Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[navneet1990]

which point??

 

[navneet1990]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

 

[Another God]

*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.

Empiricism is measurable observable, directly inferable facts about our world. The world which affects us. The one thing which matters to us all...reality. Anything which isn't measurable, observable or directly inferable can only be described as 'imagined' and hence part of a dream world.

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself. The only real goal of science, naturalism, empiricism etc is to find out facts about our existence. We do this by looking at our existence. Everytime we learn something new, we apply it, and it produces results. Circular? Sure, why not. Practical? Absolutely.

Better than living in a dream world where 'praying' for answers does stuff only because you believe it does.

 

[Another God]

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what I've read from the reviews

Actually he quite clearly explains what his objectives are. They are not to target extremist religions (although obviously he uses them in his discussion of the consequences of religion). He isn't just trying to target christianity judaism etc. He is systematically arguing that any belief system, ANY belief system, is a scientific statement.

There is a God. That is a scientific statement. We are reincarnated after death. Scientific statement. We must induce trance like states and worship gods or else they will be displeased with us... Scientific Statement.

Everything that any religion says about our universe is a statement which should be critically analused and tested. A universe created by an intelligent God would clearly be very different from a Universe which arose without intelligent design.

Thus, Dawkins point is that while we may not be able to completely disprove the existence of God (just as you can't disprove an assertion that there is a fine china teacup orbitting the sun between Mars and Jupiter), we can look at all of the evidence and reasonably conclude that God doesn't exist, and pretty much every religious claim is irrelevent.

ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all

Organised religions bring about toleration of irrational precepts which allow extreme people to build up extreme ideas, therefore opening up much greater possibility for fundamentalist murderers, suicide bombers etc.

If people were less accepting of irrational beleifs, maybe these suicide bombers would have had their beliefs challenged before they got to the "When I suicide, I will go to eternal bliss with the virgins and the clouds and the best everything..bla blah". Clearly that belief is irrational and ridiculous, but they only formed it because it was the conclusion of their slightly less irrational belief system. Question it from the beginning, and they will never reach the "Suicide is a cool option because I will be rewarded" stage.

when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you don't altogether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"?

Yes. But he does spend most of his energy on christianity because that is the civilisation we live in, the dominant religion of the english language, and the most popular religion. But all religions are treated equally, and the point is the same across the whole table. Christianity is as unlikely as hinduism is as unlikely as Apollo and Zeus.

so what i infer is that he is some kitty who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler...

Wrong. Simply wrong.

 

[Another God]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them

Actually its quite the opposite. Religion is the eternally avoided question. People just assume the answer everytime they get into it. Dawkins is actually tackling one of the most difficult questions ever because it is about time someone stood up and did it.

while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

No, nothing wrong with the definition of religion, infact it has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Dawkins is a scientist and he is dedicated to the truth. So forget religion, let's talk about the truth. Does God exists? In reality? No.

If you want to 'believe' God exists, then fine, 'believe' it, but DO NOT say that your belief is real, because you have no basis for that.

 

[Hurkyl]

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself.

Okay, good. Now, to move onto a stickier question...

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

 

[SF]

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

Trying to use philosophy? Extra, extra, ask Feynman all about it :D
It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him

He discusses the general idea of "gods", and sais that the probability of existence of any "gods" is very little.. as little as the existence of ogres and tooth fairies. This applies to all supernatural religions.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

The talk about dangerous religions is indeed an argument to appeal to the majority of his readers, who will be Christians (less jews, less muslims, but it applies to them too - and almost no buddhists or whatever).

Further more, he tries to make a case for atheism, to create a proper brand.
Currently, calling yourself an atheist is the end of your political career, etc, etc. He hopes to change that.

Here is a nice collection of Dawkins videos, selected from YouTube and Google Video: http://physicshead.blogspot.com/search/label/Dawkins
(NOT SPAM!)

 

[Gib Z]

Lol i thought Richard Dawkins was a fictional character, he appears in a 2 Recent South Park episodes that I believe you may find interesting. It basically pictured Dawkins Lobbying for Atheism and then, well..i don't want to ruin the ending for you :D If you want the south park edisodes, here they are:

http://movies4.viettunes.com/1fileprotection/southpark/

The Dawkins Episodes are a 2 parter, named Go God, Go! and Go GOd, Go, II!, episode numbers 1012 and 1013, theyre around the bottom and hilarious, although you don't want your kids seeing it...

