Nontheist

[F1fan]

That's surprising. The definition of the word intention itself conveys my meaning fairly well. "1. A thing intended; an aim or plan". That's sufficient for my meaning. I also gave other examples of my intended meaning in use that word as a metaphor to describe my thoughts: "Call it an "instinct" if you wish, or "part of the cycles of nature", but that cycle of nature is with the specific intention, or instinct, or impulse, or drive, or pull, or 'desire' even, to survive."

Aim and plan imply agency, decision, and action, yet seeds don't have agency. Seeds don't decide to grow or germinate, or grow. Seeds are dormant until they get sufficiently wet, and then they have no choice but to behave according to natural laws. Instinct doesn't get used as a word except for animals that have agency.

Do you believe seeds think? Can they make decisions? Can seeds intend to germinate on Tuesday even though they are dry?

I don't see how there can be any confusion here.

It's a metaphor. Science uses metaphors all the time. I explained this already. Didn't that help?

Only in informal ways. And only carefully used to not confuse reders.

Do you believe I am talking formal science here? I'm giving you my impression of what I believe philosophically it is all about, using metaphors - just like science itself uses metaphors to describe complex matters. It's not that complex really to get my meaning, if you just take the word intention, hold it as a metaphor, an "as if" statement, let your eyes defocus a tad bit, and use it to hopefully let an image appear.

I don't see how your use of metaphors is similar to how some informal science literature dies.

Gosh, you could think of the use of metaphors like a type of Buddhist meditation known as vipassana, where you don't latch your focus and thoughts fixed on teasing out understanding, but rather you pull back and let your vision take a larger perspective, allowing the thoughts to pass by you and let the meaning arise out of your own deeper subconscious mind into higher states of awareness. Heck, even Zen koans have that same effect.

I'm not opposing using metaphors, I'm opposed to misleading uses.

I'm just using this an example of how metaphors are intended to work. To me this is super basic, but I am becoming painfully aware how much of a challenge this is for some. I can't get it, because to not be able to understand the use of these seems impossible for me at this point.

How many times have I said that I am not talking about specific planned outcomes in regards to nature, such as nature intended to create humans exactly as they are, even before land animals arose?

The "intention" I mean in using that word as a metaphor, is that of seeking to 'find a way' to quote the poet. Like a plant seeking the sun, it's intention is to seek nutrients. Like a worm fleeing to saturated ground, it's intention is to not die. Simple things really. But it is all operating at an "instinct", which instinct is the intention to survive. How hard is this?

Using 'intention' as a metaphor is clearly problematic. It doesn't apply. Organisms do what they do due to evolution selecting traits that survive. Many organisms don't find a way and go extinct. Survival is a selected trait since it is an advantage over organisms that are vulnerable.

We are not talking about the laws of physics here. We are talking about biological life, not planetary bodies, rocks hurtling through space. We're talking about mind. We are talking about desire, and any other human word we can possibly use that conveys a vision of nature, not as a wind up machine, but a living, evolving, organic system.

You don't think the atoms and chemicals that make up biological life don't follow the laws of physics? All material follows these laws.

I'm not looking at single rocks. I'm looking at the Whole as the Whole (or at least trying to). This is philosophical/spiritual perspective, not "doing science". And lest that bother you, that is what you are doing too, but are overlooking that fact. Materialism - Wikipedia

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. Materialism directly contrasts with idealism, according to which consciousness is the fundamental substance of nature.​

Exactly what I mean by using intention. It "describes what is observed observed nature doing its thing".

Materialism is consistent with what is observed. Idealism defined above is not observed.

So you will accept metaphors as above when you can understanding them, but then complain about using them, when you don't see the picture being painted by me because it conflicts with how you see things. That's what I see really is the issue here. We are looking at the same things, and understanding them differently. That's what this is all about.

I have concerns that the definition of 'intention' doesn't apply in your usage. You haven't explained how seeds intend actions. What options do seeds have that they make plans to certain outcomes?

