Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But I would have to say a close second is the idea of "indirect evidence".

It explains why magical thinking like Intelligent Design has such a currency in today's American society though. After all, everything is indirect evidence of everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But I would have to say a close second is the idea of "indirect evidence".

It explains why magical thinking like Intelligent Design has such a currency in today's American society though. After all, everything is indirect evidence of everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere project of heredity and environment, we see the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone...the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or..."of blood and soil.

OK this is a more comprehensive statement than whether there is justice in the world. Is the human being a physical thing or is there more? This is a fun metaphysics question that has been discussed by philosophers forever.

I'll start a little thought experiment. The experiment gets more difficult as you go along. It is based on the writings of a philosophy PhD who I will try to identify and credit when I can.

Let's say that I have a defective neuron in my brain, and someone replaces it with an electronic component that conducts electricity in the same way. Am I still a person?

If I keep replacing neurons, am I still a person? At what point do I become not a person?

More to come.

I look forward to hearing more about this philosophical "experiment," though I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

But deciding whether a human being is solely a physical being, or "something more," is more than a "fun question." That decision defines the meaning of our existence. And it has to be one or the other. Either materialism is right, or it is wrong.

Not my friend, but oh yes we have neurophysiologists in our family, and this is very interesting. Plus I have some friends who have worked on electrical-neural interfaces which are already being used to do things like restore sight to the blind. So this is not an entirely theoretical question.

I actually think metaphysics is fun. That does not mean that it us unimportant. I guess it is not fun if you fear the outcome, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

Why not actually critique the point PP made? That way we can resolve your doubts.

Do *you* understand what a neuron actually is?

Certainly not! I am just a mom. I have no expertise whatsoever on neurons. But PP said the replacement would "conduct electricity" like the neuron. My limited understanding is that neurons #1 do more than conduct electrical impulses and #2 are living cells, with immense complexity.

But to address the (limited and unfinished) point the PP made:

That philosophical hypothetical does not pose an actual problem for either the materialist or the theist. If you believe in materialism, there is no more to a human being than matter. If there were a way to switch out inorganic matter for organic, it is actually all the same. Human beings are just particles--that is all they are. The living material humans are comprised of evolved from non-living material, and that is all that there is. So if the day came that we could switch back and forth, well, that's just what the universe does on its own anyway.

But the theist would not be troubled, either, in this highly hypothetical scenario. Because theists believe in a material universe AND an immaterial universe. The laws that rule matter, and energy, and force, and DNA, are all within their own system, the material universe. Immaterial things are different.

So, what is the philosopher piecing together? Artificial intelligence?

But wait, you are jumping the gun. First of all, neurons are more complicated than a simple electrical connection, but they are not so complicated that a replacement neuron can't be built.

OK ,so in your answer you believe that a person with a brain replaced by artificial neurons still has an immaterial component, ie a soul. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

Why not actually critique the point PP made? That way we can resolve your doubts.

Do *you* understand what a neuron actually is?

Certainly not! I am just a mom. I have no expertise whatsoever on neurons. But PP said the replacement would "conduct electricity" like the neuron. My limited understanding is that neurons #1 do more than conduct electrical impulses and #2 are living cells, with immense complexity.

But to address the (limited and unfinished) point the PP made:

That philosophical hypothetical does not pose an actual problem for either the materialist or the theist. If you believe in materialism, there is no more to a human being than matter. If there were a way to switch out inorganic matter for organic, it is actually all the same. Human beings are just particles--that is all they are. The living material humans are comprised of evolved from non-living material, and that is all that there is. So if the day came that we could switch back and forth, well, that's just what the universe does on its own anyway.

But the theist would not be troubled, either, in this highly hypothetical scenario. Because theists believe in a material universe AND an immaterial universe. The laws that rule matter, and energy, and force, and DNA, are all within their own system, the material universe. Immaterial things are different.

So, what is the philosopher piecing together? Artificial intelligence?

But wait, you are jumping the gun. First of all, neurons are more complicated than a simple electrical connection, but they are not so complicated that a replacement neuron can't be built.

OK ,so in your answer you believe that a person with a brain replaced by artificial neurons still has an immaterial component, ie a soul. Right?

Looking forward to PP's next dodge. Here's a stab at it:

"You know nothing about neurons or brains! They're made of protein, and electronics are made out of semiconductors, so there!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

By denying the existence of God, you first must contemplate His existence. In order to be an atheist at all, a person must ask, "Is there God?", because a-theist is a negative answer, meaning "no God."

