Evidence

[Wondering1701]

The Modal Ontological Argument

I'd never heard of the Modal Ontological Argument, so I looked it up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that it can hardly be called an argument. The line of reasoning goes something like this:
1. God must exist.
2. If God must exist, then he does exist (and in every possible world!).
3. God exists.
4. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that God exists.
Okay... well... what? How is that even an argument?

The concept of "the more complicated something is, the better chances of it being created" only works for created things. God was not created, so this line of reasoning doesn't apply to him.

You're missing my point. If it is possible for God to just exist, why isn't possible for the much simpler beings God created to just exist? If just existing is okay, why introduce the concept of God at all? All it does is complicate matters further.

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay... what? I'm sorry, but I don't think this really has anything to do with what I said. I'm not asking whether the Universe is sentient. I want to know how people can believe that they have the right impression of god when nearly everybody else has a very different idea.

I was expanding my own views based on what you said. It wasn't an attempt to refute anything you said.

 

[George-ananda]

I very much share your wonder, Wondering. You bring up a question that motivates many atheists to come to boards like this in order to try to understand what appears to be a very common delusion in the people around us. "Faith" is not an answer, because it can be an excuse to maintain any belief at all. Faith of the religious sort is simply the position that evidence has no bearing on whether the belief is held to be credible. In reality, we believe in a lot of things--maybe most things--without having a lot of evidence to shore up the belief, but most such beliefs are accessible to evidential review. Religious faith is often explicitly exempted from that type of review.

If you pay attention to religious behavior, you will find that a lot of it is devoted to belief maintenance. Religious devotees spend inordinate amounts of time in meditation, prayer, self-deprivation, and devotional exercises that seem designed to keep the mind doubt-free ("Keep the faith!"). Other kinds of belief are not accompanied by that kind of behavior. For example, you won't find scientists fasting in order to demonstrate their commitment to belief in the Higgs Boson. Historians do not repeat mantras that assure themselves of the existence of Julius Caesar.

In the end, though, I think that most people of faith believe that they have looked at the world around them and found enough "evidence" to justify their commitment to their religious point of view. It is not as if they actually believe deep down that no evidence is required. Miracles constitute evidence. Catholic churches--especially old ones--might have religious relics that represent a concrete tie to the past. The Shroud of Turin is important to a lot of Christians. You don't have to be an eyewitness to a miracle in order to believe that it took place. After all, how many people have actually seen the rings of Saturn through a telescope? We trust in what books and scientists tell us. Folks of religious belief put their trust in sources of information that you or I find very difficult to trust. Why? Because they get something in return for that trust that you and I feel we don't need or that we cannot reconcile with other fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality.

What do say though to people like me, that have concluded after decades of study of the so-called unexplained/paranormal that the western atheistic-materialist paradigm can't be correct either. You might be falling into the Dawkins' trap of thinking that arguments against faith (which I'll grant have some validity) are actually arguments FOR atheism. They're just arguments against faith, I say.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't find it compelling because it raises more questions than answers. He talks about the complexity of the eye in his book, but in order to get to the point where you an eye for sight, you have to have a brain. So what came first, the brain or the eye? What came first, the stomach or the appetite?...

You seem to think that you are asking difficult questions, but the answers are all fairly obvious. Not all organisms with brains have eyes. Organisms without eyes can react to light in various ways.

I find it rather astonishing that people can believe that everything came from a singularity (or whatever theory you hold to) and this blind, unintelligible, and unguided process that followed resulted in all this human intelligence and specified complexity that we have in this world. Yet somehow people think that it takes so much faith to believe in God? Have you (in general) really sat down and analyzed your position and what it would mean to say that "God doesn't exist"?

Yes, I have, and I am likewise stunned by your belief in an undetectable superbeing that planned and created the universe. However, I have faith that we can both recover from the shock of encountering each other on the same planet.

I wouldn't say "false", but I would say less plausible than its opposition. That is like taking a monkey and locking it in a room for a week with a paint brush and paint, only to return to the room and find out the monkey has painted a picture of George Washington and his troops crossing the Delaware River. That is rather unplausible, right? I find that more plausible than someone believing that the universe came from a non-intellectual entity which mysterious gave rise to complex matter over billions of years which resulted in the specified complexity we see with us today; from the complexity of the DNA code, from the complexity of the human body, and the concept of the human mind.

