there is a person who finds meaning in a thing. "Valuable" implies that there is a person who assigns value to a thing.
If we use your earlier definition of "experience" to interpret what you are saying here, it seems your position is that these tiny little moments in time are meaningful and valuable – but only to you, since you are the only one having the experience. After the experience is finished, once again, you are the only one who has the memory of the experience, so you are the only one who can find meaning or assign value to the memory.
Once you are dead, provided there is no afterlife and no way to retain (or regain) the memories of these past experiences, the experiences and memories of them are gone forever. You and they no longer exist.
How can you find meaning or assign value to these memories if you no longer exist?
Why not?
Why not?
Why not?
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 10, 2012 @ 9:57 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 2:42 am
AOFM,
I've met lots of folks who believe that atheists also experience consciousness after death and spend eternity without God, or even eternity suffering in hell (even though you think that is a cartoon theology, I really have met people who subscribe to it). Anyway, I guess the point is here that even if the Bible is infallible, people have all sorts of different and incompatible interpretations of it.
I don't think it's possible to "disavow" (question the existence of) consciousness – it's just something that we cannot deny. The rest of this, though – how we might regain consciousness after getting our head blown off, for example – continues to seem unlikely to me, so we'll disagree about that.
I don't take so much care with words just to be annoying or supercilious; it's because 90% of the time we spend discussing these issues is wasted because people use words differently. I haven't had a great deal of formal training in philosophy, but enough to learn that Voltaire's maxim ("first define your terms") is the crucial difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of noise.
DEATH = cessation of metabolism, commencement of decomposition
UNCONSCIOUSNESS = no experience of conscious awareness
CONSCIOUS AWARENESS = that which we lose when we fall into a dreamless sleep, and regain when we awaken
So I'm saying that since trauma (like a bump on the head) can cause us to lose consciousness, it seems reasonable to assume death (the ultimate trauma) would likewise cause us to lose consciousness. In other words, I'm just saying that our uniform and repeated experience would suggest that nobody experiences consciousness after death. Again, we're just going to disagree about this. You might want to call in evidence from Near Death Experiences (check out the cover story of Newsweek – "Heaven Is Real!" – wherein a neuroscientist recounts his own NDE), or you might just invoke Christian doctrine, but I don't think there's much to be gained arguing which conclusion is better justified.
That's true, you're right, and I see it made for some confusion. I should have taken more care – seriously.
OK – but in my view, once something is deemed meaningful and valuable, these attributes are not revoked when the person who made that judgement stops thinking about it, or forgets it permanently. Likewise, "beauty" implies that there is a beholder who finds beauty in a thing. But once something is deemed beautiful, it does not suddenly become not-beautiful when the beholder looks away, or dies, or something.
Well, they are not necessarily tiny little moments. My marriage is meaningful and valuable, and it's been going on for 31 years. Also, it is possible but not necessarily the case that the experience is meaningful/valuable only to one person. My marriage is meaningful/valuable to both of us; if I published a book it might be meaningful/valuable to both me and all my readers, and so on. But I don't really think any of this is relevant to our difference here.
Again – things of meaning and value do not suddenly lose those attributes when the people who found them meaningful and valuable stop thinking about it or remembering it. Our definitions of these attributes are subjective, yes, but that doesn't mean that once something has been assigned these attributes we need constant conscious reflection to keep these attributes valid. In my view, something beautiful remains beautiful even when it is no longer beheld.
We call things meaningful and valuable and beautiful according to subjective criteria, but that doesn't imply that these traits are dependent upon, and need to be maintained by, people constantly (or periodically) thinking about them.
Comment by aiguy — October 11, 2012 @ 2:42 am
October 11th, 2012 at 7:14 am
The different interpretations are not incompatible they just reflect the limitations of a our finite minds. We know that those who reject God’s offer of forgiveness will receive a just punishment for their rebellion. That punishment will reflect the perfect justice and mercy of God.
We humans not being divine have different ideas about what ultimate fate best exhibits justice and mercy.
What is the proper earthly punishment for murder for example.
Many folks would say the death penalty is just because it ends a persons earthly existence others would say it is Merciful because it spares the prisoner from having to “rot” in prison
Still others would say that life imprisonment is just because the murderer will spend many years with nothing to do but think about what they did. Finally some will say that it is merciful because it spares the murders life
These are not incompatible opinions they just reflect our limited knowledge
I personally am unsure as to the exact nature of the finial punishment rebels will receive I’m just confident that a omniscient God will be able to make sure that it will fit the crime perfectly.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2012 @ 7:14 am
October 11th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Ffm,
Another interesting conversation.
