The Foundation of Religion

[sandandfoam]

Notice that I was careful in the OP not to endorse an equation between the mind and the brain. What I said was that the mind depends on the physical brain for its existence. It is an emergent effect of a brain, not the brain itself. Hence, my position is compatible with dualism. It just does not allow for the existence of brain-independent minds.

Perfect, thank you.

 

[sandandfoam]

My position is that belief in brain-independent minds is completely unwarranted by anything we observe in ourselves or other phenomena in nature. It is a foundational belief for most systems of religious belief. I won't go so far as to say that there are no exceptions to the generalization, but I would argue that most religious belief systems would collapse without belief in immaterial, brainless minds.

What do you make of the idea that mind exists between people rather than inside them as per Foucault from a discursivist perspective or of Sartre from a phenomenological perspective?

 

[Rhizomatic]

The so-called "atheistic" version of Buddhism is popular in the West,

Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia are hardly the West.

It is the purpose of this thread to make that generalization. You may disagree with my opinion, and I'm happy to get your opinions on the matter. I do not think that that warrants calling me intellectually dishonest.

My position is that belief in brain-independent minds is completely unwarranted by anything we observe in ourselves or other phenomena in nature. It is a foundational belief for most systems of religious belief. I won't go so far as to say that there are no exceptions to the generalization, but I would argue that most religious belief systems would collapse without belief in immaterial, brainless minds.

I don't disagree with you (mostly--I'm still hesitant to go as far as "most religious belief systems"); it just raises a red flag for me when your thread title refers to brainless minds as the foundation of religion. I understand your point, and I'm not trying to accuse you of lying or trying to mislead people so much as I'm trying to say that it would be more useful intellectually to make it in a non-generalized manner.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Most complex beliefs depend on other beliefs for their existence. In the case of religion, belief in the existence of brainless (disembodied) minds is a foundational belief. Gods are brainless minds, and so are souls. Most religions are focused on death and how a mind can survive it. In some religions, the immaterial mind is reborn in another body. In others, it continues to exist in a world of other spirits.

Just as belief in brainless minds shores up religion, lack of belief in such minds undermines it. Atheism does not necessarily oppose dualism--the position that minds and bodies have separate planes of existence--but atheists do tend to believe that the mind is an effect of a brain, not something that can exist independently of one. Not all atheists agree with this position. You can believe in a spirit world and still not believe in gods. But atheism does tend to be associated with either rejection of dualism or acceptance of the idea that all mental function is grounded in physical brain activity--that is, that the mind is somehow rooted in the physical world. Minds or "souls" cannot continue to exist when the brain is destroyed.

In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins pointed out that human beings are inherently dualists. We live in a mental world, and we see the physical world as fundamentally apart--of a different nature--than our mental reality. The conscious mind consists of memory, emotions, moods, perception, calculation, volition, and self-awareness. We can control our own physical bodies through volition, but we cannot directly control other aspects of reality except through the mediation of our physical bodies. It is a small leap of imagination to conceive of minds that have no physical bodies and can manipulate reality as we manipulate our bodies. Gods tend to be thought of as such beings--disembodied minds that can effect physical events through direct volition. Atheism rejects the idea that such beings exist.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to make the following claim: theism is undermined by arguments that minds depend on physical brains for their existence. This is not, in any sense, a logical argument or a proof. It is merely the observation that belief in brainless minds is foundational for religion. Any attack on the credibility of brainless minds is an indirect attack on religion. Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

What is it in the human body that causes this "consciousness", "awareness" or our ability to have an action and reaction to things around us? In my opinion, it is simply the actions and reactions of the energy in our bodies, in our brains, acting and reacting to the energy aound us. Action/reaction, that is what I believe consiousness is. Perhaps in our brains those actions/reactions are more complex in nature, more evolved, but since energy changes form, there is always some level of those actions/reactions going on no matter where we look. I don't believe that consciousness is something that can only exist in the brain because those same "actions and reactions" that result in "awareness" in our brains continually go on all around us. In short, I believe that consciousness can and does transcend the physical body, but it is not necessarily the same level of consciousness/awareness. If all consciousness is is energy going through the motions...acting/reacting, then I believe that consciousness follows the same laws of energy/matter... Can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form. Anyways, that is just how I see things. I may be wrong.