I agree with you that the monkey story is implausible. Locking a monkey in a room with a paintbrush for a week is not quite analogous to the evolution of biological organisms over eons, but I am doubtful that you are open to looking at where the analogy breaks down. We can agree that plausibility is important to the discussion, but perhaps not on what is actually plausible. Dawkins devoted an entire book to the subject of your concern: Climbing Mount Improbable.

No doubt Dawkins and others have tried really hard to come up with naturalistic explanations, but quite frankly I don't think those explanations are enough. When you take away the fluff and feathers and all of the technical babble...and once the smoke clears we are basically left with the concept of "Given enough time, anything could have happened". That is why all of these changes takes so long, billions and billions of years. It is almost as if theists worship God, while naturalists worship time lol.

Actually, that isn't Dawkins' argument. You clearly do not understand it. Evolution can work very quickly, depending on the speed of self-replication. For example, we are all familiar with the fact that bacteria can evolve to survive antibiotic treatments. Human evolution takes a long time, because it takes a long time for babies to mature into adults and have more babies. We have overwhelming evidence that that is exactly how we evolved and that the Earth has been around long enough for evolution to work. However, nobody is arguing that "Given enough time, anything could have happened." The argument is that what has happened has had sufficient time to happen. That is what makes it a plausible argument.

If you are referring to his Modal Ontological Argument, tell me which premises you disagree with.

There are quite a few flaws in the argument, but the biggest one is the initial assumption that God exists. Once you buy that assumption, it is easy to prove that God exists. However, the only way to introduce that assumption and not drive the audience away is to use fancy expressions like "necessary being", which presuppose the conclusion. Plantinga's use of modal logic may look more impressive than Anselm's discredited attempt to define God into existence, but it is really the same flawed argument that perfection entails existence.

Most such arguments are really attempts to prove the "deist" god, not the one depicted in religious scripture such as the various versions of the Bible. However, his arguments failed even at that.

And that is why as a Christian I use the argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus to point DIRECTLY to the Christian God, so there are no if's, and's, or but's about it.

You can assert anything you please. The argument still has no connection to any god at all. You can just skip gods and make the argument that only physical existence is "necessary". We can already see how simple processes interact in nature to produce more complex ones, so it isn't necessary to posit a super-complex being in order to explain the existence of complexity in nature. The only argument you have against it is your personal incredulity, although you are quite willing to suspend incredulity when it comes to God.

The kalam cosmological argument, my favorite, doesn't state that everything was created. The argument states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God wasn't caused, so therefore God wasn't created.

By claiming God wasn't caused, you assume your conclusion. Not an impressive argument.

If a physical reality has always existed in some form or another, that would mean that time is infinite and the past is eternal. Due to philosophical arguments against this concept that cant be the case. You will also have the problem with thermodynamics if you postulate a past eternal cosmos. These problems must be addressed before you logically hold to such positions.

First of all, physical reality is not necessarily the same as the observable universe, so let's not conflate the two. Secondly, your criticism actually destroys your own position. If anything is infinite and eternal, then that "anything" can just be physical reality. No infinite, eternal "god" is necessary. Don't criticize others for failing to address issues that you yourself refuse to address.

 

[Copernicus]

What do say though to people like me, that have concluded after decades of study of the so-called unexplained/paranormal that the western atheistic-materialist paradigm can't be correct either. You might be falling into the Dawkins' trap of thinking that arguments against faith (which I'll grant have some validity) are actually arguments FOR atheism. They're just arguments against faith, I say.

Why do you refer to it as the "Western atheistic-materialist paradigm"? Are you not familiar with the Lokayata/Charvaka schools of atheistic materialism that existed in ancient India? Religious skepticism has been around since religious faith has been around, and it is not limited to any particular cultural outlook. TBH, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "atheistic-materialist paradigm", so don't jump to any conclusions about me that are based on your understanding of that paradigm. As for Dawkins, I think that he has made compelling arguments to reject belief in gods as we conventionally think of them, not just arguments against faith. He makes a very good case that gods are highly implausible beings, which is the most we can ask of anyone who argues for atheism.

 

[Windwalker]

As for Dawkins, I think that he has made compelling arguments to reject belief in gods as we conventionally think of them, not just arguments against faith. He makes a very good case that gods are highly implausible beings, which is the most we can ask of anyone who argues for atheism.