It’s not just mankind it’s creation in general that is off limits to a god sans the incarnation
Off limits is a strange concept when applied to an omnipresent,omniscient,omnipotent diety
Comment by velikovskys — October 11, 2012 @ 9:44 am
October 11th, 2012 at 11:34 am
FMM,
For whatever reason, the interpretations are quite different. If one biologist said mutations are random and another said they reflect acquired characteristics, then those would be very different, very incompatible versions of evolutionary theory, even though both biologists believe in descent with modification, and you could say it just reflects the limitations of biologists' finite minds.
We humans have different ideas about all sorts of things, like what "divine" means, what gods exist, and what these gods say and do and want. Even fellow Christians disagree about all sorts of things. Some Christians think non-believers burn in hell; others say nothing happens to them at all. Some say people are saved just by accepting Jesus, others say it requires other behaviors (good works, communion, etc). Some think the Pope has divine authority, others say he doesn't. Some say God hates gay people, others say He loves them. Some say He prohibits contraception and abortion, others disagree. And so on, and so on.
Obviously these are indeed completely incompatible opinions, and this is just what I've been trying to explain to you: Even if the God and the Bible were infallible, people's interpretation is not, and so nobody ought to claim that their own particular interpretation carries the authority of an infallible religious source.
Comment by aiguy — October 11, 2012 @ 11:34 am
October 11th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
AOFm, aiguy
re NDE
One of my cousins in Europe is married to heart surgeon who ironically had heart attack. He lost vital signs for few minutes but interestingly, after recovery he had story of the NDE.
Basically he told his family that he loved them very much but there was a feeling of love so great that he wanted to go "there" wherever that is.
This guy was brought up religious but didn't practice it. He is rather logical and very technical-professional type.
It was curious to hear the story and I believe it but I don't know what to make of it. It aligns with other people's NDE stories.
Comment by Eugen — October 11, 2012 @ 1:21 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Eugen wrote:
Standard atheist reply is WXv9BQ (you know the drill – not the same URL shortner as the other two, of course, so as not to give it away).
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 11, 2012 @ 5:42 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
NDE's are actually caused when a group of benevolent aliens realizes that somebody is near death, they teleport their soul to an alien drug parlor where they administer strong psychotropic drugs to the soul so it does not have a glimpse of the hellfire that surely awaits it once it truly dies — since everybody is a irredeemable sinner. This way the aliens help people to return to a fruitful and productive life once they get back to life, rather than whimpering in a corner constantly fearing the torture that awaits them in death.
How did I do, AOFM?
Comment by hrun0815 — October 11, 2012 @ 8:30 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
aiguy wrote:
I don't see the relevance of this statement.
Did you define these yet? If you did, I missed it.
It's my turn to not understand.
Meaning, value, and beauty are stored in the brain, if we eschew any sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo. That is how meaning and value (and beauty) are subjective. One man's meaning is another man's gobbledygook, because the two men in question don't share the same brain.
This also explains how memories stay meaningful and valuable to a person knocked unconscious. The memories are stored in the brain even during the period of unconsciousness (provided there is no significant damage to the brain), along with the associated meaning and value (and beauty) of those memories. Once the brain returns from its dormant state, the stored memories and associated thoughts are once again active.
This is obviously impossible after death, if there is no life after death.
Given all that…
Your position that once a thing is deemed meaningful and valuable, these attributes are not revoked when the person who made that judgement dies, makes no sense – unless you believe the meaning and value are stored somewhere besides the brain.
Do you believe that meaning and value are stored somewhere besides the brain? If so, where? If not, how can you reconcile your belief with reality?
You essentially repeat yourself here for no reason I can determine.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 11, 2012 @ 8:41 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
hrun0815 wrote:
YOUR RESPONSE IS NON-STANDARD HOOMAHN NO LYSERGIC ACID FOR YOU
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 11, 2012 @ 8:45 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
No LDS for me, AOFM. If you check the other post you'll find out that atheists are irrational. No need for psychotropic drugs for me.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 11, 2012 @ 9:09 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
It might seem strange but the idea that God is limited by his nature is not controversial. A god who is not limited by his nature is no God at all.
To begin if God was not limited in some ways then things like science would be impossible. A God who is not limited by his nature would be compleatly random and arbitrary as would be any product of his chaotic brain.
Murder could be a sin one minute and the greatest good the next. Time could run foward before lunch and backward in the afternoon.
If God was like that the world could exist and not exist in the same time and in the same respect.
In short if God was not limited by his nature then thinking about anything at all would be impossible.
peace
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2012 @ 11:06 pm
October 11th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Yes that is why I don't put much stock in human argument
What?? So you think being sentenced to life in prison is the complete opposite of being sentenced to death?
That does not make sense to me. Both punishments are for the duration of earthly life neither have a possibility of parole both are deemed to be the ultimate punishment etc etc etc.
I can think of all kinds of things these two punishments have in common they only differ as to the length of the existance of the prisoner.
I completely agree. Who do you know who does that?
