The Believers are OFf with the Faeries

[Prince_James]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/26/nosplit/ftreligion126.xml

An interesting article on the strife between theists of all colours and flavours and atheists.

 

[Jan Ardena]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/26/nosplit/ftreligion126.xml

An interesting article on the strife between theists of all colours and flavours and atheists.

...But both sides of the current dispute agree that it raises important questions about the place of religious belief in modern society.

One could be forgiven for thinking that "religion", is, the arguments that take place, by reading this comment.

....The latter's lingering consequences in Northern Ireland anyway served as a distasteful warning.

The only parallel that can be drawn with "religion", regarding this example, is the fact that the two opposing sides were called catholic and protestant. Other than that, there is no connection between the violence which occured, and "religion" itself.

....This is well intentioned but misguided, as the example of faith-based schooling shows. If children are ghettoised by religion from an early age, the result, as seen in Northern Ireland, is disastrous.

Non-sequitor.

In short I understand this chaps gripe, but I don't agree that the problem is "religion" itself, but the religious and non-religious institutes that have a need to shove their ideals down peoples throats. These people are neither rational, nor reasonable. This is the problem.

Jan.

 

[grover]

"It has flared up in the past few years, and has quickly taken a bitter turn. Why is this so?"

It's because the atheists are every bit as fundamentalist and irrational as the theists. It's only a matter of time before the next inquisiton comes - this time it will be atheists demanding that people renounce their religion.

Atheists are 100% certain of their beliefs and totally intolerant of anyone that holds beliefs that differ from theirs. How is it not fundamentalism?

 

[Jan Ardena]

"It has flared up in the past few years, and has quickly taken a bitter turn. Why is this so?"

It's because the atheists are every bit as fundamentalist and irrational as the theists. It's only a matter of time before the next inquisiton comes - this time it will be atheists demanding that people renounce their religion.

Atheists are 100% certain of their beliefs and totally intolerat of anyone that holds beliefs that differ from theirs. How is it not fundamentalism?

Are all atheists intolerant?

Jan.

 

[grover]

No.
Are all people that believe in a religion irrational lunatics?

 

[Jan Ardena]

No.
Are all people that believe in a religion irrational lunatics?

No.
I'm just pointing out to you, your error.

"Atheists are 100% certain of their beliefs and totally intolerant of anyone that holds beliefs that differ from theirs. How is it not fundamentalism?"

Intolerance of different beliefs has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

Jan.

 

[grover]

No.
I'm just pointing out to you, your error.

"Atheists are 100% certain of their beliefs and totally intolerant of anyone that holds beliefs that differ from theirs. How is it not fundamentalism?"

Intolerance of different beliefs has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

Jan.

I was just making the point that atheists are capable of fundamentalism too.
I overstated it. I personally believe we're living in a time of competing dogmas. Scientific fundamentalism vs. religous fundamentlaism. Both sides totally distort the basic tenets of the belief sturcture they are following. Science is a method in which everything is questioned without it being proven, yet scientific fundamentalists make the massive leap that everything is material (including mind), without a single experiment that supports the hypothesis. They don't even know how to make an experiment at this point, if they were truly faithful to science they wouldn't be making claims that have no scientific support, let alnoe having 100% certainty of their convictions.
Religous fundamentalists are equally insane, I won't bother innumerating why here since everyone pretty much agrees.

 

[Sarkus]

Science is a method in which everything is questioned without it being proven, yet scientific fundamentalists make the massive leap that everything is material (including mind), without a single experiment that supports the hypothesis.

Talking of distorting things!!

Science will accept ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

At the moment there is NO EVIDENCE that there is anything other than the material.

Please provide evidence that there is.

As soon as evidence is provided, science will accept it and move along.

They don't even know how to make an experiment at this point

You demonstrate your ignorance of science with every passing sentence.

You can NOT prove non-existence (except with logically impossible).

