Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    We feel as though we immaterial beyond the material brain, there is no reason to believe that we actually are. The evidence suggests otherwise.
    Tass, science itself does not know how "mind" arises from "brain." You cannot find "mind" in a single neuron, as far as we can tell. You cannot find "flocking behavior" in a single bird or even a couple of birds. You and Jim are working very hard to suggest that the immaterial does not exist. However, you have little cause for making this assumption. As I said to Jim, you folks are as polarized to the "material" realm as Seer and those like him are polarized to the immaterial one. The difference, from where I sit, is that they give immaterial primacy over material. You (and those like you) deny the immaterial even exists.

    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes, the evidence suggests the mind stops when the brain stops. Therefore the ‘mind’ can be best viewed as the brain (or “collection of neurons” if you prefer) in action. No brain, no mind.
    Agreed with the latter: the mind is linked with the activity of the brain, cannot exist without it, and is impacted by changes to the brain. The evidence all points in that direction.

    Disagreed with "mind can be best viewed as brain." Mind transcends brain - and we do not know how this transcendence occurs. We just know that "mind" is more than the sum of the parts of "brain." In general, we know very little about emergent properties.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      And this last is the crucial point, I think. There's no evidence of anything 'supernatural' having existed outside of the minds of our species.
      I share that belief. As best I can tell, the realm of the supernatural "came into existence" when primitive man sought to explain observed physical phenomena and lacked the tools to investigate. It gained ascendancy when human societies grew beyond the size where everyone in the community knew one another and the concept of a "punisher god" could be used to maintain social order. I was just wandering through the Museum of Civilization in Quebec City and was struck by the role the Catholic (and sometimes Anglican) church played in partnering with the civic authorities and maintaining social order in a fledgling Canada. That theme repeats itself in countries around the world throughout history.

      At its root - a religion is another political entity that can exert political power. It can do so for great good, or for great ill, and the power is immense because it speaks in the name of the creator-god that is perfect, all-powerful, and all-just. Who could question such a being? This is the theme repeated over and over again. Perhaps, someday, humanity will be able to let go of its gods and leave them in the past. That will not be in my lifetime - and I doubt it will be in our children's lifetimes.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Tass, science itself does not know how "mind" arises from "brain." You cannot find "mind" in a single neuron, as far as we can tell. You cannot find "flocking behavior" in a single bird or even a couple of birds. You and Jim are working very hard to suggest that the immaterial does not exist. However, you have little cause for making this assumption. As I said to Jim, you folks are as polarized to the "material" realm as Seer and those like him are polarized to the immaterial one. The difference, from where I sit, is that they give immaterial primacy over material. You (and those like you) deny the immaterial even exists.
        I don't see that in seer's position at all. Where do you see him polarized to the immaterial in spite of the material? One of the well known advantages of theism is that it's a worldview willing to accept both material and immaterial in equal measures.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I don't see that in seer's position at all. Where do you see him polarized to the immaterial in spite of the material? One of the well known advantages of theism is that it's a worldview willing to accept both material and immaterial in equal measures.
          Yet it is the human soul that gets primacy - has immortality - and is the seat of the "self." As Chrawnus has argued continually, the mind is not only independent of the brain, but has primacy over it (in his view). The brain is merely a tool used by the mind to express itself. This is the kind of thinking I was referring to. The point of my post was to affirm that, while both views are problematic to me, the "immaterial doesn't exist" view is even more extreme than the "immaterial has primacy" view.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I disagree. Supernatural things don't have to have an actual existence to be categorized. The category "mythical beings" is an entire category about things that don't exist. Indeed, that's pretty much the definition. "Unicorn" is a category related to a thing that does not exist (as best we can determine). There's no problem with terms that refer to a category that does not have elements that exist in the universe.

