Quantum physics demonstrates that only our measurements of quantum systems clearly exist. Mapping these measurements into some kind of hypothesized "underlying material stuff" is what doesn't work.

This is indeed a problem. The Other Side is always getting their knickers in a twist because divine, angelic, and human mental entities aren't subject to physical measurement, as if the Other Side had explained the concept of 'measurement' (or the concept of 'observer') in physical terms.

As if…

raevmo wrote:

But how does that imply something non-material?

It's non-local and instantaneous over any distance separating the entangled particles. I wouldn't call it non-material, but 'spooky'.

Or 'magicmatterish', to use the technical term.

Sam Harris claims that Faith, of any kind, is in and of itself is irrational.

No. He is aware that the word 'faith' has multiple meanings, and he's careful to specify the kind of faith he regards as irrational.

I am simply saying that the people of faith that I personally know are not irrational and indeed they do some very rational things that do a lot of good in the world. These are really good people doing a lot of good in the world.

The fact that someone holds an irrational belief does not make him irrational across the board. Harris would be the first to tell you that religious people can be quite rational, in general. He also knows, and acknowledges, that much good is done in the name of religion. He simply argues that there are better reasons to do good than the fact that you hold certain unsupported beliefs.

Isn't it rational then for me to ask you what want to replace religion with and how that would make society better or more enlightened?

Not if you want to believe what is true. If that's the case, then the only thing that matters is whether atheism is true, not whether it is beneficial to society in some other way.

I'm curious. Why should an atheist like you be at all impressed by the story of "˜The Good Samaritan?' Are you saying that acts of compassion are in some sense morally absolute?

I know your question was addressed to TP, but let me volunteer my own answer. I like the story of the Good Samaritan because it resonates with my own moral sense. Nothing about that requires that my moral sense be grounded in some cosmic absolute.

The non-local correlations of quantum mechanics transcend space and time completely. They last forever, can extend across the distance of the known universe, and are instantly realized.

Well, lasting forever and extending across the universe are obviously not established facts. That they are instantly realized seems to contradict relativity theory, but okay it's a fascinating and puzzling observation. But how does that imply something non-material?

Like the non-local correlation between the mass of the earth and the orbit of the moon?

No, that correlation displays dependency on space and time.

The non-local correlations of quantum mechanics transcend space and time completely. They last forever, can extend across the distance of the known universe, and are instantly realized.

Just to take one bit of it:

Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pains and visual perceptions.[2]Rey, G. (1983). "A Reason for Doubting the Existence of Consciousness", in R. Davidson, G. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (eds), Consciousness and Self-Regulation Vol 3. New York, Plenum: 1-39.

'Morons' is putting it pretty forking mildly.

The measurements show non-local correlations (quantum entanglement) that are not material at all. The only place where materialism is real is within the minds of materialists. . .

Like the non-local correlation between the mass of the earth and the orbit of the moon? Is that also evidence for the non-material?

Now that quantum mechanics has demonstrated absolutely clearly that "mechanisms" are built on top of a non-reducible non-material framework anyway, you'd think the mechanists would begin to show some humility. . .

If that's the case, it would be senseless to ask by what spiritual agency they operate.

Let's suppose there are immaterial causes.

If there are, it would be senseless to ask by what mechanism they operate to produce their effects.

And that would be so because the concept of mechanism is an intrinsically material concept.

Another way to grasp this point would be to consider the question, "By what mechanism do mechanical causes operate?"

Let's say the answer is: "By mechanical process MP". Then consider the question: "By what mechanism does MP operate?"

Not to put too fine a point on it, only morons think that all causal explanations are reductionistic mechanical explanations. Which is why even many materialists don't think that one can reductively explain intentional personal action in terms of mechanics.

The Churchlands are of course the standard bearers for the morons on this issue.

You've completely missed the point.

Actually I think it is you who is missing my point. Sam Harris claims that Faith, of any kind, is in and of itself is irrational. I am simply saying that the people of faith that I personally know are not irrational and indeed they do some very rational things that do a lot of good in the world. These are really good people doing a lot of good in the world. I don't like it when they are misrepresented and slandered.

I said: What is it that you believe about atheism that would make the world a better place and/or my life better?

You said: You bring this up continually, as if your acceptance or denial of atheism has nothing to do with its truth, but only its perceived benefits.

Neither you nor Harris or any other atheist has ever been able to establish the truth (or is it a capital "˜T' kind of Truth) of atheism, so at present you have nothing to offer me, only another tiresome hypothetical argument. Yet despite this you Harris, Dennett and Dawkins are on a campaign denouncing, not some religions, but all religions as irrational and therefore dangerous to society. Isn't it rational then for me to ask you what want to replace religion with and how that would make society better or more enlightened? Or do you expect people to accept atheism simply as a matter of faith?

TP wrote:

Who is more compassionate; the person who anonymously shovels your driveway when you have a broken leg or the person who comes to visit and promises to pray for you? While good Christians will do both, Good Samaritans (Gospel of Luke 10:25-37) will help a despised neighbor and forgo platitudes. Hint, when an Atheist does something nice for you, don't reward them with a "Christian" visit.

I'm curious. Why should an atheist like you be at all impressed by the story of "˜The Good Samaritan?' Are you saying that acts of compassion are in some sense morally absolute?

On another topic, I notice that you have evaded my question about how, in your view, the immaterial will is able to alter physical brain states in order to carry out a willed action.

Let me ask again. By what mechanism does the immaterial will reach into the brain and deflect it from one physical state into another?

The brain is immaterial too. It simply appears to be material. But in fact quantum physics makes it inarguably clear that the notion of individual separate "material particles" is an overlay, not the fundamental reality. Quantum physics demonstrates that only our measurements of quantum systems clearly exist. Mapping these measurements into some kind of hypothesized "underlying material stuff" is what doesn't work. The measurements show non-local correlations (quantum entanglement) that are not material at all. The only place where materialism is real is within the minds of materialists. . .