When rationalist science argues against mythic religion, that's not making a case against faith or beliefs. That's easy pickings. What would be far more challenging would be for him to argue against rational religions. He doesn't do this, as far as I've seen. Not much money in books that requires some real thinking. Shooting fish in a barrel is much more appealing to the masses, for some reason.

 

[Copernicus]

When rationalist science argues against mythic religion, that's not making a case against faith or beliefs. That's easy pickings. What would be far more challenging would be for him to argue against rational religions. He doesn't do this, as far as I've seen. Not much money in books that requires some real thinking. Shooting fish in a barrel is much more appealing to the masses, for some reason.

Rationalist science does not argue against religion of any kind. It is neutral on the subject. People might argue that scientific methods can be used to argue against religion, but that is another matter. I have no idea what you consider a "rational religion" to be. Perhaps Dawkins has not been interested in addressing your concerns.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why do you refer to it as the "Western atheistic-materialist paradigm"? Are you not familiar with the Lokayata/Charvaka schools of atheistic materialism that existed in ancient India? Religious skepticism has been around since religious faith has been around, and it is not limited to any particular cultural outlook. TBH, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "atheistic-materialist paradigm", so don't jump to any conclusions about me that are based on your understanding of that paradigm. As for Dawkins, I think that he has made compelling arguments to reject belief in gods as we conventionally think of them, not just arguments against faith. He makes a very good case that gods are highly implausible beings, which is the most we can ask of anyone who argues for atheism.

Dawkins is just a human being like anyone of us; he could make mistakes as we all do, and if he makes a mistake, one should not believe him or follow him.

I think atheists have built a faith in him.

 

[Windwalker]

Rationalist science does not argue against religion of any kind. It is neutral on the subject.

Then why is Richard Dawkins so popular with the neo-atheists? Why right a book called brazenly called "The God Delusion", as be seen as some sort of authority on the matter because he is a scientist? What in the hell does he know of religion? All he attacks is mythic religion using rationality. That's like a college student attacking a grade-schooler and puffing his chest proudly at his achievement. It's pathetic.

I will grant that he certainly should refute the nonsense that comes out of the Answers in Genesis crowd, as that is factually wrong about matters of science. But then what is he doing going one step further and claiming religion is defined as those fringe jobs? That's not very rational at all on his part. It's not only not scientific, its bad reasoning altogether. It's equally as fundamentalist thinking as those he attacks. It's like a college student acting like a grade-schooler himself.

I have no idea what you consider a "rational religion" to be. Perhaps Dawkins has not been interested in addressing your concerns.

I doubt Dawkins even fathoms them considering the level of his rhetoric. And what you could call a "rational religion" is one that is compatible with using logic and reason, even though the substance of that is itself something different. Mythic religions take the symbols of myth literally, a real ark, real frogs from a real sky falling, real parting of the red sea, etc. A more rational religion understanding the nature of mythology as pointing to something beyond the "facts". All Dawkins sees religion is is that mythic-literal religion. It's beneath of reasoning mind to waste its time "debunking" something so obvious. But then, I'm sure his publishers encourage him to stir the fire to sell books. Maybe he is smarter than this?

 

[Copernicus]

Dawkins is just a human being like anyone of us; he could make mistakes as we all do, and if he makes a mistake, one should not believe him or follow him.

What I see you saying here is that no human being should follow any other human being, since we all make mistakes.

I think atheists have built a faith in him.

I must admit that he has never answered any of my prayers. It's pretty darned frustrating.

Windwalker and paarsurrey, much as I would like to continue defending the noble Richard Dawkins, I don't want to derail the thread on a debate over the merits of his stance on science and atheism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was defending your field against someone who made the accusation that science seeks to disprove God.

Science doesn't seek anything. Over the past several years I've noticed two things. One is the way in which people (religious or not) understand science as a unified entity in a way that it is not. Another is how much of a disconnect exists between widespread conceptions of how scientific knowledge is advanced or improved, and what actually happens. So, for example:

The scientific community as a whole, however, really does work the advancement of human knowledge.

this is true. No matter the field, the aim is to increase knowledge. Of course, that is also true of Buddhist monks, historians, conspiracy theorists, and mathematicians. It is very easy to differentiate the empiricism of Science from other methods of advancing human knowledge so long as one depicts Science as having any such method. It doesn't. It doesn't because for any given field (or area of research) there may be methods that completely differ in any number of important ways from some set of methods in another field. And within a field, the same methods can yield evidence that is interpreted in radically different ways.