If that is what you are concerned about I can assure you that no Christian holds that their interpretation has any authourity at all.
I'm glad we settled that.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 11, 2012 @ 11:34 pm
October 12th, 2012 at 2:21 am
AOFM,
This has been a running theme in the discussions I've had with FMM and Daniel too. If you haven't been reading FMM's responses, his point is that what he (FMM) says conveys not his own authority, but the authority of an infallible god. My point here was that even if there was an infallible god, there are great differences in how His dicta are relayed by believers.
Perhaps you'd like to keep these topics separate – sorry – but FMM has been responding to things I've been posting to you…
Yes – I agreed with your definitions:
…and I tried to clarify the difference in our understanding of these terms. For you, the present tense of the verb was critical, in that if there wasn't a person who was currently finding meaning a thing, then that thing no longer had meaning, even if it once did by virtue of someone assigning meaning to it. For me, once something was deemed meaningful, the person who assigned the meaning needn't continually renew that assignment in order for the thing to remain meaningful.
I think it is simpler to refer to people instead of their brains here; there is nothing necessarily mystical about people assigning meaning and value to experiences in their lives. I do say that meaning, value, and beauty are subjective (in that they resist formal characterizations or quantification), even though there is a great deal of consensus on what sorts of things exhibit these attributes (because of the similarity among people).
I would not say that the memories per se are what are meaningful and valuable. Rather, I would say that the experiences themselves were meaningful and valuable, and the memories are just that – a memory of a meaningful experience. That is why I say that if an event was deemed meaningful at one time, it remains so, no matter what happens to anybody's memories.
When we say some experience or event is meaningful or valuable, this does not refer to something that is stored in the brain. Just as you said, when people find meaning in some experience or event, we say that the event is meaningful. It isn't something inside the person's brain that is meaningful, it is the thing that happened that is meaningful. Likewise, if I say something is beautiful, I don't mean I've stored beauty in my brain; rather I mean that I find something in the world beautiful, and whatever it was will remain beautiful even if I stop thinking about it.
Again, these things are not "things that are stored in brains". Rather, they are abstract attributes that people assign to things in the world.
Well, yes, it was in the vain hope of communicating clearly, which I have thus far failed to do… but not for lack of trying.
Comment by aiguy — October 12, 2012 @ 2:21 am
October 12th, 2012 at 2:26 am
FMM,
You are human. When you make an argument, it is a "human argument". You may claim that when you make an argument you are channelling an infallible mind, but from my perspective (since I don't think that is the case) I just see a human being making an argument, who needs to back up their position with evidence and reason just like everybody else.
Where did you get this idea? I said nothing at all about this topic. My examples of Christians interpreting divine commands in incompatible ways were these (but I could have come up lots more obviously):
Comment by aiguy — October 12, 2012 @ 2:26 am
October 12th, 2012 at 7:30 am
I don't recall the last time I made an arguement here it's been a while
When I do make an argument I never claim to be channeling anything. You really have some jacked up ideas about what I believe.
Of course if I was to make an argument I would expect you to evaluate it’s merits.
By the way what evidence to you have justify the trust you put in your own abilities to judge the evidence of such arguments?
You were discussing the difference between hell as annihilation verses hell as continued existence in separation for God. I was just describing the equivalent human administered punishments so as to understand why you think they are imcompatable
My examples of Christians interpreting divine commands in incompatible ways were these (but I could have come up lots more obviously):
I not be surprised you could find such examples. Just as you could find examples of folks interpreting human laws in incompatible ways.
Does that mean that Government does not exist or that law enforcement is impossible?
Of course not it just means that opinions are like bellybuttons and it’s not a good idea to ask aunt Martha about the tax code.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 12, 2012 @ 7:30 am
October 12th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
FMM,
I think you know what I am referring to – you claim that you rely on God's infallible mind when you make various statements.
Good – then when you tell me that it's God's mind that tells you what is true it's irrelvant to me, since what you say is to be evaluated on its own merits and not on divine authority.
I think I'm every bit as qualified as you or anyone else to make and evaluate arguments, thank you.
Exactly!!!
That means that our government (as opposed to the governments of those frightening theocracies) relies on the judgement of human beings and the rule of law as set by democratically elected officials, and not on the supposedly infallible word of any gods.
Comment by aiguy — October 12, 2012 @ 2:36 pm
October 12th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Eugen,
Dr. Eben Alexander has been a neurosurgeon for the past 25 years. His book, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife
…..http://www.thedailybeast.com/n...
Comment by velikovskys — October 12, 2012 @ 8:22 pm
October 12th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
aiguy wrote:
I sense you are using a derivative of the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy in an attempt to undercut my position.
To reuse my previous comparison as a parallel to your above argument, there are differences of opinion on the existence of consciousness among scholars in the field of minds and brains, even though your opinion is that its existence in undeniable (with which I happen to agree).