 

[Smoke]

I've always been highly skeptical of "past life regression", not least because under hypnosis, false memories can easily be planted by an unscrupulous or careless hypnotist.

I'm highly skeptical myself, and not just for that reason. However I've still thought for many years that I'd like to undergo a past life regression, as a sort of psychological experiment. It just hasn't been a priority, though, so I've never done it.

 

[Willamena]

Notice that I was careful in the OP not to endorse an equation between the mind and the brain. What I said was that the mind depends on the physical brain for its existence. It is an emergent effect of a brain, not the brain itself. Hence, my position is compatible with dualism. It just does not allow for the existence of brain-independent minds.

What distinction are you making between "brain-independent mind" and "emergent effect"?

 

[Copernicus]

Someone reported the title of this thread as offensive, so the mods changed it. That is fine with me, although I would have preferred "brain-independent minds" over just "The Foundation of Religion". Apologies to anyone who found the title offensive, but the OP should have made it clear that I had a more serious discussion in mind than just insulting people of faith.

What distinction are you making between "brain-independent mind" and "emergent effect"?

The expression "emergent effect" is a generic characterization of what happens in deterministic chaotic systems. A "brain-independent mind" is the emergent effect that one gets with the deterministic chaotic system represented by brain activity.

 

[drsatish]

What is a Mind?

That is the FIRST thing to be 'Defined About' ....
...BEFORE getting into the Next Question of whether it is Corporeal or Not!

For example,
Is Bush ...a Mind?
Is Obama...a Mind?

Is Bush...the Pictures you have seen of him?
Is Obama...the Pictures you have seen of him?

Is Bush....a SET OF IDEAS & Beliefs....which rhymes/does not rhyme with You?
Is Obama....a SET OF IDEAS & Beliefs....which rhymes/does not rhyme with You?

What IF the SET of IDEAS & Beliefs of the Picture Obama.....
are projected TO THE WORLD....in the Picture of Bush?

Who did you Elect? Is it a PICTURE or A SET OF IDEAS?

Is IDEA...Corporeal?
Satish

 

[Storm]

With these thoughts in mind, I want to make the following claim: theism is undermined by arguments that minds depend on physical brains for their existence. This is not, in any sense, a logical argument or a proof. It is merely the observation that belief in brainless minds is foundational for religion. Any attack on the credibility of brainless minds is an indirect attack on religion. Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. Some notion of independent consciousness is integral to every theology I can think of.

 

[tothen]

I think that it is based alot on culture more than people think.

 

[Copernicus]

What is a Mind?

That is the FIRST thing to be 'Defined About' ....
...BEFORE getting into the Next Question of whether it is Corporeal or Not!

A mind is that with which one thinks. Thoughts consist of sensation, emotion, mood, memory, calculation, imagination, volition, etc. We perceive our mind directly as a sense of self-identity. We perceive the external world as a model based on what our senses detect.

For example,
Is Bush ...a Mind?
Is Obama...a Mind?

I believe so.

Is Bush...the Pictures you have seen of him?
Is Obama...the Pictures you have seen of him?

No.

Is Bush....a SET OF IDEAS & Beliefs....which rhymes/does not rhyme with You?
Is Obama....a SET OF IDEAS & Beliefs....which rhymes/does not rhyme with You?

No, and I find your metaphorical use of the word "rhyme" unnecessary here. An idea of an object is not itself the object.

What IF the SET of IDEAS & Beliefs of the Picture Obama.....
are projected TO THE WORLD....in the Picture of Bush?

Your language makes little sense, but I think you are trying to say that we quite often build false models of reality. That we do. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. We depend on our ability to think about and reject false beliefs. That is how we arrive at a true understanding of our circumstances.