            As best I can tell, Seer wants to preserve the possibility that the universe arising from a god is perfectly natural. There is nothing about the definition of the terms that precludes that, but he doesn't see it. He's somehow stuck on not liking the definitions of the terms and seeing them as somehow "different" from the definitions of any other terms. I've tried every way I can to get him to see the problem with his reasoning, but he's apparently not going to see it from me. I doubt he'll see it from you either.
            Seer simply believes that the world was created by a god and therefore should be seen as being supernatural rather than natural. It's just a semantical game meaning nothing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              The terms "natural" and "supernatural" are not exactly opposing one another, despite our using them that way in this discussion. Supernatural is definitively about "not investigatable by science." "Natural," would then seem to suggest "investigatable by science," but language is sometimes a bit fuzzy. The term also means "not created/done by human hands." So it rather depends on which definition you are using for any given conversation.
              It is not fuzzy language Carp, it has no objective basis. Or logical justification. You (we) have no idea if the supernatural can be investigate or not. Nor do we have any idea if all that is natural can be investigated.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Yet it is the human soul that gets primacy - has immortality - and is the seat of the "self." As Chrawnus has argued continually, the mind is not only independent of the brain, but has primacy over it (in his view). The brain is merely a tool used by the mind to express itself. This is the kind of thinking I was referring to. The point of my post was to affirm that, while both views are problematic to me, the "immaterial doesn't exist" view is even more extreme than the "immaterial has primacy" view.
                As an orthodox Christian, Chrawnus believes that both the body and soul will be glorified and receive immortality. Body and soul are intrinsically linked in the Christian worldview; You may have one without the other, but it's not the natural state of affairs. And viewing the mind as independent and having "primacy" over the brain is no more polarizing than the view that a conductor is independent and has primacy over his orchestra. You're finding a problem with seer and Chrawnus' view that isn't really there, and that I'm certain they would reject as gnostic heresy.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  It is not fuzzy language Carp, it has no objective basis. Or logical justification. You (we) have no idea if the supernatural can be investigate or not. Nor do we have any idea if all that is natural can be investigated.
                  Whether or not the “supernatural” can be investigated or not begs the question. We have NO idea whether or not the “supernatural” even exists in the first place.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Whether or not the “supernatural” can be investigated or not begs the question. We have NO idea whether or not the “supernatural” even exists in the first place.
                    You have no idea if the natural exists in the first place since the very definition begs the question.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You have no idea if the natural exists in the first place since the very definition begs the question.
                      This is the silliest argument I think you have ever made seer. All you mean by supernatural is god created. Your argument is basically the same old argument of did god do it. But even if god did it, we would still call the created world natural, because only the creator of it would be what you would call supernatural. Unless of course your a pantheist and think they are both, god and the creation, one and the same thing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It is not fuzzy language Carp, it has no objective basis. Or logical justification. You (we) have no idea if the supernatural can be investigate or not. Nor do we have any idea if all that is natural can be investigated.
                        OK - so you are back to this theme. I thought I could help...but I guess not. I'll leave the last word to you.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          As an orthodox Christian, Chrawnus believes that both the body and soul will be glorified and receive immortality. Body and soul are intrinsically linked in the Christian worldview; You may have one without the other, but it's not the natural state of affairs. And viewing the mind as independent and having "primacy" over the brain is no more polarizing than the view that a conductor is independent and has primacy over his orchestra. You're finding a problem with seer and Chrawnus' view that isn't really there, and that I'm certain they would reject as gnostic heresy.
                          I'll be interested to see their responses. But you are correct about the resurrection of both body/soul. That was something I knew was intrinsic to Catholic theology, but I had forgotten it is also a theology common to other Christian sects as well.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            OK - so you are back to this theme. I thought I could help...but I guess not. I'll leave the last word to you.
                            Nothing I said Carp was not factual.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You have no idea if the natural exists in the first place since the very definition begs the question.
                              Well that makes no sense. We have no idea of the “supernatural” existing other than unsubstantiated claims of a supernatural deity creating it. In short, made up stuff.. OTOH we have empirically verified evidence of the material world and its phenomena existing.
                              Last edited by Tassman; 07-18-2019, 11:54 PM.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Well that makes no sense. We have no idea of the “supernatural” existing other than unsubstantiated claims of a supernatural deity creating it. In short, made up stuff.. OTOH we have empirically verified evidence of the material world and its phenomena existing.
                                Right Tass, there is evidence for the material world, but why call it natural? You can't with out begging the question. You are working on a computer - would you call that computer "natural?" Doubtful. To call this universe natural you would have to assume that natural forces created it and uphold it. But there is no evidence to support that claim. And if this universe really is a simulation they we can not call it natural any more than you would call your computer natural.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X