Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams debate religion this week
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
But this is a) nowhere near as impressive as the headline when you get to the detail and b) makes it no clearer that there could possibly be an adequate explanation of mind on the materialist view.a) they can tell who someone is thinking about because of what the person has been told previously. But if you sat me down in this experiment and I said Go on then, who am I thinking of? They are not going to say, ah, our computer says, Daffy Duck, without DD ever having been mentioned before. It is just pattern recognition.
b) so what? what has that got to do with religion?
ChrisGB said:
But this is a) nowhere near as impressive as the headline when you get to the detail and b) makes it no clearer that there could possibly be an adequate explanation of mind on the materialist view.
a) they can tell who someone is thinking about because of what the person has been told previously. But if you sat me down in this experiment and I said Go on then, who am I thinking of? They are not going to say, ah, our computer says, Daffy Duck, without DD ever having been mentioned before. It is just pattern recognition.
b) so what? what has that got to do with religion?
It has nothing to do with the immaterial, only the material, (in this case the brain). The headline absolutely describes what the experiment revealed. a) they can tell who someone is thinking about because of what the person has been told previously. But if you sat me down in this experiment and I said Go on then, who am I thinking of? They are not going to say, ah, our computer says, Daffy Duck, without DD ever having been mentioned before. It is just pattern recognition.
b) so what? what has that got to do with religion?
Yes, it is pattern recognition. Well done. This is called experimentation, etc. What it does show is that certain 'stimuli affects certain parts of the brain, nothing more. Detailed examination of the behaviour of the brain can give reading exact enough to be able to determine what the person is seeing from previous experience. They never say otherwise.
It has nothing to do with religion. What it does have to do with is the 'meat' side of things, and progression in those areas. Of course the 'meat' side of this discussion has nothing to do with immaterial, just as the discussion of material/immaterial mind wibble stuff has nothing to do with the thread topic either, which was religion in the 21st century.
Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 15th March 21:00
Halb said:
ChrisGB said:
He is though that rare atheist who follows the evidence wherever it leads.
Atheists ignore evidence?If materialism is true, then (given that it is committed to a mechanistic conception of the material world), there are no final causes, and thus nothing that inherently “points to” or is “directed at” anything beyond itself; and in that case, there can be no such thing as intentionality; but there is such a thing as intentionality; therefore materialism is not true.
How do we know there is such a thing as intentionality? This experiment proves it - patterns in the brain point to something beyond themselves, i.e. the personality being recognised in the experiment.
This is the evidence the vulgar atheist, as opposed to a non-vulgar atheist, someone like Nagel, must ignore in order to maintain his position.
How do we know there is such a thing as intentionality? This experiment proves it - patterns in the brain point to something beyond themselves, i.e. the personality being recognised in the experiment.
This is the evidence the vulgar atheist, as opposed to a non-vulgar atheist, someone like Nagel, must ignore in order to maintain his position.
Heretic, you are quite wrong to say there are no consequences to not believing in God. Not believing in God commits you to certain other beliefs, such as the material world being all there is, or scientific method being the only way to know, there being no objective morality etc. etc. etc. The specific beliefs will vary from believer to believer, but that there are principles entailed by not believing in God in the case of every single non-believer is unavoidable. Show me I'm wrong.
There is therefore a commonly touted Atheist's Credo I'm sure you have seen, all of which is entailed by the first article, there is no God.
There is therefore a commonly touted Atheist's Credo I'm sure you have seen, all of which is entailed by the first article, there is no God.
You are wrong. I needn't believe in God, but could believe in reincarnation, ghosts, spirituality, the afterlife. None of that requires a 'God'. As to objective morality, we have done that one. Show me where you get your objective morals from, and we can put that one to bed. Remember, objective morals cannot be subjective. The scientific method has nothing to do with belief in a God.
You have no idea what the atheists credo is. You have merely applied what you think it is, and frankly you are wrong. All atheism means is a lack of belief in Gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
You have no idea what the atheists credo is. You have merely applied what you think it is, and frankly you are wrong. All atheism means is a lack of belief in Gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
ChrisGB said:
TheHeretic said:
Blah blah wobble wobble, therefore woo. Gotcha.
