Christianity Continues Decline in America: Pew Survey Results

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am quite capable, just not interested enough in the challenge you do not provide.

You could start by explaining your reasoning.

 

[LuisDantas]

Absolutely, they are tied together. I think that both consciousness and matter both probably come from another source, but they are distinct in their own way from each other.

I don't know, I think whatever perception our ears pick up is different in different mediums. But there is no such thing as sound in physical reality. There are simply different mediums for our perception, which gives rise to sound.

Maybe it is a language issue? Sound absolutely exists in physical reality.

 

[MD]

Maybe it is a language issue? Sound absolutely exists in physical reality.

Sound is a vibration of particles, but the word 'sound' is the perception we have of those vibrations.

It does not exist in physical reality at all.

 

[dust1n]

Maybe it is a language issue? Sound absolutely exists in physical reality.

"Sound" as in compression waves through matter absolutely exists in physical space. "Sound" as in the visceral experience one has when compression waves hit their ear bones and stimulate nerves I'm not sure resides in absolute physical space, but it is certainly contingent on a lot of things regarding physical space.

 

[Bunyip]

while Christianity grows in Russia, China, it's interesting how faith tends to track with a nation's ascendancy and decline

Russia is declining and China remains atheist, you need to rethink that claim.

 

[lovemuffin]

I am quite capable, just not interested enough in the challenge you do not provide.

On this general topic of debate ( the "truth" or validity of spiritual experience) I attempted to provide a somewhat broad outline of an argument in a one-on-one debate thread I did with red economist: Well Named and Red Economist: Does "spiritual" knowledge exist? | ReligiousForums.com

It's too long to incorporate here, and off topic, but it would at least be a challenge to read, if only because I'm not good at getting to the point I can only speak for myself, but it's something I am interested in discussing more broadly.

 

[Sapiens]

I will give it a read.

 

[sun rise]

On this general topic of debate ( the "truth" or validity of spiritual experience) I attempted to provide a somewhat broad outline of an argument in a one-on-one debate thread I did with red economist: Well Named and Red Economist: Does "spiritual" knowledge exist? | ReligiousForums.com

It's too long to incorporate here, and off topic, but it would at least be a challenge to read, if only because I'm not good at getting to the point I can only speak for myself, but it's something I am interested in discussing more broadly.

I skimmed/fast read that thread and wanted to note your post #19 - about the universality of the experience and the different interpretations put on the experience. When I read the words of Meher Baba, Ramakrishna, Jesus, St. Francis of Assisi, the Baal Shem Tov, Kabir, Rama, Buddha, Muhammad and so forth, I find the same essential message given with different words in different eras and with due allowances for how others might have changed the original words.

But in spite of historical distortions, you can find this message in words similar and different to Kabir's:

Does Khuda live in the mosque?
Then who who lives everywhere?
Is Ram in idols and holy ground?
Have you looked and found him there?
Hari in the East, Allah in the West -
So you like to dream.
Search in the heart, in the heart alone:
There live Ram and Karim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Religious messages are supposed to resemble each other, IMO. They do, after all, arise from the needs of rather similar people living in the same ecosphere under the same physical laws.

 

[FTNZ]

That well-to-do people are too busy distracting themselves with material pleasures to give thanks to God? Um, we already know about that phenomenon. It's a very ancient trend and the Biblical writers knew about it. After all, there's nothing new under the sun (and guess where that came from ).

I'm not sure this explanation is the best that contemporary researchers can some up with.

BTW I quite like the book of Ecclesiastes, there's nothing in there that conflicts with my worldview. It also seems out of place with the rest of the bible, but that's not unusual.

 

[sun rise]

Religious messages are supposed to resemble each other, IMO. They do, after all, arise from the needs of rather similar people living in the same ecosphere under the same physical laws.

We get to the area of belief. My belief is that the messages come from a divine source to meet the similar needs of people.

 

[LuisDantas]

We get to the area of belief. My belief is that the messages come from a divine source to meet the similar needs of people.

I might actually agree with that. While making a point to state that the source is divine because people decree it to be. I may be literally unable of believing in deities as anything but human creations.

Of course, I don't see that as a problem, but rather an advantage. Make of that what you will.

 

[sun rise]

I might actually agree with that. While making a point to state that the source is divine because people decree it to be. I may be literally unable of believing in deities as anything but human creations.

Of course, I don't see that as a problem, but rather an advantage. Make of that what you will.

I personally prefer the company of honorable atheists who believe in truth, justice, beauty and love as worthwhile in and of themselves compared to fundamentalists who are totally certain they have a monopoly on virtue and the rest of us are damned. Of course, some atheists are convinced that they alone have the truth and the believers are stupid idiots. But the basic idea works for me.

And whatever the Truth is, people do create mental images of what they believe God to be.

 

[FTNZ]

I personally prefer the company of honorable atheists who believe in truth, justice, beauty and love as worthwhile in and of themselves compared to fundamentalists who are totally certain they have a monopoly on virtue and the rest of us are damned. Of course, some atheists are convinced that they alone have the truth and the believers are stupid idiots. But the basic idea works for me.

And whatever the Truth is, people do create mental images of what they believe God to be.