Let me stop you right here. Your framing is all off: the default position is that God doesn't exist. Neither does Pippi Longstocking, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. (Not trying to be rude here; to the rationalist, they have equal claims to reality).

I'm here blithely living in the rational world, and someone comes by and says, "Why don't you believe in God?" I'm not asking the question; you are. It's perfectly reasonable to ask two things: 1) what do you even mean by "god", and 2) why one Earth should I.

Just for the sake of argument, what's the accepted word for "one who doesn't believe in alien abductions"? "Atheist" begs the question in the same way.

Let's explore this "default position."

I respect your personal default position is that God does not exist. This position has been in the minority for all of humanity, but you would say that you are a rationalist, whilst most of humanity has been wishful thinkers, and that is fair enough.

Say that you are enjoying a good book in your air-conditioned living room when all of a sudden, a baseball comes crashing through your picture window, spraying glass everywhere. Most human beings would immediately spring up, (maybe yell an expletive), and say, "Who did that?"

But perhaps your default position would kick in, and you would settle deeper into your chair and resume reading, because you had no need to seek out the cause of the baseball flying through your window. You already knew there was no cause, could be no cause. So no need to investigate.

In other words, if you were nonexistent, you would have the luxury of not contemplating your existence. It is only because you are here that you are able to set your personal "default position" to "there is no cause to the effect that is my existence."

This can be expressed in the following maxim:

"Any demonstration of God's existence or non-existence must be of such a kind as to allow both for the existence of the demonstrator and for the possibility of demonstration."

Now, there could be other reasons for you to turn back to your book, rather than seek out the cause of the baseball in your living room. You could be too busy reading your book to deal with it at the moment. You could be afraid that someone is angry with you and wishes you harm. You could be angry that you have to deal with such a nuisance at all. I don't know. But for someone as reasonable as you, you have to admit that a default position of "there is no cause at all to that baseball coming into my house" sounds silly.

This is what happens when "rationalists" deny that God is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Maybe, just maybe, a rationalist thinks the beginning of the universe is not currently proveable and moves on with their day.

I said this before, and I say it once more: existence of the universe (and all nature that came from it) does not prove in a deity. It proves only that the universe exists. Contemplating day one gives neither theist or atheist arguments any weight. The only thing we know for sure is that it is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

Why not actually critique the point PP made? That way we can resolve your doubts.

Do *you* understand what a neuron actually is?

Certainly not! I am just a mom. I have no expertise whatsoever on neurons. But PP said the replacement would "conduct electricity" like the neuron. My limited understanding is that neurons #1 do more than conduct electrical impulses and #2 are living cells, with immense complexity.

But to address the (limited and unfinished) point the PP made:

That philosophical hypothetical does not pose an actual problem for either the materialist or the theist. If you believe in materialism, there is no more to a human being than matter. If there were a way to switch out inorganic matter for organic, it is actually all the same. Human beings are just particles--that is all they are. The living material humans are comprised of evolved from non-living material, and that is all that there is. So if the day came that we could switch back and forth, well, that's just what the universe does on its own anyway.

But the theist would not be troubled, either, in this highly hypothetical scenario. Because theists believe in a material universe AND an immaterial universe. The laws that rule matter, and energy, and force, and DNA, are all within their own system, the material universe. Immaterial things are different.

So, what is the philosopher piecing together? Artificial intelligence?

But wait, you are jumping the gun. First of all, neurons are more complicated than a simple electrical connection, but they are not so complicated that a replacement neuron can't be built.

OK ,so in your answer you believe that a person with a brain replaced by artificial neurons still has an immaterial component, ie a soul. Right?

Looking forward to PP's next dodge. Here's a stab at it:

"You know nothing about neurons or brains! They're made of protein, and electronics are made out of semiconductors, so there!"

I do agree that it is not useful to debate the feasibility of replacing neurons. But it would be interesting to see responses.

BTW this is not meant as a way to pound theists. I am a Christian. But I have studied metaphysics, and the mind-body problem is an interesting topic. I thought this would appeal to other religious people because essentially this area of study is about the difficulty of reconciling consciousness with materialism, and it's pretty tricky stuff for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, above should say the theories on the beginning of the universe are not proveable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By denying the existence of God, you first must contemplate His existence. In order to be an atheist at all, a person must ask, "Is there God?", because a-theist is a negative answer, meaning "no God."

Let me stop you right here. Your framing is all off: the default position is that God doesn't exist. Neither does Pippi Longstocking, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. (Not trying to be rude here; to the rationalist, they have equal claims to reality).