You are a poster boy for atheism, Heretic, you do atheism proud!All I read when you write is precisely what I wrote there. Unfounded nonsense, therefore immaterial. You talked about atheists and evidence, so the floor is yours. Show evidence for God, the immaterial and any other bit of woo you need in order to verify your belief system.
ChrisGB said:
Heretic, you are quite wrong to say there are no consequences to not believing in God. Not believing in God commits you to certain other beliefs, such as the material world being all there is, or scientific method being the only way to know, there being no objective morality etc. etc. etc. The specific beliefs will vary from believer to believer, but that there are principles entailed by not believing in God in the case of every single non-believer is unavoidable. Show me I'm wrong.
There is therefore a commonly touted Atheist's Credo I'm sure you have seen, all of which is entailed by the first article, there is no God.
Re morality: they have changed in the church over the years.There is therefore a commonly touted Atheist's Credo I'm sure you have seen, all of which is entailed by the first article, there is no God.
Don't forget it used to be a mortal sin to read the bible. It used to be a mortal sin to translate the bible into a native tongue. It used to be a mortal sin to print a bible. It used to be a sin to run church services in a native tongue.
These things have changed so one would assume that the catholic church agrees that there is no objective morality.
If you do not accept that the church's change of morals as showing you are wrong, at least about objective morality, then I could pull hundreds of examples out for you and others could probably do lots more.
Further, there is nothing to stop you believing in an objective morality if you do not believe in the Abrahamic god. There are belief systems in the world where there are no gods or greater beings, but there still is a belief in an objective morality.
I believe that you should 'unto thine own self be true' and so not be false to any man. (the quote from memory)
Morality is nothing unless it is imposed from within. If you comply to one imposed from outside, under threat of all sorts of nasty things, then any act is not moral: it is obedient.
Derek Smith said:
If you do not accept that the church's change of morals as showing you are wrong, at least about objective morality, then I could pull hundreds of examples out for you and others could probably do lots more.
There is no absolute correspondence between a church rule and objective morality, there may be a conflict, discernible through a working out of the objective morality, but the church teaches in fundamentals an objective morality that never changes, eg. murder of innocents is wrong. You really think whether the bible is read or not is a part of objective morality? It is obviously no such thing - it could not be a universal principle discernible through consideration of human nature and its ends or goals, which is what objective morality is based on.
OK, Heretic, let me rephrase: A statement of atheism that has any coherence whatsoever must entail a set of beliefs, and these will vary from believer to believer but will typically involve repercussions for world view / universe, mind/body, morality, deviating from the theist view on these three.
Of course an individual atheist might believe there is no God but that there is an after life where we float as spirits etc. But how this worldview could be coherently worked out is another matter. I don't see how it could make any sense.
Just to prove my point though:
You yourself do not believe in the god of classical theism, i.e. the god of catholicism or of judaism.
You yourself believe there is nothing objectively true, except of course, incoherently, statements you personally subscribe to.
You yourself have some view of the scientific method being the only way to know things, matter is all there is, etc.
Such views are entailed by your atheism because it would be incoherent to hold them if you believed in said god.
If you were not a subscriber to the atheist belief, you could not hold other views that you hold.
Therefore your atheism has consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Of course an individual atheist might believe there is no God but that there is an after life where we float as spirits etc. But how this worldview could be coherently worked out is another matter. I don't see how it could make any sense.
Just to prove my point though:
You yourself do not believe in the god of classical theism, i.e. the god of catholicism or of judaism.
You yourself believe there is nothing objectively true, except of course, incoherently, statements you personally subscribe to.
You yourself have some view of the scientific method being the only way to know things, matter is all there is, etc.
Such views are entailed by your atheism because it would be incoherent to hold them if you believed in said god.
If you were not a subscriber to the atheist belief, you could not hold other views that you hold.
Therefore your atheism has consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Ozzie Osmond said:
ChrisGB said:
Stuff
You appear to have a particular view of the world. Now imagine that same world without the magic and superstition aspects of religion. How does that world differ from your starting point? What's missing? What's changed? Is anything added?What would there be if catholicism were untrue? The answer is: there would be nothing whatsoever in existence. Zilch.
Which is why religion causes such extreme behaviour by its adherents. The assured belief that "it's all true because God said so" makes it logically impossible to remove or change any aspect without destroying the whole.