To be perfectly honest, science at its highest forms finds itself almost walking hand in hand with religious perspectives of the Absolute, or Ultimate Reality. So, frankly I have no problem using that language at that point. I don't use God to speak about how photosynthesis works at the process level. But I may use God as a religious metaphor to describe the Mystery of all of these things in this grand Universe we know as our reality.

Give us examples of science doing this in the 21st century. Is science doing this, or are you interpreting it that way?

What I just said here can be found expressed in what Einstein himself was saying so well here:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”​

​

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Yeah, the early 20th century when religion among scientists was still pretty prevalent. Heck, atheists were seen as criminals, as well as gays. But there is a lot of dispute about what Einstein meant in his poetic statements. When he did his work there were no references to gods. If Einstein was alive today what would he write?

Now I know a great many Materialist readers of science were uncomfortable with Einstein's invoking of religious language too (I'm in good company it seems). But when you look at it from beyond that "which our dull faculties can comprehend only in theri most privative forms", you have nowhere to go but using poetry, and metaphors. It's not just rocks, but the Divine. To the Materialist, it's just rocks. To the poet, its Divine.

The concern is how religious folks believe Einstein is endorsing religion. That adds to the ignorance and confusing many citizens have about science. No doubt Einstein was trying to reconcile many ideas in a passive way, not in his science. I'm sure many scientists of that era were aware that science was squeezing their god out and were troubled with the cognitive dissonance. Today's scientists grew up knowing there was less pressure to account for religious belief in science.

You were to explain what you see God to be when someone uses that word, that would be your answer.

Believers aren't relying on observations and facts to describe their gods. They claim experiences but can't confirm these are actual experiences with an actual divine or just imagined. So I will listen to what is claimed and ask whatever question I have to distill the truth from what they believe is true. It's often seen as hostile, but believers need to learn that open forums are not feel-goodfellowship that aims to uplift and support their feelings.

I can more than well predict how you see it, and that would explain why when you hear others use it, you see it being used in their minds, the way you see it in yours, rather than understanding that word has many legitimate ways it can be understood.

Your prediction might be correct as theists are quite consistent and so are critical thinkers.

Typically, to the typical atheist, they see the God that is seen by Christian fundamentalists, the deity form as a person outside of creation who creates everything through magic and violates the rules of science, idea of God. Super-Santa, in many ways.

Conservative believers tend to be the most assertive and vocal, so those squeeky wheels get the grease. Your wheel is getting its fair share of grease, and it has elements that are being questioned.

 

[F1fan]

I've spelled it out in great detail. So do you believe when someone is taking a test on material they don't understand clearly, even it if is written clearly and other students reading it comprehend it and get passing grades on the test, whereas others may get have the questions right, that blaming the material presented is honorable? There is nothing wrong with my posts. Especially when I go to pains to explain it, and have to come back to it over and over again. Blaming me, is what is not honorable.

You have some detail in writing what you believe, but your word use is questionable. Your religious assumptions are also questionable.

What I am writing is quite comprehensible, to those who understand the premises, which I have been going to great length to explain to help you. What you hear as defensiveness, is actually just frustration.

You are appealing to those who make religious assumptions. Of course they get excited when anyone asserts or implies there is a divin, or a plan, or intention behind nature. Why? Because that is a gap they can hammer in their idea of God and find their religious belief validated. They won't dispute the poor word uses because they want the emotional reward of reading something sympathetic to their religious assumptions. This is why creationism is so successful to those who interpret Genesis literally.

And so is what I am seeing. Point being, the Christian fundamentalist will also claim in like voice, "Fundamentalism is consistent with the Bible. It's what the Bible teaches!" And yet, you have others who use the exact same source material and have a much different type of Christianity based upon the Bible.

That's due to the Bible, and other religious books, and fiction books, are not based in fact. They may include some facts, but not as a whole. the book For Whom the Bell Tolls takes place during the Spanish Civil War, and includes a few real people in history, but most of the characters are not real. So going into reading the story knowing it is fictional won't leave a reader assuming it is history. Christians of any type are taught the Bible is truth, and to what degree they are told it is true depends on the sect. It's easy to argue that the Bible can't be believed as true any more than historical fiction. But believers will believe what they are told.