If a difference in other Christians' interpretations of Christianity invalidate my interpretation of Christianity, then a difference in other philosophers' interpretations of consciousness likewise invalidate your interpretation of consciousness.
Besides, this whole tack seems unrelated to your stated goal of "help[ing you] understand [your] own arguments better" and "get[ting] a better sense for how other people think and feel." We've established how I think and feel, and I don't see any introspection in your arguments.
This is a bizarre stance to me. It implies that meaning is somehow "stuck" to a thing, as if that thing had an invisible, mystical sack o' meaning attached to it that a person drops meaning into when he/she first senses the thing. So when everybody dies and that thing is still around, that invisible mystical sack is still holding that meaning in it, just waiting around for… the invisible sack genie? I honestly have no idea.
There's no need to change the terms I'm using unless you're attempting to evade something.
If we eliminate all of the voodoo and hocus-pocus and whatnot, people are their brains. It's where meanings and values are assigned. Skin doesn't do it. Livers don't do it. Spleens don't do it. Brains do.
If everybody's memories are gone, who decides what an event means? The invisible sack genie?
Sure it does. That is, if we get rid of invisible, mystical beings and things.
No it won't. It stops being beautiful because beauty is an opinion, and opinions are stored in the brain.
I really can't fathom how you could say otherwise; your belief is utterly alien to me, if indeed your belief doesn't include some invisible, magical entities that hold or contain beauty, meaning, value, or other similar mental flora and fauna.
To cut to the chase, I was arguing that nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of atheism, and nihilism makes any "redemption" in an atheist setting futile.
I see your counter-arguments as attempts to avoid dealing with this aspect of nihilism by denying it using (what I see as) completely fantastical, unreal concepts.
Perhaps I'm not educated enough to understand your position. It appears to me that this stance of yours is what Ed Feser called an "absurd conclusion" when he was blogging about nihilism in this post from December 2009.
At any rate, we find ourselves at an insurmountable impasse as far as I can tell, since I feel there's no more progress to be made here, if indeed any progress was made at all.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2012 @ 11:19 pm
October 12th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Funny story related to meaning, memory, and events:
My family is descended from a Scottish Highland clan. The clan's motto is "Ne Oublie" which is French for "Do Not Forget".
Do you know what it is that we were not supposed to forget?
We forgot.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 12, 2012 @ 11:31 pm
October 13th, 2012 at 3:11 am
AOFM,
No, I'm not saying any one interpretation is correct because of popular acceptance. Rather, I'm pointing out that at most one interpretation can possibly be correct, which means that even those who believe they are aligned with an infallible, divine source must often be mistaken.
We need to be careful here: I have read philosophy of mind for thirty years and have never come across anyone who thought consciousness did not exist. Many will argue that free will doesn't exist, or that consciousness has no causal powers, or that the perception of self is illusory, but nobody argues that our phenomenological experience of awareness does not exist. And that is what I mean by "consciousness": The subjective experience of awareness that disappears when we fall into a dreamless sleep.
But the point is this: I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist because different people interpret Him differently. I'm just pointing out that different people do indeed interpret Him differently, which ought to give pause to those who would claim that any one interpretation is infallibly correct.
To be clear: Philosophers disagree wildly about how to think about consciousness and its relationship to the brain, and I totally agree that this means that nobody should feel certain that any one solution to the mind/body problem is correct. Analogously, people disagree wildly about the nature of God and what He wants, so nobody should feel certain that any one interpretation should be accepted as correct.
Here's the way I see it:
Everyone agrees that we experience conscious awareness
Nobody should feel certain as to how consciousness arises, what its nature is, what it does, etc.
Many people infer – or experience – divinity of some type (say, "God")
Nobody should feel certain as to what God's nature is, what He wants, what He does, etc.
Huh? I wouldn't say I understand your thoughts on these topics, and I truly doubt you understand mine. For example, we've just fleshed out a parallel between our understanding of God and our understanding of consciousness. It appears you meant to use this as a counter-argument, but in fact I think you're quite correct.
That's right – you really don't understand my thinking at all, which is why it helps to try and explicate clearly. Here goes, very simply indeed:
We perceive various properties of things in the world. As a realist I believe that things in the world, and their properties, exist independently of the minds that perceieve them. A yellow flower is still yellow even if nobody sees it; a tall mountain remains tall, loud thunder remains loud, and wet water remains wet even if no conscious being apprehends them.
If you disagree with that, then you are not a realist, and we can agree to disagree about that. If you agree so far, then you must think of "meaning", "value", and "beauty" as attributes which are fundamentally different from "yellow", "tall", "loud", or "wet", and that this difference means that something deemed beautiful by a person – or even something that would be deemed beautiful if a person saw it – is not actually beautiful because it hasn't been seen.