I personally prefer the company of honorable people who believe in truth, justice, beauty and love as worthwhile in and of themselves compared to people who are totally certain they have a monopoly on virtue and the rest of us are damned. Of course, some people are convinced that they alone have the truth and others are stupid idiots. But the basic idea works for me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Chalmers came up with the Hard Problem dude, he basically started this whole thing.
Koch is a panpsychist and he has expressed this repeatedly.
Tononi is most definitely a panpsychist, or more likely an idealist. The first axiom of IIT is that consciousness exists. He has even stated this and Koch published a paper in nature stating that Tononi is an idealist. LOL!
Ramachandran is a neutral monist.
They are all scientists and use empiricism in their fields, but yet they hold philosophical positions which state that consciousness is something 'other'.

I am not denying that empiricism is necessarily to study the brain, but naturalism is not synonymous with empiricism. Get that through your head. Consciousness is a natural phenomenon which is separate from empiricism. And empiricism cannot fully explain consciousness, which is a distinct phenomenon from the brain in many ways.

I spent a good thirty minutes researching on the Internet to find something that any of these people said that seems to fit at all with what you have proposed. I haven't found a single thing. I agree the hard problem exists. I have known about it for years. However the HARD PROBLEM does not allign itself to your assumptions. It is simply a problem. Such as Dark matter or dark energy. It is an unknown and we are still trying to figure out how we can even figure it out.

Please give me some links where they have proposed anything similar to what you have proposed where they attempt to abandon empiricism.

 

[MD]

I spent a good thirty minutes researching on the Internet to find something that any of these people said that seems to fit at all with what you have proposed. I haven't found a single thing. I agree the hard problem exists. I have known about it for years. However the HARD PROBLEM does not allign itself to your assumptions. It is simply a problem. Such as Dark matter or dark energy. It is an unknown and we are still trying to figure out how we can even figure it out.

Please give me some links where they have proposed anything similar to what you have proposed where they attempt to abandon empiricism.

Okay, let's begin from the top.

I never said empiricism should be abandoned, I said that it has its limits. One of the limits is the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem is basically why do we have subjective experience from neuronal signaling, the smell of a rose, the color red, the feelings of love or anger, etc. Okay so these are all internal states of being, which we cannot directly observe but we find some correlates and link it to these states.

Ramachandran is a neutral monist, he believes mind and matter come from some 'other' unknown source. What Chalmers and Koch are saying is that consciousness is a property of the universe, either it exists in all systems sharing information, in systems sharing enough information or it is within the fabric of reality itself. They basically all are saying that mind is separate from matter to some degree because it just 'is'. Now you have physicists like Tegmark saying it is a form of matter or A.I. guys like Kurzweil saying it's information, but those are all false statements because within consciousness you have properties which do not exist in physical reality. Like color, sound, taste, etc.

Here is Koch saying this: Allen Institute’s Christof Koch on Computer Consciousness | MIT Technology Review
"I think consciousness, like mass, is a fundamental property of the universe"

Chalmers: Inside Look: The Hard Problem of Consciousness — The Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and David Chalmers | Philopolis Montréal
"Chalmers suggests that consciousness might be a fundamental property of the universe, like gravity and electromagnetism, which cannot be reduced or explained in more simple properties or elements i.e., through reductionism."

Koch writing on Tononi: Neuroscience: A quest for consciousness
"Tononi, a neuroscien-tist, psychiatrist and expert on sleep and consciousness, is also that rarest of modern scholars — an idealist"

An idealist isn't even saying that matter is fundamental, an idealist says that the mind is. That doesn't get any more challenging to empiricism as this final methodology to study truth.

They all use empirical methods to study the brain, and try to create very close and accurate inferences. But they all recognize that the mind is separate property from the brain to some extent. Even Koch has said publicly that he is a sort of dualist, while some smug materialist tried to put him down. It was rather comical, to see someone ridicule a master of neuroscience because it contradicts his philosophical view.

Here

Go to 27 minutes and see what he's saying.

 

[thau]

If Russia was actually experiencing ascendancy that might be relevant. And while Christianity is growing in China, it is still a tiny percentage of the population. I suspect it won't be allowed to grow much larger.

Which is an interesting factor to note. China will not grow larger because it "won't be allowed." By the regime in charge.

Which says to me this --- if there were a level playing field and all religions were able to show their wares to those interested, Christianity would be the clear victor and religion of choice. It works that way in poor countries. It is the affluent materially focused nations that tend to "lose their religion." Because now they feel less dependent on God to help them attain basic needs in life and a basic level of contentment. They become more self centered.

That is why America, Canada and Western Europe have declined in Christian worship. They have become self-centered, materialistic, hedonistic and do not have time for God. Totally unbelievable to someone like me.

 

[Jumi]

Which says to me this --- if there were a level playing field and all religions were able to show their wares to those interested, Christianity would be the clear victor and religion of choice.

Don't forget that Christianity was also spread by the sword also and for a long time in many countries it was not allowed to be anything but Christian. Some exceptions were made for the older Abrahamics, but even they were sometimes forced to take baptism.

 

[Kirran]

That is why America, Canada and Western Europe have declined in Christian worship. They have become self-centered, materialistic, hedonistic and do not have time for God. Totally unbelievable to someone like me.

As a well-off Western European, who had more exposure to Christianity than any other religion growing up, why do you think I've become Hindu?

 

[thau]

As a well-off Western European, who had more exposure to Christianity than any other religion growing up, why do you think I've become Hindu?

Well no one is implying some go their own way despite the knowledge and exposure given. I still cannot figure out Judas' decision either.