Claims that your philosophy is the "true teachings of science", is purely religious in nature. It goes beyond philosophy at the point, into a religious faith.

This is an exageration. Materialism is consistent with science. That is all.

And if religious faith is bad, why have it? Why not reject it like atheists have?

It's accurate enough. But you're saying "I don't see that respects science", is the real problem here. You cannot fit it into how you interpret the meaning of the science. It's like the Christian who sees that their sects views of the Bible are what defines Christianity, and they say to other Christians who see something else, "I don't see that respects the Bible! You're not following the Bible! You're not a true Christian".

Explain how this is not the same thing as that?

Critical thinking and science follows facts, is careful to avoid assumptions that aren't warranted or necessary, and functions to avoid bias. This applies to any wording that makes true statements about things. Believers will do whatever they want and need to to justify and validate their beliefs. It's the antithesis of science and reason. If people want to understand what is true about how things are it's not going to be from using religion.

But you actually are. You are adding your perception of what it means to the data and fact, same as me. The difference is, I recognize it in myself and in you, and you only see it in me and not yourself.

Give me an example of what I'm doing that distorts how I understand that things are as they are.

Let's see if my being more blunt myself might break through some of this. I don't mean to truly offend you.

As long as you don't call me fat, I still have 5 pounds to lose to get to my race weight. Last week my self-esteem coach called me "porky", what the hell is that?

 

[F1fan]

If by intelligent design you mean a preplanned outcome though an intentional guided evolution towards a specific form, i.e, human beings, then no. That is not my vision of this at all.

All I am saying, is that there is an inherent intelligence in nature that 'figures stuff out'. It's not exactly the same thing as rain falling hits weak ground and passively forms a river. There is a 'drive' towards life that 'finds a way' upward. You could say there is an active agent involved, not outside of it, in the sense of a god pushing it uphill with his fingers or something like that, but from within it, like the urge of the seed to push through cement to reach the light. It finds a way, "life finds a way" to use a metaphor.

View attachment 79238

A picture paints a thousand words.

Is this a good place for a plant? A seed got blown into a crack, there was just enough water for it to germinate, and what happens next? What are the chances it survives and thrives? Not very good. If this is Texas the heat wave will bake this asphalt and it will die.

 

[lukethethird]

I'm not lashing out at atheism nor science. Only at the stupidity of scientism and at self-proclaimed atheists that have no idea what theism and atheism even are. And ten refuse to learn.

It's you that can't express your theism in coherent and unambiguous terms, don't blame atheists and scientism for your shortcomings.

 

[F1fan]

All I am saying, is that there is an inherent intelligence in nature that 'figures stuff out'.

If a huge boulder sits on a bluff and over time erosion allows the boulder to roll down, would you interpret this as the boulder figuring out how to roll?

It's not exactly the same thing as rain falling hits weak ground and passively forms a river. There is a 'drive' towards life that 'finds a way' upward.

How is reproducing organisms following the path of least resistance not similar to a river? Couldn’t it be that rain drops fall where they do because they intend to be part of a river?

You could say there is an active agent involved, not outside of it, in the sense of a god pushing it uphill with his fingers or something like that, but from within it, like the urge of the seed to push through cement to reach the light. It finds a way, "life finds a way" to use a metaphor.

What evidence is there of an active agent? If you mean this as symbolic what is the material thing your phrase represents?

I say inherent intelligence, making it up, or 'designing' solutions on the fly. The other metaphor for that is "adaptation". But it's intelligent

Yet offspring only have the genes they do, and some of them might have genes that the environment selects out. The parents didn’t recognize a threat and create traits that are an advantage. It’s all just throwing dice.

 

[Windwalker]

Seeds are dormant until they get sufficiently wet, and then they have no choice but to behave according to natural laws.