Please prove to me that there isn't an "M"-shaped star somewhere in the Universe?
Or a tribe of animals that worship SARKUS living on a planet in another galaxy?
Please prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

...if they were truly faithful to science they wouldn't be making claims that have no scientific support, let alnoe having 100% certainty of their convictions.

Scientists don't!

Science does not deal in things that have NO EVIDENCE!!

You provide the evidence - science will happily accept it.

Science uses EVIDENCE!

Science does not say "the non-material does not exist".
Science DOES SAY "there is no evidence for the non-material".


See the difference?

 

[grover]

At the moment there is NO EVIDENCE that there is anything other than the material.

So you want me to provide you material evidence of the immaterial?

That's precisely why you are scientific fundamentalist. You think science can answer ALL questions about the universe, just as in the middle ages the Church could answer ALL questions about the universe. It's bullshit both ways. Science is a method for studying the material world. It makes no claims about being able to answer all questions about the universe.

You said: "You demonstrate your ignorance of science with every passing sentence." in response to me saying "They don't even know how to make an experiment at this point (about the mind being only material"

It's you that demonstrate your ignorance. When scientific fundamentalists claim that the mind is an emmergent phenomenon they are making a claim that has never been proven scientifically, and they don't even know how to go perform a test to prove this. Remember this if nothing else; there is as much scientific evidence that mind is an emmergent phenomena as is there is to support intelligent desing (i.e, none) Both of these are psuedo-science (i.e., an amalgam og philosophy and bullshit clothed in scientifc sounding terms).

Are you claiming that since science can't study the immaterial we should just assume it doesn't exist? That we should only excpet as true as thing s that science can prove as true even though science could never prove either the non-existence or existence of immaterial phenomena since it is only a method for studying the material world? That's a fundamentalist position which is exaclty parallel to saying "The Bible answers all questions and any question not answered in the Bible should not be asked."

 

[Sarkus]

So you want me to provide you material evidence of the immaterial?

No - I want you to provide EVIDENCE - not "material evidence" but EVIDENCE.

And to that evidence we then apply logic and rational thinking to come up with a hypothesis.

That's precisely why you are scientific fundamentalist. You think science can answer ALL questions about the universe, just as in the middle ages the Church could answer ALL questions about the universe. It's bullshit both ways. Science is a method for studying the material world. It makes no claims about being able to answer all questions about the universe.

Please tell me where I have said that "science can answer ALL questions about the universe".

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Remember this if nothing else; there is as much scientific evidence that mind is an emmergent phenomena as is there is to support intelligent desing (i.e, none)

You really believe that, don't you?

I'm shocked.

Do you know anything about Occam's Razor?

Are you claiming that since science can't study the immaterial we should just assume it doesn't exist?

No - I'm just asking you to provide evidence of its existence - and then explain / detail how it can interact with material existence.

That we should only excpet as true as thing s that science can prove as true even though science could never prove either the non-existence or existence of immaterial phenomena since it is only a method for studying the material world?

Science is NOT about just the material world - it is a process that would work for any "world" - it just requires EVIDENCE.

If you can not produce any - give up.

That's a fundamentalist position...

All I ask is for one jot of evidence.
Just one.
Please?
Anything at all that we can both agree is evidence of non-material?
Go on - just one solitary piece?

Provide the evidence of the non-material and we can all go home happy.

 

[KennyJC]

When scientific fundamentalists claim that the mind is an emmergent phenomenon they are making a claim that has never been proven scientifically, and they don't even know how to go perform a test to prove this

There is PLENTY of evidence that shows the mind is a process of the brain. But common sense shows, that my mind is not one foot to the right of my head is it? Neither does it stem from my big toe. It's inside the brain.

It's a bit like saying the pulse is not an emergent property of the heart. When the heart dies, the pulse stops... Same with the brain and consciousness...

You doughnut...

 

[grover]

There is PLENTY of evidence that shows the mind is a process of the brain. But common sense shows, that my mind is not one foot to the right of my head is it? Neither does it stem from my big toe. It's inside the brain.

It's a bit like saying the pulse is not an emergent property of the heart. When the heart dies, the pulse stops... Same with the brain and consciousness...