If you think about it a moment, I believe you will see my stance is not bizarre at all, and it actually makes much more sense than your stance. In your view, if you were the only person to ever see a beautiful woman who lived alone, the moment you died she would magically turn ugly
Not evade, but avoid any commitments about mind/body relations. I remain agnostic about that, so I didn't see any reason to say specifically what brains are soley responsible for.
See, that's what I was trying to avoid. You seem to be advocating a physicalist position; that's fine for you, but I didn't want to confuse the rest of our discussion with a metaphysical commitment on the mind/body problem.
At the risk of being obvious, if nobody exists, then nobody decides anything. I suppose that to you this means that retroactively, everything that had been meaningful before suddenly loses it's meaning – poof!. I just really don't see it that way. If something was meaningful, or beautiful, or yellow, or wet, then it remains so, whether or not the last person on Earth kicks the bucket.
By your way of thinking, the flower stops being yellow when the last person dies, because yellow is a perception, and perceptions are stored in the brain. In other words, you are renouncing realism in favor of idealism. Is this really your position?
I get that you are caricaturing physicalism here (it's a lot easier if you skip the irony and parodies – it's hard enough to make yoursefl understood even when you make your points straight). And I take it here you are arguing for some sort of dualism. But I believe our difference (about subjective properites being independent of memory and perception) can be argued independently of any mind/body stance. We just have to agree that realism is true, and that properties exist independently of perception.
My guess is now you will argue that while "yellow" is somehow an "objective property" that exists in the perceived object, "beauty" is a "subjective property" that exists in the perceiver. That's a pretty hard position to defend, however.
Really, that's what you're arguing? Well, that would depend on what sort of nihilism you're talking about. I'm not technically an atheist (since I can describe conceptions of "God" that I do not reject), but I don't believe in any personal sort of god, and yet I am certinaly not a nihilist in a metaphysical or an epistemological sense, nor in a purely existential sense either. I simply reject the notion that the divine observation of (or the eternal memory of) our actions are required to confer meaning and value; it seems to me that my own perception of meaning and value (and beauty and yellowness) works just fine.
Hopefully my explanations have corrected that. My concepts are utterly realistic and common-sensical.
I believe Feser would reject that anything but "objective meaning" qualifies as meaning at all, and argue that only transcendence can ground "objective meaning". I disagree with both of those positions, as I've tried to make clear. But I do not appeal to any "fantastical, unreal" concepts at all; rather, I am stating what I find is obvious: Something yellow doesn't turn green, something beautiful doesn't turn ugly, and something meaningful doesn't turn meaningless, just because nobody happens to be looking.
I think you had some very misguided ideas about my position that I've corrected here, and I've certainly learned more about what you're trying to argue. It seems to me at this stage that you've made an argument that God is necessary to give life meaning, and as it stands I think I've countered that successfully. But you can quit if you'd like
Comment by aiguy — October 13, 2012 @ 3:11 am
October 13th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Velikovsky
Thanks for the link. What a cool description of NDE by neurologist himself.
What do you think of NDEs? Is NDE a glimpse into some other realm? There would have to be no matter, energy or fields in such realm. I don’t think people who experience it are lying but overall I’m not sure what’s going on.
Comment by Eugen — October 13, 2012 @ 11:17 am
October 13th, 2012 at 11:22 am
AOFM
Funny!
Maybe new motto should be simply changed to“We Forgot”
Comment by Eugen — October 13, 2012 @ 11:22 am
October 13th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Eugen,
For a different viewpoint on this particular episode, see HERE
Comment by aiguy — October 13, 2012 @ 11:47 am
October 13th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
aiguy wrote:
Pointing such a thing out was not part of your stated goal.
Asking me "So in your view, one who accepts Christ has an eternal conscious existence after death, but otherwise death brings non-existence?" could be seen as part of your stated goal.
I answered your question, so at that point you should have had a "better sense for how [I] think and feel".
Either you've forgotten your original goal or you have had other goals all along that you're reluctant to state.
If you want a "better sense of how [I] think and feel", you can just ask me. If you want an explanation of why I think or feel what I do, you can just ask me that as well.
All of the properties you list in the above example, with the possible exception of wetness, are scientifically measurable. "Yellow" is a certain frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum. "Tall" is a measurement of elevation, in the case of mountains it is usually measured from Earth's sea level. "Loud" is a measurable vibration of air. Wetness may have a measurement, but I'm unaware of it so I'm leaving it out.
These attributes existed prior to human existence, so of course they would exist once all humans cease to exist.
This is not true with "meaning", "value", and "beauty". Those are, to me, obviously mental states that have no existence outside of the human mind (or in the case of atheist thought, brain).