Exactly. They behave according to the natural "laws", which by the way is a metaphor as well. It is those "laws" that one can say are established, or written, or coded, or planted, or whatever other human metaphor you can choose, that are responsible for the emergence, growth, reproduction and sustaining of life. In other words those "laws" or other similar metaphors we use to describe what they are "like" (as-if statements), that have the goal of survival in mind. I'm sorry the word intention is so distracting to you (it's not to me).

You can call it an innate "intelligence" as well, though I'm sure that will be a problem for you as well, because you want to remove any sort of consciousness from matter altogether in order to be consistent with a materialistic philosophy.

I'll ask a question here. Do you believe that intentionality and intelligence we witness in human beings, in general is product of evolution from lower more fundamental, less developed, less sophisticated forms of it in nature? Or do you believe it came into being ex-nihilo, out of nothing? A sort of "special creation" sort of thing?

If you are to be true to evolution, then you cannot imagine that intelligence in nature only begins in humans. To do so, is akin to, or even identical to the "special creation" of Creationism. Where there is no tree of evolution, but a full blow tree of its own abruptly appearing in nature. Poof, there you have the human being. Poof, there you have societies. Poof, there you have emotions. Poof, there you have intelligence. And so forth.

So it may be of help to you to understand when I use the word "intention", or "intelligence" applied to nature, I mean it in an evolutionary sense, not a "poof", magical appearance of human intelligence way. Human intelligence, is built up, ordered in a more sophisticated way from what has existed from the very beginning and is found in "proto" forms.

Example: My liver has "intelligence". It "knows" what to do, in other words. But it doesn't have a personality and a name. It's turtles all the way, and turtles all the way down, in other words. Not "poof" magical turtles appearing in nature out of absolute thin air. That's how Creationists think.

And I see that same resistance to seeing humans as part of nature in these ways even in hardcore materialists. Do they really want to see humans as part of the evolutionary tree? Then why do they want to imagine intelligence is unique to themselves? That goes against what we can observe in nature, if we take of the blinders of our human egos.

Instinct doesn't get used as a word except for animals that have agency.

Yet, you in essence applied the exact same meaning of it to seeds following the "law of nature". You're just quibbling over words. But look at the meanings. You're saying the same thing.

Do you believe seeds think? Can they make decisions? Can seeds intend to germinate on Tuesday even though they are dry?

Sure, but not literally like at the human level of intelligent thought processes of course, with willful agency of exerting independent personality choices. Do you imagine I think that, despite my explicitly going to lengths to explain the difference up to this point?

I don't see how your use of metaphors is similar to how some informal science literature dies.

That's funny. I don't see it dissimilar. When Dawkins speaks of the "selfish gene", you think my using the metaphor of the intelligence of my liver is really all that different? If you don't have a problem understanding his meaning, and yet you do mine, why is that? Are you worried I'm a Creationist?

This is why I say it is the readers responsibility to read what I being said and the context, and the lengthy qualifiers I continue to add to my posts, which make them of ungodly lengths because of that.

I'm not opposing using metaphors, I'm opposed to misleading uses.

I content they are not misleading, if you understand the context, which I am going to great lengths to provide, repeatedly.

Using 'intention' as a metaphor is clearly problematic. It doesn't apply. Organisms do what they do due to evolution selecting traits that survive. Many organisms don't find a way and go extinct. Survival is a selected trait since it is an advantage over organisms that are vulnerable.

I understand how evolution works. But I see it as an active intelligence, trying to survive, driven to survive, coded to survive, desiring to survive, seeking to survive, and any number of a long, long list of metaphors we can apply to nature, of which "intend" is but one word choice to describe it. It is a process of trial and error, to "find a way".

That is intelligence. Not cognitive thinking using mental objects expression of intelligence found in the human expression of natural intelligence, but a more fundamentalist, "process" of "figuring it out" because of a "drive" or desire, or "intention" to be and become. It is writ large in all biological lifeforms, plant and animal, and I believe throughout the entirety of the cosmos as well. Everything is interconnected, not centered here on earth itself alone.