You doughnut...

We know that when a heart contracts it causes a pulse. We on the other hand have no idea how the brain produces consciousness. The only way we know we are conscious is the self-evidence of consciousness.

We know how hearts produce a pulse. Tell me specifically how the brain produces consciousness. Because you huys make this claim and seem to be saying "it just does." If that's not your stance then tell me how exactly ther brain produces consciousness.

 

[grover]

No - I want you to provide EVIDENCE - not "material evidence" but EVIDENCE.


And to that evidence we then apply logic and rational thinking to come up with a hypothesis.

Please tell me where I have said that "science can answer ALL questions about the universe".{/QUOTE]
Please give me an example of evidence that isn't material evidence.

You really believe that, don't you?

I'm shocked.

Yes, I do bleieve that because it's true. Science requires that a hypothesis be tested fot it to be proven to be true. Name one test that supoports the hypothesis that consciousness is an emmergent phenomenon that has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Do you know anything about Occam's Razor?

Yes, I do. It is self-evident that consciousness is immaterial. The simplest explanation is that the self-evident immateriality of consciousness is true. If you disagree point me in th direction of the science that contradicts it.

No - I'm just asking you to provide evidence of its existence - and then explain / detail how it can interact with material existence.

Science is NOT about just the material world - it is a process that would work for any "world" - it just requires EVIDENCE.

Sorry, science is a method for studying the material world.

If you can not produce any - give up.

You are demanding I produce material evidence of the immaterial. If there is such a thing as evidence that isn't material give me an example. How is you demanding that I produce immaterial evidence any different than a Fundamentialist Christians demanding you produce proof of God's non-existence? It's the same thing.

All I ask is for one jot of evidence.
Just one.
Please?
Anything at all that we can both agree is evidence of non-material?
Go on - just one solitary piece?

Okay, I will if you give me an example in science of evidence that isn't material. Go on just one solitary example.

Provide the evidence of the non-material and we can all go home happy.

What you are demanding is fucking insane. It's just like a Christian demanding you prove God doesn't exist. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean he does exist. Just because I can't provide evidence of the immaterial doesn't prove it doesn't. And that's why you believe science can answer all questions because you are demanding that all questions be suject to science. Science can not answer the question as to whether immaterial things exist or not because it is a method for studying the material.

 

[Godless]

consciousness is evidence of the immaterial. It is self-evident that consciousness is immaterial.

Consciousness without the material brain would not exist! Thus it takes a material substance, i.e. your nugget to produce consciousness!

Consciousness is a human invention! One that evolved to survive in ever increasing complex society.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus- consciousness is evidence of the immaterial. It is self-evident that consciousness is immaterial.

I'd stop while you're behind.

Consciousness is NOT evidence of the immaterial.
And it is certainly NOT self-evident that it is immaterial.

Why on earth would you think that it is?

Do you think there is more in our brains than merely biological, neurological and chemical and other physical / material interactions, all obeying the physical laws of this universe?

If so - what?
And where is your evidence?

 

[Sarkus]

Please give me an example of evidence that isn't material evidence.

Isn't that my point?
You claim the non-material exists - yet YOU can not provide evidence for its existence.
Yet you now want ME to provide you with the very evidence you are after???

How stupid are you?

Yes, I do bleieve that because it's true. Science requires that a hypothesis be tested fot it to be proven to be true. Name one test that supoports the hypothesis that consciousness is an emmergent phenomenon that has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Remove brain from subject = remove consciousness from subject.
Q.E.D.

Yes, I do. It is self-evident that consciousness is immaterial. The simplest explanation is that the self-evident immateriality of consciousness is true. If you disagree point me in th direction of the science that contradicts it.

It is NOT the simplest explanation!
You obviously DO NOT understand Occam's Razor.

Non-materiality requires the existence of an UNKNOWN - and not even that - an UNKNOWABLE.

The "material consciousness" does NOT require an unknown.

Sorry, science is a method for studying the material world.