 

[Hurkyl]

It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on)[/color] That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

 

[Tony11235]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Why not just "not believing in God(s)?" You're loading up the definition to suggest that anyone who is not an atheist is irrational.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

 

[Another God]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

 

[Tony11235]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

To be agnostic is to hold the position that something cannot be proved or disproved. When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic. But that doesn't mean either way is equally likely. Like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend. So one might as well lean towards the likelihood of non-existence.

 

[Another God]

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism goes into the problems with the term agnosticism. I don't know if there are attempts to redefine it into atheism, if anything someone agnostic is more theist than atheist (since they qualify the concept of God with a chance of existence).

Dawkins does talk about it somewhat in TGD, and he simply argues that to be agnostic towards theism is not a reasonable opinion because you are saying that there is just as much chance of there being a God as there is of there not being a God. That implies that there is evidence for and evidence against. The argument then of course proceeds to claim that there is no evidence for Gods... afterall, if there was, why sit on the fence over the matter? If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

 

[Hurkyl]

When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic.
...
But like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend.

Now why do you think that?

I assume that it is because you believe that reason and experiment are the only sources of knowledge. Can you justify that belief?

So one might as well lean towards the likelihood non-existence.

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

 

[Tony11235]

Now why do you think that?

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being? If so, then I can certainly lean towards there not being a god.

 

[Hurkyl]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being?

I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

 

[Tony11235]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

Unknowable isn't the right word. Not disprovable would better describe it. From a scientific standpoint at least. Say something is not disprovable, does that imply that I have zero knowledge on or about it?

 

[PIT2]

If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition. Here's a suggestion for judging arguments 'against' and 'for' the existence of god:

Notice of the paralels between 'god' and human mind. Whenever someone talks of god and assigns a probability to it, ask urself if his reasoning doesn't equally apply to human mind.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?

In some areas, the progress has been significant. In other areas, I don't see much progress.

This commentary reasonably describes the current situation regarding persistent elements of segregation in the US (and it is certainly not unique to the US, but is generally the case world wide).
The Last Race Problem
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: December 30, 2006

Accompanying public integration has been the near complete isolation of blacks from the private life of the white majority.

Another area where the US seems to be digressing is the rise of fundamentalist religious views - in which 'critical scrutiny' of beliefs and ideas is excluded, especially the exclusion of contradictory ideas - and the concommitant intolerance of alternative or contradictory beliefs and ideas.

Religion is not the problem - it's the people and the belief in the supremacy of one's beliefs which are the problem. The problems ascribed to religion are not because of religion, but the misuse or misappropriation of religion.

 

[Another God]

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition.

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

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

 

[SF]

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

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

I'm fond of the Burning Bush, myself. =)

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on)[/color] That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

Boy, boy, don't you know that strawman argument is illogical? :)

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

 

[Hurkyl]

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

It wasn't meant as an analogy. You explicitly assume that experiment is the only source of truth. (I'm surprised you don't accept reason!) And thus, your argument means absolutely nothing to someone who assumes that there are other sources of truth. The devout ancient Greek doesn't suppose that Zeus exists: it's a fact he's learned from his religous teachings.

Basically, when you start with the hypothesis that empiricism is the only source of truth, you have assumed what you're trying to prove.

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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

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

 

[Another God]

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

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

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

Only evidence can be relied upon.

 

[SF]

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

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

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

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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

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

Only evidence can be relied upon.

Really?

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

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

The only way (*) can be false is if

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

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

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


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

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

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


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

 

[Another God]

Really?

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

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

The only way (*) can be false is if

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

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

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


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

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

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


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

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

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

Simple no?

 

[Hurkyl]

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

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

Simple no?

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

{postulates of QM} and {HUP}​

which has an entirely different meaning than the implication

if {postulates of QM} then {HUP}.​

See Wikipedia's article on vacuous truth.

 

[Another God]

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

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

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

 

[Doc Al]

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

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

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

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

 

[PIT2]

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

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

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

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

But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

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

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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

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

 

[Doc Al]

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

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

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

 

[Interposer]

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

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

See how easy it is to slice through this argument?

 

[PIT2]

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

See how easy it is to slice through this argument?

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

 

[Interposer]

sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanks

 

[Hurkyl]

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

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

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

Less formally? You mean more loaded?

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

 

[PIT2]

sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanks

Im afraid I am not getting ur point.

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

 

[Another God]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SF]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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

Why would that evidence be an unfounded claim?

 

[Gokul43201]

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

And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?

 

[Hurkyl]

And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?

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

 

[PIT2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gokul43201]

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

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

What does the rationalist-empiricist-vedist do?

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

 

[SF]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Another God]

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

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

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

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

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

God forbid humans admit to not understanding something!