There are peer-reviewed journals by qualified scientists that continually publish things on the scientific basis of acupuncture, ESP or other parapsychology, and alternative medicine in general. Scientists who work in medical, behavioral, and other related sciences who do not consider these studies as anything other than bad research do not publish in them. Nor do they typically read them. Sometimes, thankfully, mainstream scientists will conduct meta-reviews or similar studies on the problems with experimental design, with the interpretations, with the statistical techniques used, or some combination of all of the above. And I believe such criticisms are accurate. I think that bad research has created "evidence" that only reflects the problems with the methodologies employed and/or interpretations of the result.

That's because I have a certain standard for what I consider to be evidence. I think that an enormous amount of research in the social and behavioral sciences (and their offspring) is seriously flawed. Current tools used across a wide-variety of fields, from cognitive neuropsychology to consumer sciences and beyond, enable people who have no real understanding of mathematics to employ extremely sophisticated analyses that look impressive. It's garbage, but it has many fancy terms and lots of numbers.

When you talk about credible evidence, you will find that people differ greatly on what this means. And you will find that within any science, a particular theoretical framework guides not just the interpretation of evidence, but its production. If, for example, I believe that all thought is the manipulation of arbitrary symbols according to algorithms which can be implemented on any number of devices, from brains to a some single-state stochastic machine far less advanced that your average smartphone, I am not likely to delve into the ways in which abstract thought may be grounded in non-trivial ways in sensory and motor experience and processes. I am likely to think the algorithms are far more important than anything else (such as the implementation device).

If I believe that any model of some biological system should have a one-to-one relation between the characteristics and specifications of the model and particular states, processes, and elements of the system, I am likely to find systems biology a step in the wrong direction.

In other words:
1) All research in any given science relies on particular frameworks. These frameworks are used not only to interpret evidence in one way rather than another, but also to produce particular evidence because these frameworks exist largely as a set (in the mathematical sense) of some hypotheses and not others.
2) These epistemological frameworks are frequently at least partly ideological. Einstein did not dedicate years of his life trying to show quantum physics wasn't physics (or at best is just what we have until we can make it into physics) because of some idle curiosity. His opposition to these non-physical "systems" dwelling in some abstract mathematical space was ideological. "God does not play dice" certainly wasn't actually related to religion or any God at all, but it was an expression of how Einstein understood, at a very fundamental and personal level, what reality is.
3) Evidence is relative. There are numerous journals out there (and I do not mean "creation science" journals, in that these journals do have certain standards and have at times produced important research) which I find to lack what is needed for their "evidence" to be considered evidence of anything.

It works to find the truth. In what way did I tell you what it is you do?

This still has virtually nothing to do with what I said originally. However, you make it sound like scientists are actively trying to debunk the existence of god. Really, they're just trying to figure out the truth. Unsurprisingly, those things look very similar.

If we gloss over the seeming contrast between me and "scientists", we're still left with what "scientists" are trying to do. Saying that scientists are trying to figure out the truth is, on the surface, simply to say scientists are human. On a deeper level, it is to create a fictitious entity united by a quest for some truth in ways that non-scientists are not.

Do you know how many studies have been conducted and published and which try to show the ways in which religious people have any number of a wide range of negative traits? They resemble the ways in which scientists use to "research" not only ways in which the "inferior" races were inferior, but what to do about it.


The entire field of psychiatry as it has existed since the 80s was motivated by one of the most successful business maneuvers I've ever heard of.
They recovered memory movement in psychology tore lives apart, ruined reputations, and permanently scarred the minds of many people.
These and other examples are still quests for the truth (at least mostly), but they are motivated by ideological and other concerns far more than some noble quest of The Scientist, stalwart warrior of Truth and Objectivity

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'd never heard of the Modal Ontological Argument, so I looked it up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that it can hardly be called an argument. The line of reasoning goes something like this:
1. God must exist.
2. If God must exist, then he does exist (and in every possible world!).
3. God exists.
4. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that God exists.
Okay... well... what? How is that even an argument?

Not at all. Look up Plantiga's Modal version

You're missing my point. If it is possible for God to just exist, why isn't possible for the much simpler beings God created to just exist? If just existing is okay, why introduce the concept of God at all? All it does is complicate matters further.