So you admit there is no evidence for the non-material.
And yet you believe in its existence.

And yet there is as much evidence for the non-material as there is for anything that doesn't exist (i.e. NONE).

So you admit that your belief in the non-material world is entirely on faith (i.e. zero evidence).

Okay - now we're getting somewhere.

You are demanding I produce material evidence of the immaterial. If there is such a thing as evidence that isn't material give me an example. How is you demanding that I produce immaterial evidence any different than a Fundamentialist Christians demanding you produce proof of God's non-existence? It's the same thing.

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM!!
NOT ME!!

YOU CLAIM THE NON-MATERIAL EXISTS.
YET YOU NOW CLAIM THAT THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE FOR IT!!!!!!!!

I am not asking you to prove the non-existence of non-material things.
How can I!

I am asking YOU to provide evidence of the non-material - as YOU are the one claiming it exists.

THAT is the difference.
The religious fundamentalists ask for proof of non-existence.
I am asking YOU for PROOF OF EXISTENCE.

Which you are now admitting can't be done.

(And yet bizarrely you claim that conciousness IS evidence of the non-material!! - Please get your ideas straight!)

Okay, I will if you give me an example in science of evidence that isn't material. Go on just one solitary example.

You just don't understand...

I am asking you for evidence of the non-material!
... and you are now asking me to provide you with evidence that is not material? as if this somehow counters my argument!?

If I could do that - wouldn't I be agreeing that there IS evidence of the non-material????

It is precisely because there IS no evidence of the non-material that all evidence happens to be material.
Science doesn't just arbitrarily discount all evidence that is non-material. It just so happens that there has NOT BEEN ANY NON-MATERIAL EVIDENCE... EVER!!

I refer you to the "How stupid are you?" comment I made earlier.

What you are demanding is fucking insane. It's just like a Christian demanding you prove God doesn't exist. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean he does exist. Just because I can't provide evidence of the immaterial doesn't prove it doesn't.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THE NON-MATERIAL DOES NOT EXIST.

I AM AGNOSTIC IN THE REGARD OF THE NON-MATERIAL.

I HAVE MERELY SAID THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.

 

[grover]

It is precisely because there IS no evidence of the non-material that all evidence happens to be material.
Science doesn't just arbitrarily discount all evidence that is non-material. It just so happens that there has NOT BEEN ANY NON-MATERIAL EVIDENCE... EVER!!

It is impossible to provide evidence for the non-material. It is as impossible as proving something doesn't exist. That simple.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THE NON-MATERIAL DOES NOT EXIST.

I AM AGNOSTIC IN THE REGARD OF THE NON-MATERIAL.

I HAVE MERELY SAID THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Well we more or less agree here. When I say that consciousness is self-evidently immaterial what I am saying is this...does it not seem to you that consciousness is a phenomena that is different than physical phenomena? It has no physical characteristics whatsoever (you can't touch it, smell it, measure it, weigh it etc.,) yet we know it is a real phenomena because all of us have direct experience of it. The only way we know it is real is by having direct experience of it. Does that make sense? It doesn't appear to be simply physical because it doesn't have physical characteristics yet we know it exists. I don't think it's true to say it is physical, if it were we would be able to touch it, smell it, or measure it in someway, but we can't. Does that not seem significant to you? To me consciousenss seems to be immaterial but maybe it would be more accurate for me to say consciousness is mysterious and defies categorization as either material or immaterial.

 

[KennyJC]

We know that when a heart contracts it causes a pulse. We on the other hand have no idea how the brain produces consciousness. The only way we know we are conscious is the self-evidence of consciousness.

We know how hearts produce a pulse. Tell me specifically how the brain produces consciousness. Because you huys make this claim and seem to be saying "it just does." If that's not your stance then tell me how exactly ther brain produces consciousness.

There is no reason to believe that consciousness is independent of our brains, and every reason to suggest that it is. Science can detail a hell of a lot about the brain, including higher order attributes of consciousness, and that in itself is evidence that the brain and consciousness are physically linked (besides using at-a-glance common sense).