I'm hoping that the pictures I'm trying to point to begins to take some grander portrait form here. I'm looking at the whole, not the components. I'm looking at its action as a whole, not focused on the mechanics of individual subprocesses. I'm talking the Whole.

You don't think the atoms and chemicals that make up biological life don't follow the laws of physics? All material follows these laws.

Of course they do. I'm saying these "laws" include consciousness and intentionality, even atoms are 'aware' of other atoms - BUT NOT WITH TINY HUMAN BRAINS!. I'm talking a type of proto-awareness, out of which nature, through evolution, developed more and more sophisticated forms and expressions of that.

You are just calling them with another metaphor "law", which metaphor itself it thoroughly fraught with problems, as science itself has noted. It suggests a "law giver". Yet, you seem comfortable with that? That's a contradiction.

Materialism is consistent with what is observed. Idealism defined above is not observed.

And only the Snake Handling Pentecostals are true to what the Bible teaches. Everybody likes to think they are the true followers of their Authoritative sources and scriptures, Science with a capital S in this case. No, materialism is consistent with a materialist lens interpreting the meaning of science in philosophical context. It's all self-referential actually. Confirmation biases.

I say to the Creationist the same thing. I'm reading the same Bible you are, but I see a very different picture from it than you do. I'm seeing the same Science you are, but I'm reading something very different from it than you are. My views of Genesis are consistent with a more sophisticated view of the Bible than that the of the fundamentalist. I'd say I'm seeing the Whole of nature with a different lens as well, for comparison sake.

The context changes everything. If your premise is, "God wrote the Bible", then a whole lot of flawed conclusions will follow. If your premise is nature is devoid of any consciousnesses at all, then a whole raft of interpretations of the stories of science will follow. Again, Materialism is a belief system. It's not the one that's "consistent with science", any more than Holy Rollers can claim to be the true disciples of Jesus.

My point is, until we are able to see how we see truth has as much to do with what we see, in other words to recognize our own filters and biases, or our own egoic perceptions are part of what we see, or are able to see as a result of those, then these claims of "materialism is consistent with the science", and implying other interpretations are not, is equally as religious in nature as anything it sees itself as superior to.

 

[ppp]

So you "neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists"? That doesn't make any sense. You are stating a dichotomy, but say neither applies to you.
"neither believe one exists" which means: you do not believe a god exists
"nor disbelieve one exists" which means: you do not not believe a god exists

There is no third option, unless you want to violate the law of excluded middle.

You are confusing what he believes for what is.

There is the claim "X exists." One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true.

There is the claim "X does not exist." One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true.

One can be unconvinced by either claim. There is no contradiction there.

 

[F1fan]

You are confusing what he believes for what is.

There is the claim "X exists." One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true.

There is the claim "X does not exist." One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true.

One can be unconvinced by either claim. There is no contradiction there.

The irony of believers trying to force atheists into some sort of judgment about the basic notion of God is that doing this is self-defeating. Theists obviously have decided that a God exists, and they stand by their judgment that it is sound and wise to dos o, even though they can't present evidence and an argument in defense. They try to switch the burder of proof by claiming that non-believers "believe a God doesn't exist". This implies that non-believers were presented the idea "God doesn't exist" and they judged it true. The concept "God doesn't exist" is rare and seldom a natural occurance in debates. It is introduced by believers hoping that non-believers will take on the burden of arguing "God doesn't exist" which they never claimed. How can non-existence be evidenced? It can't by we mortals, so it is a nonsense approach by believers.

The irony is that their aim to exploit a weakness in the idea "God doesn't exist" since if anyone was to claim it they would lack evidence to support it. Yet believers themselves have no more evidence for any God existing, yet they believe. The superiority of the concept "God doesn't exist" is that it is similar to the logical default of any unevidenced proposition, especially one that is not consistent with what is understood about how things are in reality. Not being convinced is the best way to approach any claim when it lacks evidence, even when it is popular among the masses.

 

[AppieB]

You are confusing what he believes for what is.

There is the claim "X exists." One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true.

There is the claim "X does not exist." One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true.

One can be unconvinced by either claim. There is no contradiction there.