Because things that are created can't "just" exists, their existence is contingent while God's existence is necessary.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You seem to think that you are asking difficult questions, but the answers are all fairly obvious.

Well, why didn't you proceed to address the questions one by one if the answer is so obvious?

Not all organisms with brains have eyes. Organisms without eyes can react to light in various ways.

Well, then I am not talking about the organism that don't, but the ones that do. We can just start with mankind. If the human eye/sight is dependent upon the brain, what came first, the brain or the eye?

Yes, I have, and I am likewise stunned by your belief in an undetectable superbeing that planned and created the universe. However, I have faith that we can both recover from the shock of encountering each other on the same planet.

Whats wrong with belief in a "superbeing" that planned and created the universe? How is that more plausible than a universe that expanded from a singularity that DIDN'T plan to create anything, yet everything was created?

I agree with you that the monkey story is implausible. Locking a monkey in a room with a paintbrush for a week is not quite analogous to the evolution of biological organisms over eons, but I am doubtful that you are open to looking at where the analogy breaks down.

Yet, the monkey has a brain. Evolution doesn't. You think that it is unlikely for the monkey to create the painting (which is designed), but unlikely for evolution to create these specified changes that gave rise to the product of the human body (and otherwise) that we see today. Evolution has no mind, no intellect, no vision...yet we happen to have all of this complexity, and even a mind ourselves. How the heck can something with no mind create a mind? How can something with no intellect create beings with intellect?

We can agree that plausibility is important to the discussion, but perhaps not on what is actually plausible. Dawkins devoted an entire book to the subject of your concern: Climbing Mount Improbable.

I will read it when Dawkins stop running from the chance to debate Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig has already criticized Dawkins' book The God Delusion in public and on paper and he is just itching to debate Dawkins, but Dawkins just keeps on running. Why?

Actually, that isn't Dawkins' argument. You clearly do not understand it. Evolution can work very quickly, depending on the speed of self-replication.

Evolution can work very quickly? Have you ever seen an animal produce an different kind of animal? Such as a dog producing a non-dog? Uh oh, here we go....

For example, we are all familiar with the fact that bacteria can evolve to survive antibiotic treatments. Human evolution takes a long time, because it takes a long time for babies to mature into adults and have more babies. We have overwhelming evidence that that is exactly how we evolved and that the Earth has been around long enough for evolution to work. However, nobody is arguing that "Given enough time, anything could have happened." The argument is that what has happened has had sufficient time to happen. That is what makes it a plausible argument.

The only overwhelming evidence that we have is the fact that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Thats all you ever saw, thats all I ever saw, and thats all anyone has ever saw. When you or someone you know see otherwise, let me know.

There are quite a few flaws in the argument, but the biggest one is the initial assumption that God exists.

No the initial assumption is not that God exist, the initial premise is it is POSSIBLE for God to exist. That is not a flaw, that is simply a possibility; either it is possible for God to exist, or it isn't. The argument states that it is possible for God to exist because there is no logical in-coherency based on the concept of a maximally great being.

Once you buy that assumption, it is easy to prove that God exists.

Your initial statement regarding the MOA was false, which makes the above statement false as well.

However, the only way to introduce that assumption and not drive the audience away is to use fancy expressions like "necessary being" which presuppose the conclusion.

Well, "necessary truths" is a well established concept in philosophy, and the existence of God is either necessary or contingent. The argument states that based on what it means to be a maximally great being, that this kind of existence would in fact be necessary.

You can assert anything you please. The argument still has no connection to any god at all. You can just skip gods and make the argument that only physical existence is "necessary".

But saying physical existence is necessary would be a false statement because physical existence ISN'T necessary. The universe is contingent and everything in it is contingent.

We can already see how simple processes interact in nature to produce more complex ones, so it isn't necessary to posit a super-complex being in order to explain the existence of complexity in nature.

So why don't we know how life can come from non-living material? That hasn't been proven yet in science.

The only argument you have against it is your personal incredulity, although you are quite willing to suspend incredulity when it comes to God.

I go where the evidence takes me.

By claiming God wasn't caused, you assume your conclusion. Not an impressive argument.

To claim that God was caused is giving rise to a infinite cause/effect chain of events extending back to eternal past. As the kalam cosmological argument addresses, an infinite past regressive chain isn't possible. There had to be a Uncaused Cause, and we call this cause God. So this is not a matter of assuming my conclusion, I have logical reasons to draw the conclusion that God was not created. I am not merely just stating it without warrant.