You can repeat your assertions on this until you're blue in the face; it's lost on me. I'm a computer guy, I spent over 20 years turning nebulous human thought into hard logic and numbers. If I had thought the same way you think, my career would have lasted right up to the point I opened my mouth to speak to my supervisors.
Exactly.
You are the first and only person I've encountered who thought this way.
No. "Ugly" is an opinion too. If nobody saw this hypothetical woman (including herself) after I saw her, then she would be neither ugly nor beautiful.
Avoid, evade, toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. You've been discussing metaphysics this whole time, and you stop short here and split hairs for some reason.
If you believe in some version of hocus-pocus and oogy-boogy, then correcting me because I supposedly believe in another variety of hocus-pocus and oogy-boogy seems hypocritical.
I have no idea what philosophical cubbyhole my view fits in, nor do I care.
If you are a "realist", then (as I said before) you are the only one I've ever encountered, whereas the other hundreds of people I've encountered in my life must have been "idealists", if that indeed is the opposite of what you are.
If you say so. It's obvious to me, and I'm as about as simple as they come. If I have to be educated extensively to be blinded to this, then I'm glad I didn't waste my time with it and got a programming job instead.
I would find this interesting. Proceed.
If Feser's blog is still open, you don't have to speculate. You could just ask him and confirm this.
Why do you feel the need to "counter that successfully"?
This seems like gloating. This does not accomplish your stated goal.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 13, 2012 @ 12:12 pm
October 13th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Eugen wrote:
LOL! It would be more appropriate.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 13, 2012 @ 12:14 pm
October 13th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Eugen,
What do you think of NDEs? Is NDE a glimpse into some other realm? There would have to be no matter, energy or fields in such realm. I don’t think people who experience it are lying but overall I’m not sure what’s going on.
It would be a welcome surprise if they were 'true', but the description of the afterlife just seems too predictable, angels ,clouds and butterflies.
Comment by velikovskys — October 13, 2012 @ 12:56 pm
October 13th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
AOFM,
Well this is a discussion forum, and I like to discuss things, but henceforth I'll stick to our topic in my responses to you.
I feel that's essentially what I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I'm simply going to interview you with a few shallow questions – that would be pretty boring. No, I'm going to ask you what you think and feel, and ask you why, and I'm also going to poke and prod a bit, and point out what I may perceive as inconsistencies, or ask for clarification about what I see as ambiguity or confusion, and so on. I feel that I'm being perfectly respectful in this, and I certainly expect (and want) you to challenge my points in the exact same way.
I know you like to predict the responses of atheists; I must point out I did anticipate your response here when I said:
So let me explain why I think you are on the wrong track here. I'll focus on color perception – a favorite of philosophers.
But this is not true at all. There is nothing "yellow" about photons with a wavelength of 575nm (just like there is nothing "wet" about molecules of hydrogen and oxygen). And in fact, we often perceive yellow when there is no light of that frequency/wavelength at all. For example, we perceive yellow when we see a suitable mixture of light at 700nm(red) and at 520nm(green). And that isn't because the light somehow mixes and produces waves in the yellow range; rather, it is because of how our visual system works. And it's way more complicated than that, even – our brains determine our color perceptions according to very complex interactions among hue, saturation, contrast with surround, previous sense data, and even our psychological expectations. We even perceive colors when only black and white light is present (see Benham's wheel, for example).
And so you are saying that all those yellow sunflowers would instantly cease to be yellow the moment the last human being closed their eyes? That is a weird thought. No, it makes much more sense to say that the sunflowers remain yellow even if nobody looks at them, because if somebody did look at them, they would perceive them as being yellow.
First, you are confusing "atheism" with "physicalism" – they are not the same; atheism does not entail physicalism.
Second, hopefully you can see that your view that color (and other perceptions) exist objectively in the world and are merely recorded by our brains is mistaken. Colors – just like beauty and meaning and value – are our human perceptions of things in the world.
So here is the bottom line: Most people (unless they are color blind, or on drugs, or otherwise weird) agree that sunflowers are yellow, even though "yellow" is actually the product of our complex visual system interacting with the world, and not something that simply exists in the flower. Likewise, most people (unless they are somehow weird) agree that, say, the birth of a child is a meaningful, valuable event, even though "meaningful" is actually the product of our complex mental system interacting with the world, and not something that merely exists objectively in the baby or the birth.
As it happens, I'm a computer guy too. I studied AI for 30+ years, but I wrote a whole lot of code for most of those years.
That's almost certainly false (unless you have only met a few people, and none of them has ever taken philosophy).
Many philosophers and traditions have identified God with the whole of Nature – not a transcendent, personal, anthropomorphic, conscious God but a mysterious, unknowable, immanent-yet-infinite, unified God. Most interpretations of Spinoza's (and Einstein's) conception of God are like this, and I am partial to thinking about God like that too.