Just look at the correlation in other life between complexity of brain that matches complexity of consciousness. Same goes for children whose conscious attributes develope as they grow. Humans only have a higher degree of consciousness than other animals because certain parts of our brain are more evolved. It really is more empirical than you'd think.

There is no controversey on this issue in neuroscience, and claptrap by god fearing folk saying consciousness is immaterial is just blantantly stupid and ignorant.

 

[grover]

There is no reason to believe that consciousness is independent of our brains, and every reason to suggest that it is. Science can detail a hell of a lot about the brain, including higher order attributes of consciousness, and that in itself is evidence that the brain and consciousness are physically linked (besides using at-a-glance common sense).

I am not claiming that there is no connection between mind and brain. I am claimming that mind appears to be a differnet order of phenomena than physical things (which is why none of the normal physical categories apply to mind.) This seems to be the central issue of consciousness.

Just look at the correlation in other life between complexity of brain that matches complexity of consciousness. Same goes for children whose conscious attributes develope as they grow. Humans only have a higher degree of consciousness than other animals because certain parts of our brain are more evolved. It really is more empirical than you'd think.

Yes conscious attributes (i.e., they become smarter), but does consciousness itself actually change. My consciousness has always been the same even if the contents of consciousness have changed. Intelligence and consciousness are two different things. We know we are smarter than animals but we have no idea to what degree animals are conscious. The only way to be sure f consciousness is to directly experience it. We have no way of measuring it (that to me seems really significant).

There is no controversey on this issue in neuroscience, and claptrap by god fearing folk saying consciousness is immaterial is just blantantly stupid and ignorant.

That is patently false. Find me one peer-reviewed article in which a test has been performed in which the hypothesis has been supported that consciosness is an emmergent phenomenon. You won't find one because there aren't any, which means it isn't science. It is just a philosophical position clothed in a bunch scientifc sounding claptrap, which makes it psuedo-science with as much validity as intelligent design. Of course, it would be very easy to prove me wrong...just find one test thats been done that supports the hypothesis in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[Sarkus]

It is impossible to provide evidence for the non-material. It is as impossible as proving something doesn't exist. That simple.

Now you're getting somewhere.

If you start with the two assumptions:
It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.
It is not possible to prove that something is immaterial.

Note then how these two become synonymous.

Is immaterial = does not exist.

This is deduction from your own words, on the two claims you have made.
I know it is flawed - as you have yet to actually prove that "it is impossible to prove something is immaterial".

I make no such claim. I just claim that there hasn't yet been any evidence.

Well we more or less agree here.

I don't think it's true to say it is physical, if it were we would be able to touch it, smell it, or measure it in someway, but we can't. Does that not seem significant to you?

Don't get me wrong - "consciousness" is a remarkable thing.
But all the evidence points to the fact that it is entirely derived from the complexity of our brain - from the purely physical interactions that go on within our heads.
Remove head - remove consciousness.
In this regard "consciousness" is just a word we use to describe a certain property of our brain - a property that is driven and derived from physical interactions.

Just as a building has "height". But what is "height"? What is it made up of?
Nothing, so it is immaterial?
No - it is a word to describe a property derived and driven by the purely physical. And as such, "height" is purely physical. It is not an "immaterial" thing.

To me consciousenss seems to be immaterial but maybe it would be more accurate for me to say consciousness is mysterious and defies categorization as either material or immaterial.

Have you been smoking from the LG tree? Are you actually LG in a different guise???
He is the only other person on this site I know that uses the same terminology as you: "mysterious" etc.
Or maybe it is just a result of similar "training"?

Anyhoo - I agree that consciousness is a... bizarre... thing.
And it certainly could help in its study, and the study of behaviour, to treat it as a separate thing (a Dualist approach).
It might also be an irreducible property - i.e. not visible once you reduce it to a sum of the mere parts.

But that is a far cry from calling it "immaterial", and it certainly isn't evidence for it.