First of all, physical reality is not necessarily the same as the observable universe, so let's not conflate the two.

Well, until we have evidence that there is something beyond the observable universe, there is no need to postulate that there is.

Secondly, your criticism actually destroys your own position. If anything is infinite and eternal, then that "anything" can just be physical reality.

No it can't. Time itself came in to being along with the universe. Time cannot be infinite in its past so there must be a past boundary to time. Second, you will still have the problem with thermodynamics and the second law if you postulate a eternal universe. Third, you can't get consciousness from inanimate objects. Fourth, there is no evidence that there is any universe out there besides our own, so to think otherwise is just pure speculation.

No infinite, eternal "god" is necessary. Don't criticize others for failing to address issues that you yourself refuse to address.

So explain how consciousness found its origins from matter?

 

[George-ananda]

Why do you refer to it as the "Western atheistic-materialist paradigm"?

It is the type of thinking almost universally taken by atheists (such as Dawkins, etc.). For one thing, it includes the reductionist view of consciousness; that all consciousness can ultimately be explained as physical brain activity.

Now from the little I've read from you it seems as though you might fall in this school; so please correct me if I got the wrong impression.

My question that got missed in your response is what does some one like me do when he sees much validity in the arguments against faith made by atheists but also can not accept atheistic-materialism (or give me a better term) when after years of study of the paranormal one concludes that things do occur that could not occur if the atheist-materialist school of thought was really true.

I'm trying to say that people like Dawkins are trying to make the debate atheistic-materialism versus faith-based beliefs. He doesn't seem to me to realize both can be wrong in that debate. I'm trying to argue for a third position; that evidence suggests that we live in a universe mindbogglingly more complex than the atheistic-material paradigm allows and that concepts like consciousness being more than brain activity are suggested by evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I go where the evidence takes me.

Going where the evidence takes you doesn't mean squat if you are only looking for evidence to prove what you believed to begin with. You talk about cosmology and how "absurd" various notions are, yet I can't recall you ever citing a single text on cosmology itself. You talk about the absurdities of "actual" infinities in "real life", but you do not say a words about their use even when it comes to physical systems in quantum physics. You talk about modal arguments, but I've never even seen you make a single formal modal argument, produce any derivation, or in any way do more than parrot other people's work.

I can easily "go where the evidence leads me" and "find" that religious people are inferior in numerous ways. All I'd have to do is go looking for the evidence (it is there), and refuse to think critically about it.

 

[Copernicus]

It is the type of thinking almost universally taken by atheists (such as Dawkins, etc.). For one thing, it includes the reductionist view of consciousness; that all consciousness can ultimately be explained as physical brain activity.

Now from the little I've read from you it seems as though you might fall in this school; so please correct me if I got the wrong impression.

You have gotten the wrong impression. I believe that there is a difference between brain activity and the mind. However, I believe that all mental functions depend on (i.e. are caused by) brain activity. That certainly includes what most of us think of as "consciousness", since it waxes and wanes predictably enough when brain activity is affected by physical events. Emergent systemic phenomena should not be confused with the physical substrate that the system depends on for its existence.

My question that got missed in your response is what does some one like me do when he sees much validity in the arguments against faith made by atheists but also can not accept atheistic-materialism (or give me a better term) when after years of study of the paranormal one concludes that things do occur that could not occur if the atheist-materialist school of thought was really true.

George, I hate to sound flippant, but that is really your problem. I do not see any such validity. You do. I'm happy to discuss these issues with you and compare experiences and opinions, because you sound like an intelligent, thoughtful person. I'm not going to ask you how I should deal with the fact of reality as you perceive it, because I don't agree with your perception.

I'm trying to say that people like Dawkins are trying to make the debate atheistic-materialism versus faith-based beliefs. He doesn't seem to me to realize both can be wrong in that debate. I'm trying to argue for a third position; that evidence suggests that we live in a universe mindbogglingly more complex than the atheistic-material paradigm allows and that concepts like consciousness being more than brain activity are suggested by evidence.