An open and enquiring mind is nothing to fear. Once you learn to embrace the lack of certainty it is not such an uncomfortable place to be. Freedom of thought is a wonderful thing.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Franklin D Roosevelt
An open and enquiring mind is nothing to fear. Once you learn to embrace the lack of certainty it is not such an uncomfortable place to be. Freedom of thought is a wonderful thing.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Franklin D Roosevelt
A few questions for the sky pixie* believers:
Does your "sky pixie" ever decree something that you don't agree with?
Are you a Christian, and if so, given there are many different flavours of that cult, how do you know yours is the correct one?
Does your "sky pixie" ever decree something that you don't agree with?
Are you a Christian, and if so, given there are many different flavours of that cult, how do you know yours is the correct one?
- A mythical creatures of folklore, aka: "god", "the devil", "the tooth fairy", "trickle down theory" etc.
ChrisGB said:
OK, Heretic, let me rephrase: A statement of atheism that has any coherence whatsoever must entail a set of beliefs, and these will vary from believer to believer but will typically involve repercussions for world view / universe, mind/body, morality, deviating from the theist view on these three.
Of course an individual atheist might believe there is no God but that there is an after life where we float as spirits etc. But how this worldview could be coherently worked out is another matter. I don't see how it could make any sense.
Just to prove my point though:
You yourself do not believe in the god of classical theism, i.e. the god of catholicism or of judaism.
You yourself believe there is nothing objectively true, except of course, incoherently, statements you personally subscribe to.
You yourself have some view of the scientific method being the only way to know things, matter is all there is, etc.
Such views are entailed by your atheism because it would be incoherent to hold them if you believed in said god.
If you were not a subscriber to the atheist belief, you could not hold other views that you hold.
Therefore your atheism has consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Carl Sagan saidOf course an individual atheist might believe there is no God but that there is an after life where we float as spirits etc. But how this worldview could be coherently worked out is another matter. I don't see how it could make any sense.
Just to prove my point though:
You yourself do not believe in the god of classical theism, i.e. the god of catholicism or of judaism.
You yourself believe there is nothing objectively true, except of course, incoherently, statements you personally subscribe to.
You yourself have some view of the scientific method being the only way to know things, matter is all there is, etc.
Such views are entailed by your atheism because it would be incoherent to hold them if you believed in said god.
If you were not a subscriber to the atheist belief, you could not hold other views that you hold.
Therefore your atheism has consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded. "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say No NO No, my god is a little god and I want him to stay that way. A religion, old or new that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
As there are several different types of atheist, (dawkins said 7) Your statement would hold true for some but not for type 1 or 2.
ChrisGB said:
There is no absolute correspondence between a church rule and objective morality, there may be a conflict, discernible through a working out of the objective morality, but the church teaches in fundamentals an objective morality that never changes, eg. murder of innocents is wrong.
You really think whether the bible is read or not is a part of objective morality? It is obviously no such thing - it could not be a universal principle discernible through consideration of human nature and its ends or goals, which is what objective morality is based on.
You put a condition on not killing. You really think whether the bible is read or not is a part of objective morality? It is obviously no such thing - it could not be a universal principle discernible through consideration of human nature and its ends or goals, which is what objective morality is based on.
Many feel this is wrong. You should not kill anyone. During extreme circumstances, many felt that you could kill innocents. There was a great deal of support for the carpet bombing of German cities yet some bomber pilots refused to follow orders and dropped their bombs in fields. Many saw these as German sympathisers.
So your 'objective morality' fails there.
You mention what the (a, surely) church teaches is fundamental, non changing truths. But that is wrong. The 10 (although I know there are not 10) commandments include one which says you shouldn't kill but you have modified this to suggest it is only wrong to kill 'innocents'. Now here's a thought: what is an innocent?
Do you think not eating shellfish is objective morality?
There are a number of different moralities in different societies. Did Spartans abandon their babies to test them? Some societies used to think it reasonable for its warriors to test themselves against other warriors in fights that on occasion went to the death. The way Cetwayo ran his mob was remarkable, and included making his warriors run off cliffs. We have societies that think it is OK for a person to kill themselves and attempt to take others, innocents, with them.
Morality is purely personal. You seem to think that it is wrong to kill innocents. There are many who would disagree.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff