Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Copernicus]

What it comes down to is that stuff exists. Any answers about why this is, are all equally as speculative. The existence of some type of conscious force responsible for the creation of our universe is as plausible as any other explanation based on our current knowledge, so I give it equal weight as a number of other hypothetical scenarios.

Do you accept the principle that explanations requiring the fewest number of assumptions, other things being equal, are more plausible than others? In other words, do you think that Occam's Razor is a valid test in weighing plausibility?

Bottom line is that there is too little information to draw a meaningful conclusion. I don't have enough rational basis for believing in the existence of such an entity, but neither do I have sufficient rational basis for believing that such an entity isn't the explanation for existence.

But you do have enough information to judge whether a speculation requires more or fewer assumptions. When we see intelligent life around us, it is most likely evolved life, not spontaneously created life. If you see a squirrel on your lawn, you have no way of knowing whether it existed before you saw it or not, but you jump to the conclusion that it must have existed before you saw it. Similarly, we see lots of things happening in the universe that we assume just happen without any intelligent intervention to make them happen. We don't know that, but most of us (at least non-religious people) assume it.

Is it equally plausible that physical reality was designed or set in motion by an intelligent being or by unintelligent forces that we simply know next to nothing about? Not all speculation is equally plausible.

 

[atanu]

I see no necessity of any Seer other than myself and other living beings that can see. You are assuming necessity.

I agree that you are the seer. I am not assuming any necessity at all. It is a fact that recursion must be seen to be known.

But are not assuming that there are other seers beside you? Can you prove any one else's existence?

I start with the assumption that I am a temporary aspect of physical reality. I did not exist before I was born, and my continued existence depends on the health of my brain. When my brain dies, I will cease to exist. Reincarnation in any form strikes me as extremely unlikely, since a physical brain is necessary for there to be any form of thought. I do not know this to be the case, but I have every reason to believe that it is the case.

At least you have acknowledged that there is an assumption. Let us call it a hypothesis -- if you agree.

 

[Copernicus]

But are not assuming that there are other seers beside you? Can you prove any one else's existence?

I can to my satisfaction, but that may not be good enough for you.

At least you have acknowledged that there is an assumption. Let us call it a hypothesis -- if you agree.

I agree. Opinions are opinions. The best we can do is have rational policies for choosing between them when they are inconsistent or incompatible.

 

[atanu]

I can to my satisfaction, but that may not be good enough for you.

Yes. It is not good enough. As you have explained there is no objective knowledge, a satisfaction is also subjective.

I agree. Opinions are opinions. The best we can do is have rational policies for choosing between them when they are inconsistent or incompatible.

Rubbing two wooden pieces brought out fire and at some historical time that was the only observation, yet, energy is not considered an emeging property of wood. Why this special treatment to awareness?

Even, if we consider that awareness is created or manifested through some arrangement of matter, we must agree that the awareness was inherent in the system. Awareness cannot develop from no-awareness as energy cannot be created out of no-energy. In Hindu parlance it is said: The truth is not born out of untruth and untruth never becomes truth, which is the most general 'conservation law'..

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is it equally plausible that physical reality was designed or set in motion by an intelligent being or by unintelligent forces that we simply know next to nothing about? Not all speculation is equally plausible.

If you have some sort of magical insight into the true nature of existence I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, anything you speculate about "outside" of our universe is pure speculation.

 

[PolyHedral]

Rubbing two wooden pieces brought out fire and at some historical time that was the only observation, yet, energy is not considered an emeging property of wood. Why this special treatment to awareness?

I suppose, if you wanted to, you could treat the energy of the wood burning as emergent from the structures inside it. (Though it's far more sensible to realise that the wood is composed entirely of energy. It just happens that some of that energy posseses mass. )

Even, if we consider that awareness is created or manifested through some arrangement of matter, we must agree that the awareness was inherent in the system. Awareness cannot develop from no-awareness as energy cannot be created out of no-energy. In Hindu parlance it is said: The truth is not born out of untruth and untruth never becomes truth, which is the most general 'conservation law'..

Awareness is not, as far as I know, conserved. Why would it be? What on earth would that even mean?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Awareness is not, as far as I know, conserved. Why would it be? What on earth would that even mean?

I have to admit that many people seem pretty stingy with using awareness.

 

[atanu]

I suppose, if you wanted to, you could treat the energy of the wood burning as emergent from the structures inside it. (Though it's far more sensible to realise that the wood is composed entirely of energy. It just happens that some of that energy posseses mass. )

I have no disagreement. Good that Eisnstein came before you. I have reasons to believe that mind and matter are subtle and gross forms respectively of consciousness, which is same as existence. Forms-names are everchanging based on the unchanging substratum of consciousness -- just as one may shape and re-shape jewellery with gold.

Let us not argue on this for a few days.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes. It is not good enough. As you have explained there is no objective knowledge, a satisfaction is also subjective.

Indeed, it is one of those subjective experiences that makes life worth living.

Rubbing two wooden pieces brought out fire and at some historical time that was the only observation, yet, energy is not considered an emeging property of wood. Why this special treatment to awareness?

Fire is not an emergent property of wood, but it is an emergent property of the interaction between the wood and oxygen over a specified period of time. Without those ingredients, the fire could not exist. Similarly, without a brain, a mind cannot exist. The analogy breaks down in other ways, but the ephemeral nature of the contingency is what I am focusing on here. Minds most likely cannot exist independently of their "combustible materials".

Even, if we consider that awareness is created or manifested through some arrangement of matter, we must agree that the awareness was inherent in the system. Awareness cannot develop from no-awareness as energy cannot be created out of no-energy. In Hindu parlance it is said: The truth is not born out of untruth and untruth never becomes truth, which is the most general 'conservation law'..

I disagree. I see you as engaging in a radical reductionist argument here. A system is not merely the sum of its parts. It is the specific interaction of those parts within a specified temperature range that causes an emergent phenomenon. That is what gives water the properties that living beings need in order to survive. No-awareness becomes awareness through a process of systemic emergence. When the system breaks down, what emerges from it disappears.

 

[Copernicus]

If you have some sort of magical insight into the true nature of existence I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, anything you speculate about "outside" of our universe is pure speculation.

Well, since you blew off my main argument and basically just repeated your claim, I'll repeat the question that you ignored:

Do you accept the principle that explanations requiring the fewest number of assumptions, other things being equal, are more plausible than others? In other words, do you think that Occam's Razor is a valid test in weighing plausibility?

The point is this: not all speculation is "pure speculation". You might speculate that a a super-intelligent three-horned monster created the universe, but would it be as plausible as the speculation that the universe was created by unreasoning, inanimate forces? I know how I would evaluate the two contradictory speculations. The one that relies on even greater speculation in the form of gratuitous assumptions is the less plausible speculation.

 

[atanu]

Indeed, it is one of those subjective experiences that makes life worth living.

For whom?

Fire is not an emergent property of wood,

I did not talk about fire except as a particular manifest symptom of energy.

I disagree. I see you as engaging in a radical reductionist argument here. A system is not merely the sum of its parts. It is the specific interaction of those parts within a specified temperature range that causes an emergent phenomenon.

I did not say that consciousness is merely sum of all awareness. I am just saying the opposite thing.

How do you explain instinct?

What physico chemical laws describe sexual arousal?

What physico chemical laws explain a development of sperm in body and sperms competing against each other to impregnate the egg?

We know that food and matter affect mind. Aurveda is based on that. But what is pscychsomatic disorder and how conscious meditation or yoga is able to help in such situations? How does biofeedback help? If we are nothing but effects of chemical reactions, then what role the conscious will has to overcome disorders.

On the other hand, is it just determined all by nature's evolving. So, why should anything be important at all. Loot, murder, rape, war are really OK?

What is evolution? Who knows evolution? Is evolution in itself a conscious entity. Did Darwin teach that?
.....

With your assumption, we keep coming back to the metaphor of heroes (me) and villains (all others) of a movie dissecting the movie.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, since you blew off my main argument and basically just repeated your claim, I'll repeat the question that you ignored:

Do you accept the principle that explanations requiring the fewest number of assumptions, other things being equal, are more plausible than others? In other words, do you think that Occam's Razor is a valid test in weighing plausibility?

The point is this: not all speculation is "pure speculation". You might speculate that a a super-intelligent three-horned monster created the universe, but would it be as plausible as the speculation that the universe was created by unreasoning, inanimate forces? I know how I would evaluate the two contradictory speculations. The one that relies on even greater speculation in the form of gratuitous assumptions is the less plausible speculation.

Actually, I didn't ignore it. We have absolutely no information about anything which falls outside the realm of our universe or about the true nature of reality. Any opinions about these things are pure speculation. Unless you have some miraculous insight into why anything exists, any answer you give is equally as speculative.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, I didn't ignore it. We have absolutely no information about anything which falls outside the realm of our universe or about the true nature of reality. Any opinions about these things are pure speculation. Unless you have some miraculous insight into why anything exists, any answer you give is equally as speculative.

Fair enough. I can only conclude that you reject Occam's Razor as a means of judging the plausibility of beliefs. That strikes me as a bizarre position to take, but you seem OK with it. I think it far less likely that a super-intelligent three-horned monster created the universe than that it was the result of unreasoning, inanimate forces. This is not because we have information about pre-universe conditions. It is because it is more reasonable to assume that conditions before the Big Bang were no more in need of an intelligent creator than any other event in the universe we can observe.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is because it is more reasonable to assume that conditions before the Big Bang were no more in need of an intelligent creator than any other event in the universe we can observe.

And you're certainly entitled to that baseless belief. I'm strictly a rational skeptic, so I don't form beliefs about things I have no information about.

 

[Copernicus]

For whom?

I can only speak for myself.

I did not say that consciousness is merely sum of all awareness. I am just saying the opposite thing.

But you are saying that consciousness can exist independently of a brain, are you not?

How do you explain instinct?
What physico chemical laws describe sexual arousal?
What physico chemical laws explain a development of sperm in body and sperms competing against each other to impregnate the egg?

You are asking a lot of questions that science has very good answers for. I am not sure why you are asking the questions, but you seem to think that the answers would establish a point that you wish to make. Could you provide answers and make that point? It might help me to understand what your reasoning is about these matters.

We know that food and matter affect mind. Aurveda is based on that. But what is pscychsomatic disorder and how conscious meditation or yoga is able to help in such situations? How does biofeedback help? If we are nothing but effects of chemical reactions, then what role the conscious will has to overcome disorders.

A lot of scientific research has been done to investigate these matters. The placebo effect has been proven to work. It strengthens the immune system, among other things. Consciousness therefore clearly does play an indirect role in curing some illnesses. We also know that brain activity correlates with consciousness. How does any of this lead you to a different conclusion from the one I have reached--that all mental activity depends on a working brain?

On the other hand, is it just determined all by nature's evolving. So, why should anything be important at all. Loot, murder, rape, war are really OK?

How could you possibly ask that question? Social activity exists throughout nature. You describe antisocial behavior as if it would be favored from the standpoint of natural selection. I have come to the exact opposite conclusion--that good behavior strengthens the social unity that enhances individual chances of survival. Do you not agree?

What is evolution? Who knows evolution? Is evolution in itself a conscious entity. Did Darwin teach that?

Nobody teaches that evolution is a conscious entity. That is the entire point. It works on the basis of statistics, which are easy to model mathematically. Any stochastic self-replicating process will undergo evolution in competition with other such processes when there is slight random mutation in the copying process. We know that natural selection works, because we have observed it working. That is what Darwin taught. Since his discovery, scientists have reconfirmed it continually for well over a century now.

With your assumption, we keep coming back to the metaphor of heroes (me) and villains (all others) of a movie dissecting the movie.

I don't keep coming back to that metaphor, and I do not understand why you do.

 

[Copernicus]

And you're certainly entitled to that baseless belief. I'm strictly a rational skeptic, so I don't form beliefs about things I have no information about.

Kilgore, you do have information about the world you live in, and you have no choice but to form beliefs about things that you lack full information about. Most of what we know about the cosmos is based on assumptions that we cannot confirm. For example, we cannot confirm that physical laws are uniform everywhere in the universe, yet we make that assumption because of Occam's Razor. Although you call my belief "baseless" (that belief being that you reject the principle of Occam's Razor), you have not even tried to refute it. Your words seem to imply it, although you seem to avoid directly confirming it. All I can say is

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Kilgore, you do have information about the world you live in, and you have no choice but to form beliefs about things that you lack full information about.

Right, but this isn't a matter of not having full information - you and I have absolutely no information about things which fall outside the realm of our universe. Occam's Razor is irrelevant when you have no information about any of the choices. You can rationalize that your speculations about any such things are rational, but they're still purely speculative.

Most of what we know about the cosmos is based on assumptions that we cannot confirm. For example, we cannot confirm that physical laws are uniform everywhere in the universe, yet we make that assumption because of Occam's Razor. Although you call my belief "baseless" (that belief being that you reject the principle of Occam's Razor), you have not even tried to refute it.

No, your belief that is baseless is that some type of god-like entity isn't responsible for the existence of this universe. Well, you might have some type of basis, but it is still purely speculative.

Your words seem to imply it, although you seem to avoid directly confirming it. All I can say is

Maybe you won't be so confused if you read for comprehension.

 

[Copernicus]

Right, but this isn't a matter of not having full information - you and I have absolutely no information about things which fall outside the realm of our universe. Occam's Razor is irrelevant when you have no information about any of the choices. You can rationalize that your speculations about any such things are rational, but they're still purely speculative.

Occam's razor is totally relevant when you have little or no information about a question. It is all about jumping to conclusions about what is likely and what is not. The more assumptions you have to make in order to reach a conclusion, the less likely it is to be true.

No, your belief that is baseless is that some type of god-like entity isn't responsible for the existence of this universe. Well, you might have some type of basis, but it is still purely speculative.

Your hedged admission "Well, you might have some type of basis" is noted.

Maybe you won't be so confused if you read for comprehension.

That is pure speculation. I would be far less confused if you would write more comprehensible posts.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Occam's razor is totally relevant when you have little or no information about a question. It is all about jumping to conclusions about what is likely and what is not. The more assumptions you have to make in order to reach a conclusion, the less likely it is to be true.

Right, I'm not willing to make irrational assumptions about things we have zero information about.

Your hedged admission "Well, you might have some type of basis" is noted.

And your lack of admission that your beliefs on the matter are purely speculative is noted as well.

That is pure speculation. I would be far less confused if you would write more comprehensible posts.

The only advice I can offer is to try reading what I'm actually writing, not what you assume I'm writing.

 

[atanu]

But you are saying that consciousness can exist independently of a brain, are you not?

Can brain ever be known to function in absence of consciousness?

Anyway, my view is non-reductionist (that consciousness is irreducible substratum of universe) and not reductionist -- if I understand the terms properly.

For rest, I will likely reply after a few days.

Thanks