I'm here blithely living in the rational world, and someone comes by and says, "Why don't you believe in God?" I'm not asking the question; you are. It's perfectly reasonable to ask two things: 1) what do you even mean by "god", and 2) why on Earth should I.

Just for the sake of argument, what's the accepted word for "one who doesn't believe in alien abductions"? "Atheist" begs the question in the same way.

Let's explore this "default position."

I respect your personal default position is that God does not exist. This position has been in the minority for all of humanity, but you would say that you are a rationalist, whilst most of humanity has been wishful thinkers, and that is fair enough.

Say that you are enjoying a good book in your air-conditioned living room when all of a sudden, a baseball comes crashing through your picture window, spraying glass everywhere. Most human beings would immediately spring up, (maybe yell an expletive), and say, "Who did that?"

Let me just stop you here before we get too far down this road. This another form of question-begging: you are sneakily comparing a baseball with, what? A rainbow? The universe? We know human beings make baseballs; they play baseball. That's why a baseball through the window signifies human action. The point of debate here is whether god exists, and if so, whether he "made" everything. So again, all you're doing is working backwards with the tautology, "Things exist, therefore God."

There is considerable evidence for baseball. There's evidence for boys. The scenario of a ball being hit through my window is completely mundane. What you're suggesting is that, should a branch come through my window, I immediately jump and shout, "Who did that!!?!".

What you want is for me to believe, in the absence of evidence, that this branch that came through my window was thrown there by hobgoblins, and that a majority vote of my neighbors should suffice to convince me. No thanks.

Again, in the face of fantastic claims for which there is no evidence, skepticism is the default position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By denying the existence of God, you first must contemplate His existence. In order to be an atheist at all, a person must ask, "Is there God?", because a-theist is a negative answer, meaning "no God."

Let me stop you right here. Your framing is all off: the default position is that God doesn't exist. Neither does Pippi Longstocking, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. (Not trying to be rude here; to the rationalist, they have equal claims to reality).

I'm here blithely living in the rational world, and someone comes by and says, "Why don't you believe in God?" I'm not asking the question; you are. It's perfectly reasonable to ask two things: 1) what do you even mean by "god", and 2) why one Earth should I.

Just for the sake of argument, what's the accepted word for "one who doesn't believe in alien abductions"? "Atheist" begs the question in the same way.

Let's explore this "default position."

I respect your personal default position is that God does not exist. This position has been in the minority for all of humanity, but you would say that you are a rationalist, whilst most of humanity has been wishful thinkers, and that is fair enough.

Say that you are enjoying a good book in your air-conditioned living room when all of a sudden, a baseball comes crashing through your picture window, spraying glass everywhere. Most human beings would immediately spring up, (maybe yell an expletive), and say, "Who did that?"

But perhaps your default position would kick in, and you would settle deeper into your chair and resume reading, because you had no need to seek out the cause of the baseball flying through your window. You already knew there was no cause, could be no cause. So no need to investigate.

In other words, if you were nonexistent, you would have the luxury of not contemplating your existence. It is only because you are here that you are able to set your personal "default position" to "there is no cause to the effect that is my existence."

This can be expressed in the following maxim:

"Any demonstration of God's existence or non-existence must be of such a kind as to allow both for the existence of the demonstrator and for the possibility of demonstration."

Now, there could be other reasons for you to turn back to your book, rather than seek out the cause of the baseball in your living room. You could be too busy reading your book to deal with it at the moment. You could be afraid that someone is angry with you and wishes you harm. You could be angry that you have to deal with such a nuisance at all. I don't know. But for someone as reasonable as you, you have to admit that a default position of "there is no cause at all to that baseball coming into my house" sounds silly.

This is what happens when "rationalists" deny that God is reasonable.

This kind of sophistry was a lot more compelling when you guys were burning nonbelievers at the stake. Heh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure your PhD friend understands what a neuron actually is.

Why not actually critique the point PP made? That way we can resolve your doubts.

Do *you* understand what a neuron actually is?

Certainly not! I am just a mom. I have no expertise whatsoever on neurons. But PP said the replacement would "conduct electricity" like the neuron. My limited understanding is that neurons #1 do more than conduct electrical impulses and #2 are living cells, with immense complexity.

But to address the (limited and unfinished) point the PP made:

That philosophical hypothetical does not pose an actual problem for either the materialist or the theist. If you believe in materialism, there is no more to a human being than matter. If there were a way to switch out inorganic matter for organic, it is actually all the same. Human beings are just particles--that is all they are. The living material humans are comprised of evolved from non-living material, and that is all that there is. So if the day came that we could switch back and forth, well, that's just what the universe does on its own anyway.

But the theist would not be troubled, either, in this highly hypothetical scenario. Because theists believe in a material universe AND an immaterial universe. The laws that rule matter, and energy, and force, and DNA, are all within their own system, the material universe. Immaterial things are different.

So, what is the philosopher piecing together? Artificial intelligence?

But wait, you are jumping the gun. First of all, neurons are more complicated than a simple electrical connection, but they are not so complicated that a replacement neuron can't be built.

OK ,so in your answer you believe that a person with a brain replaced by artificial neurons still has an immaterial component, ie a soul. Right?

Looking forward to PP's next dodge. Here's a stab at it:

"You know nothing about neurons or brains! They're made of protein, and electronics are made out of semiconductors, so there!"

I do agree that it is not useful to debate the feasibility of replacing neurons. But it would be interesting to see responses.

BTW this is not meant as a way to pound theists. I am a Christian. But I have studied metaphysics, and the mind-body problem is an interesting topic. I thought this would appeal to other religious people because essentially this area of study is about the difficulty of reconciling consciousness with materialism, and it's pretty tricky stuff for anyone.

No, I think you make some great points. I was just having fun with the idea that "identifying a metaphor" is nor really a rebuttal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW this is not meant as a way to pound theists. I am a Christian. But I have studied metaphysics, and the mind-body problem is an interesting topic. I thought this would appeal to other religious people because essentially this area of study is about the difficulty of reconciling consciousness with materialism, and it's pretty tricky stuff for anyone.

That is the trick. In 1880, the physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond proposed seven enigmas of the material world that science could not answer:

the ultimate nature of matter and force
the origin of motion
the origin of life
the origin of design and order
the origin of consciousness
the origin of thought and language
what is free will

(there were secondary riddles, such as the origin of undesirable human behaviors like racism and violence)

The reason why materialism can never answer these questions is the limitations of its parameters of knowledge and acquiring knowledge:

What do we accept as knowledge? (the material universe)
What do we accept as method? (the scientific method)

So metaphysics is not a topic for materialists. The definition of materialism excludes the reality of anything beyond the material universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW this is not meant as a way to pound theists. I am a Christian. But I have studied metaphysics, and the mind-body problem is an interesting topic. I thought this would appeal to other religious people because essentially this area of study is about the difficulty of reconciling consciousness with materialism, and it's pretty tricky stuff for anyone.

That is the trick. In 1880, the physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond proposed seven enigmas of the material world that science could not answer:

the ultimate nature of matter and force
the origin of motion
the origin of life
the origin of design and order
the origin of consciousness
the origin of thought and language
what is free will

(there were secondary riddles, such as the origin of undesirable human behaviors like racism and violence)

The reason why materialism can never answer these questions is the limitations of its parameters of knowledge and acquiring knowledge:

What do we accept as knowledge? (the material universe)
What do we accept as method? (the scientific method)

So metaphysics is not a topic for materialists. The definition of materialism excludes the reality of anything beyond the material universe.

Now, I respect the omniscience of late-19th century French physiologists as much as the next guy, but I don't see any one of these as outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Some have been answered quite tidily already (How can order arise from disorder, etc..)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW this is not meant as a way to pound theists. I am a Christian. But I have studied metaphysics, and the mind-body problem is an interesting topic. I thought this would appeal to other religious people because essentially this area of study is about the difficulty of reconciling consciousness with materialism, and it's pretty tricky stuff for anyone.

That is the trick. In 1880, the physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond proposed seven enigmas of the material world that science could not answer:

the ultimate nature of matter and force
the origin of motion
the origin of life
the origin of design and order
the origin of consciousness
the origin of thought and language
what is free will

(there were secondary riddles, such as the origin of undesirable human behaviors like racism and violence)

The reason why materialism can never answer these questions is the limitations of its parameters of knowledge and acquiring knowledge:

What do we accept as knowledge? (the material universe)
What do we accept as method? (the scientific method)

So metaphysics is not a topic for materialists. The definition of materialism excludes the reality of anything beyond the material universe.

Really. Then what are all those people doing studying metaphysics?

And as for explaining the ultimate nature of matter and force, all I can say is that the last time religion dabbled in it, they decided the earth was the center of the solar system. Why? Because it had to be. And what did they do to the heretics who said the sun was at the center of our solar system?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Religion sucks at answering these questions. Religion is great at giving feel-good answers, but they don't feel so good when we actually start measuring them.