I sometimes discuss and debate with philosophers, but right now I'm interested in talking to non-philosophers about these things.
Need? No, it's not a need…. I need love, coffee, and more excersize. Why do I want to challenge ideas and debate them? Because I love these topics, and I love to debate, and I love to see how well my ideas hold up – or yes, break down – when other people challenge them.
No, not gloating! I was actually trying to convince you (goad you to) to continue our discussion.
Comment by aiguy — October 13, 2012 @ 8:40 pm
October 13th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Aiguy
It was OK critique by Sam Harris. There’s a bit of a mocking tone like his mentor Dawkins likes to do. If he would come here we have people to give him taste of his mocking medicine.
I consider his objections seriously and maybe even agree with some of his stuff but he’s forgetting something important, maybe on purpose,maybe really missing it.
Velikovsky
Yes why always clouds…and sun rays behind the clouds. I want 72 virgins ,loud music,booze….. capisce?
Comment by Eugen — October 13, 2012 @ 9:15 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 1:06 am
Eugen –
Ok, I'll play the straight man: What's he forgetting?
Anyway yes, Harris was condescending. Also, that article was ridiculous to run as a cover story in Newsweek. Even if you don't agree that the explanations Harris mentions are a great deal more likely than the idea this guy actually went into another dimension and met a hot, blonde, blue-eyed peasant women, the article should have at least given some indication that neuroscientists believe that other explanations are possible.
Comment by aiguy — October 14, 2012 @ 1:06 am
October 14th, 2012 at 1:21 am
AOFM –
I found a recent (2012) overview of color perception research on NCBI:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...
It begins:
So no, I'm really not the only one who understands our perceptions this way.
Comment by aiguy — October 14, 2012 @ 1:21 am
October 14th, 2012 at 11:50 am
AIguy
Harris seems to be more after Newsweek instead of Alexander Eben's story. What I read about NDE comes mostly from links like you and Velikovsky posted here or some from other forums ,blogs so I don't pretend to be an expert.
I noticed there is something common in these stories:
1. As far as I know, NDE people don't describe God directly rather as a "presence of love" or similar.
For example, part of Christian "religious conditioning" are paintings of white robed bearded man in the clouds. Christians who had NDE should be coming back with stories like:"You know God looks like Santa and he said 'What's up' to me".
2. Why feeling of love and wanting to go "there"(wherever that is) to the point of forgetting about people here who love us?
If evolution if true shouldn't natural selection filter out (2) and instead equip us with exact opposite reaction mechanisms. That way rush of hormones and neurotransmitters would give us boost like an afterburner so every last bit of resources are put to work to keep us alive.
This way we can want to stay and procreate and hate to go "there"(wherever that is). We are after all just chemical replicating units, our only purpose is to multiply. Natural selection should favor any mechanism that can prolong that.
Comment by Eugen — October 14, 2012 @ 11:50 am
October 14th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
So, as usual I'm late to the party and too lazy to read every post, but I stumbled on this statement by AOFM that I feel needs a response (and I apologize if it's already been said – like I said "too lazy"):
I would argue that those concepts do have existence outside the human mind because they exist in the mind of God. Thus there is true and absolute "meaning", "value", and "beauty" that we humans are able to discover in things.
That's all I wanted to say. Again, apologies for jumping in at such a late stage and I'm sure there are many other things I would nitpick about in the comments above (I'm not just singling out AOFM!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 14, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Eugen,
Yeah, or sometimes they report other stuff.
I've read ones like that too.
As Harris explained, drugs like DMT (released endongenously under stress) elicit feelings and hallucinations just like what this guy was describing.
Two problems here. First, anyone who is near death is less likely to be reproductively successful in the future. But more importantly, one problem with evolutionary theory is that it really can't make predictions like this. You can't just sit in your chair and decide what would be selected for under what conditions and then call that a "prediction" of evolutionary theory; if the prediction was not found to hold, you could easily come up with some other story to account for that. Same with ID making "predictions" – they don't mean a thing.
Comment by aiguy — October 14, 2012 @ 5:07 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Daniel,
As you know, I don't see any reason to believe that there are any beings with conscious minds except for people and other animals on Earth. Moreover, if there was some extra-terrestrial being (a god or a different sort of organism) with a conscious mind who could assign meaning and value and beauty to things the way humans on Earth do, I don't see why that would constitute "absolute" meaning and value and beauty rather than the same old subjective meaning and value and beauty we have here on Earth. In fact, my guess would be that the extra-terrestrial being would disagree with Earthlings about these things – would something with a different sort of body (or even no body at all!) really agree that some human supermodel was beautiful?
Comment by aiguy — October 14, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:
You're not even singling me out. I constantly conditioned the above position with essentially the same thing you stated, though I coached it in terms for God and religion that atheists often use, like "hocus-pocus" and "oogy-boogy".