I totally agree with the las 3 sentences.

But that's not what was being said. TS stated:
"I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists."

That is about the existence of god (X exists). Not about the non-existence of god (X does not exists)

And as you stated rightfully: "One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true."
In other words: Either you do believe god exists or you do not believe god exists.
There is no third option. I showed this in my previous posts.

So I'm not the one that is confused.

 

[ppp]

I totally agree with the las 3 sentences.

But that's not what was being said. TS stated:
"I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists."

That is about the existence of god (X exists). Not about the non-existence of god (X does not exists)

And as you stated rightfully: "One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true."
In other words: Either you do believe god exists or you do not believe god exists.
There is no third option. I showed this in my previous posts.

So I'm not the one that is confused.

It is pretty common usage for disbelieve to mean believe something to be false. As opposed to not true.

 

[F1fan]

I totally agree with the las 3 sentences.

But that's not what was being said. TS stated:
"I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists."

That is about the existence of god (X exists). Not about the non-existence of god (X does not exists)

And as you stated rightfully: "One is either convinced or not convinced that claim is true."
In other words: Either you do believe god exists or you do not believe god exists.
There is no third option. I showed this in my previous posts.

So I'm not the one that is confused.

The thing is the only reason most of us are deadling with ideas of gods, and whether they exist, is due to the tradtion of religious belief in most cultures. This isn't an issue because it's likely some sort of god exists, but because cultures have been so dominated by religious belief for millemmia that it lingers into modernity. From my experience there are vastly more theists who are comfortable saying a God exists then non-theists saying a God doesn't exist. The vast majority of non-believers are just not convinced the claims and beliefs of theists. They are even open to hear the arguments and whatever evidence theists present (which is notoriously weak and often manufactured).

 

[AppieB]

It is pretty common usage for disbelieve to mean believe something to be false. As opposed to not true.

Is it? That's not my experience. Especially not on sites like these when talking philosophy were being precise in language is important.
I can only go by what people say/write, not what they mean.
Disbelieve is not-believe. That doesn't mean you believe it to be false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it? That's not my experience. Especially not on sites like these when talking philosophy were being precise in language is important.
I can only go by what people say/write, not what they mean.
Disbelieve is not-believe. That doesn't mean you believe it to be false.

No, but as far as I can tell it is still an active cognitive process, that involves a sort of reflection towards something to say I don't believe in X.

And in effect an athiest is more than just an atheist as a human. In effect I don't care if a person is an atheist. It is the rest of their behavior that matters for in effect what a given atheist claim that the world is, how it works and what we ought to do about being in the world as parts of the world.

In other words it is in effect empty to say that a person is an atheist or not, because in practice nothing follows from that alone.

 

[ppp]

Is it? That's not my experience. Especially not on sites like these when talking philosophy were being precise in language is important.
I can only go by what people say/write, not what they mean.
Disbelieve is not-believe. That doesn't mean you believe it to be false.

Then I am happy to expand your awareness beyond your prior experience.. I have had both experiences, which is why I personally avoid using disbelieve as an action verb. just from the way that English is structured, I disbelieve tends to connote action, rather than state.

I don't know whether or not your interpretation matches the intent. Do you?

 

[AppieB]

Then I am happy to expand your awareness beyond your prior experience.. I have had both experiences, which is why I personally avoid using disbelieve as an action verb. just from the way that English is structured, I disbelieve tends to connote action, rather than state.

I don't know whether or not your interpretation matches the intent. Do you?

I don't go by intent (I don't know what someone's intention is). I go by what someone says/writes.

If you didn't know whether or not my interpretation matches the intent, why would you say that I'm confusing what he says?

 

[ppp]

I don't go by intent (I don't know what someone's intention is). I go by what someone says/writes.

If you didn't know whether or not my interpretation matches the intent, why would you say that I'm confusing what he says?

I am going by what he says and what he seems to agree or disagree with in other posts. I could well be wrong. You could be right. But like I said the usage is ambiguous. How is saying that you should recognize that a big deal?