Actually, I think that Dawkins understands mindboggling complexity and accepts the fact that he doesn't have all the answers. He has said so often enough. Perhaps he, like me, believes that consciousness evolved as brains grew in complexity. Brains are guidance systems for moving bodies, which need to be able to predict future events in order to keep those bodies healthy and alive long enough to reproduce copies of themselves. Being able to compare past events with present sensations and predict future events is a definite survival advantage for bodies that move about. That's why animals have brains (because they move) and plants do not (because they don't move). Consciousness of one's surroundings and the ability to imagine the future are very helpful abilities for animals like us to possess.

 

[George-ananda]

You have gotten the wrong impression. I believe that there is a difference between brain activity and the mind. However, I believe that all mental functions depend on (i.e. are caused by) brain activity. That certainly includes what most of us think of as "consciousness", since it waxes and wanes predictably enough when brain activity is affected by physical events. Emergent systemic phenomena should not be confused with the physical substrate that the system depends on for its existence.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think my impression was generally wrong. You're still espousing what I call by the imperfect term materialism; i.e. there are no super-physical components such as souls/astral bodies/etc..

George, I hate to sound flippant, but that is really your problem. I do not see any such validity. You do. I'm happy to discuss these issues with you and compare experiences and opinions, because you sound like an intelligent, thoughtful person. I'm not going to ask you how I should deal with the fact of reality as you perceive it, because I don't agree with your perception.

I've been a student of the paranormal for a long time and am convinced things happen that could not happen if the 'materialist' worldview is correct. I'm sure this will be the irreconcilable difference between us.

Actually, I think that Dawkins understands mindboggling complexity and accepts the fact that he doesn't have all the answers. He has said so often enough.

But he certainly does not accept that there are mind-boggling super-physical components to conscience. He has the common irrational resistance to the paranormal. He wants to dismiss it all so badly because the materialist's view seems so logical that he can't look at the paranormal with true open-mindedness. That's my view of so-called skeptics after years of watching the debates.

 

[Copernicus]

I understand what you're saying but I don't think my impression was generally wrong. You're still espousing what I call by the imperfect term materialism; i.e. there are no super-physical components such as souls/astral bodies/etc.

I think that the term 'materialism' is loaded, but you are correct in the perception that I do not believe in super-physical components like astral bodies, etc. I find no reason to credit the existence of such things and some reason to reject the claims of those who do believe in their existence.

I've been a student of the paranormal for a long time and am convinced things happen that could not happen if the 'materialist' worldview is correct. I'm sure this will be the irreconcilable difference between us.

If I could read your mind, I might have access to all of that experience. As things stand, I can only base my opinions on my own experiences.

But he certainly does not accept that there are mind-boggling super-physical components to conscience. He has the common irrational resistance to the paranormal. He wants to dismiss it all so badly because the materialist's view seems so logical that he can't look at the paranormal with true open-mindedness. That's my view of so-called skeptics after years of watching the debates.

We all have our different views of such things. I would call Dawkins' skepticism quite rational and your own lack of skepticism irrational. That's my view of so-called believers after decades of watching debates.

 

[George-ananda]

We all have our different views of such things. I would call Dawkins' skepticism quite rational and your own lack of skepticism irrational.

Why do you say that I lack skepticism? We should all be skeptics. I certainly do not believe everything I hear. Skepticism does not mean that you can not believe anything that has been labeled 'paranormal'. Skepticism means that you intelligently challenge things with an open-mind.

Show me where I'm being 'irrational' (as you put it).

'Skepticism', as the term has come to be known in current debates, has been hi-jacked by a certain group of atheist-materialists whose only interest in the paranormal seems to be to find ways to attack and dismiss it. I'm sure they claim open-mindedness but I have found they are closed-minded with an emotional vehemence against the implications of the paranormal for their world-view.

That's my view of so-called believers after decades of watching debates.

What, that we're 'irrational' for our lack of skepticism?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why do you say that I lack skepticism? We should all be skeptics. I certainly do not believe everything I hear. Skepticism does not mean that you can not believe anything that has been labeled 'paranormal'. Skepticism means that you intelligently challenge things with an open-mind.

Show me where I'm being 'irrational' (as you put it).

'Skepticism', as the term has come to be known in current debates, has been hi-jacked by a certain group of atheist-materialists whose only interest in the paranormal seems to be to find ways to attack and dismiss it. I'm sure they claim open-mindedness but I have found they are closed-minded with an emotional vehemence against the implications of the paranormal for their world-view.



What, that we're 'irrational' for our lack of skepticism?

That is quite OK; there is no harm in it.