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 14, 2012 @ 10:18 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
aiguy wrote:
You've noted yourself I'm not equipped to challenge you in the same way you challenge me. You're whacking a quadraplegic with a baseball bat and claiming you just want a fair fight. Bullying is what it is. Is that what you consider fun?
My response wasn't supposed to be unique or smart or unexpected. It was common sense and obvious, so it's no great feat to anticipate. It's like "predicting" someone lying on railroad tracks is going to get hurt if he/she doesn't move.
I understand perception is different than reality, as does a large majority of laymen.
You gave measurements of light. There is no measurement of meaning or (sentimental or moral) value.
I looked at this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page about philosophical realism and before I got bogged down (didn't take long, unfortunately) I read this (bold emphasis mine):
Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: thus it would be perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value.
That's all I know.
Oh yeah, one more thing. My little observational joke that Eugen responded to reflects that exact thing you say is not possible.
Some event or thing in the far past affected members of my family so strongly that they recorded a message for future generations: "Do Not Forget". They failed to mention the event or thing that affected them so much; I speculate that the event/thing in question was so ingrained in their memories that they thought no family member could possibly forget it.
Well, they were wrong. The importance of the event/thing faded to the point of being forgotten. The only thing we remember is that we were supposed to remember something. Should all records of our being a Highland clan be erased, and the older members fail to tell the younger members of the clan and its motto, even the idea that we were supposed to remember something will fade and be forgotten.
I don't know the difference, and I don't want you to explain it. I've had my fill of -isms and -ologies.
Whatever. I've known very few non-theists in my life, and none of those has come remotely near what you've wrote. The others were Christian and a number of Jews who believed in a God Who stood outside of time and the universe, and could indeed somehow record everyone's life and accomplishments. And no, I don't care how likely or unlikely that is.
As far as philosophers go, if I did somehow knew any, I didn't realize it. None of them expressed any concept of meaning, value, and beauty like yours.
Sound vaguely Platonic.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 14, 2012 @ 11:48 pm
October 15th, 2012 at 4:33 am
AOFM,
I have no desire to whack anyone with baseball bats or anything else. I'll respond briefly.
You made a good point that one can be a realist while excluding aesthetic or moral perceptions. I know you've tired of isms and ologies, and so I won't belabor the point, but I'd say it would be hard to reconcile non-realism vis-a-vis morality with divine command theory. In any event, as perhaps the color example illustrated for you, it isn't as clear as it might first seem what exists in the world and what exists in our heads.
I understand that you aren't interested in the difference between physicalism and atheism. But I'll say that your conflation of various positions contributes to your misunderstanding of – and drawing some negative conclusions about – what atheists think, feel, and want, and what atheism entails. For example, I think you were saying that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism, which really isn't the case at all.
I get that not everybody is interested in learning all kinds of philosophy, and would rather believe what they believe and go think about other things. That is of course a perfectly fine way to be. I'll simply say that I hope you agree in these matters, the answers are not simple and certain for anybody, and no system of knowledge is infallible.
Comment by aiguy — October 15, 2012 @ 4:33 am
October 15th, 2012 at 10:05 am
AIguy
Possible solution for the problem.
I assume standard blind evolution process i.e. RM (probing possibilities) and NS (passive filter). Even if a replicating living unit is somewhat damaged why not put all available resources into work to keep it going.
Lets imagine the simple case of a single damaged bacterium. Built in repair mechanisms respond by replacing internal chemical components with the new ones. After repair, bacterium is indistinguishable from the new one and it's ready to replicate. I think this is in line with the "selfish gene" idea.
It would make so much more sense to repair the whole organism because organisms are biologically expensive and slow to build.
(It's another issue but anything except the single cell living unit is a complete nonsense)
Your armchair biologist.
Comment by Eugen — October 15, 2012 @ 10:05 am
October 16th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
aiguy:
Yes I know that about you. Aquinas' Fifth Way (IMO) metaphysically proves that a supernatural mind is necessary to explain the way nature is. I think you told me before that you've never really understood how or why – and I'd love to have that discussion with you!
Well I'm not considering extra-terrestrials or other sorts of beings when I talk about God. I am talking about the God of classical theism – who is not "just another being like us only smarter, stronger, etc." The God of classical theism (of the kind that Aquinas proved necessary in his five ways) is not "a being among many", he is the ground of all being. The metaphysics are quite involved and have been meticulously worked out over centuries. I am only a novice (I've read a few books and hang out over at Feser's blog) so I'm not the best one to defend it but it helps me learn it when I have to – so feel free to pepper me with questions and I'll do my best to answer them.
To answer your immediate question: since God is the absolute being, what he values has absolute value, what he considers beautiful has absolute beauty and his meaning is the absolute meaning.
Comment by Daniel Smith — October 16, 2012 @ 7:31 pm