Who did you Elect? Is it a PICTURE or A SET OF IDEAS?

In Obama's case, it wasn't really the person I voted for. However, that's another story.

Is IDEA...Corporeal?
Satish

No.

 

[Storm]

That's interesting an Atheist calling theists brainless, how original. On to the next thread, I'm two for two in waisting my time today.

Try actually reading the post. That wasn't what he said at all.

 

[zenzero]

Friend copernicus,

Personal understanding about the terms used are thus:
BRAIN / MIND - They are like water and vapour.
material / spiritual - ------------do------------

Religion is only a journey towards the sublime/spirit/vapour where a normal journey is material/ brain/water.
Both theists and atheists are correct as they only see one side of the picture and miss the *gestalt*

Love & rgds

 

[drsatish]

A mind is that with which one thinks. Thoughts consist of sensation, emotion, mood, memory, calculation, imagination, volition, etc. We perceive our mind directly as a sense of self-identity. We perceive the external world as a model based on what our senses detect.

I believe so.

No.

No, and I find your metaphorical use of the word "rhyme" unnecessary here. An idea of an object is not itself the object.

Your language makes little sense, but I think you are trying to say that we quite often build false models of reality. That we do. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. We depend on our ability to think about and reject false beliefs. That is how we arrive at a true understanding of our circumstances.


In Obama's case, it wasn't really the person I voted for. However, that's another story.

No.

As far as I know, the 'Picture' of Obama has NOT changed. Neither has he grown a long beard nor is he wearing dark sunglasses covering most of the face nor is he donning a New Hat which proclaims who he is.
Hat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So when you say, "In Obama's case, it wasn't really the person I voted for. However, that's another story.".....you don't mean the Picture...

..probably what you are saying is in the domain of "Non-Corporeal Ideas!"

Another question:
How do you say with utmost confidence that "A mind is that with which one thinks"? What if, in fact, there is NO MIND....but perceptions called "sensation, emotion, mood, memory, calculation, imagination, volition,"?

"We perceive our mind directly as a sense of self-identity"
In this context, are you talking about 'Pure Awareness'
or the Concept of 'Self-Identity' projected on to the 'self' as...
"I am a Man from down-south Texas wearing a Tuxedo hat?"...and my self-identity is LOST ..if you take away 'Texas' & 'Tuxedo hat' from me..?

Satish

 

[Copernicus]

So when you say, "In Obama's case, it wasn't really the person I voted for. However, that's another story.".....you don't mean the Picture...

It was a JOKE! That's what the smiley was for.

Another question:
How do you say with utmost confidence that "A mind is that with which one thinks"? What if, in fact, there is NO MIND....but perceptions called "sensation, emotion, mood, memory, calculation, imagination, volition,"?

Words have meanings. We can quibble over what they are and pull out our dictionaries and all, but I think that I gave a fairly reasonable description of the meaning of "mind". I like to think with mine, but I can't speak for you.

"We perceive our mind directly as a sense of self-identity"
In this context, are you talking about 'Pure Awareness'
or the Concept of 'Self-Identity' projected on to the 'self' as...
"I am a Man from down-south Texas wearing a Tuxedo hat?"...and my self-identity is LOST ..if you take away 'Texas' & 'Tuxedo hat' from me..?

I have no idea what you are asking. I have a sense of self-identity, and I assumed that you did, too. If you do not understand what a mind is or have a sense of self-identity, then we are probably not going to have a productive dialog.

 

[drsatish]

It was a JOKE! That's what the smiley was for.


Words have meanings. We can quibble over what they are and pull out our dictionaries and all, but I think that I gave a fairly reasonable description of the meaning of "mind". I like to think with mine, but I can't speak for you.


I have no idea what you are asking. I have a sense of self-identity, and I assumed that you did, too. If you do not understand what a mind is or have a sense of self-identity, then we are probably not going to have a productive dialog.

Well, your first line of the OP "Most complex beliefs depend on other beliefs for their existence." is quite correct. Reality, in truth, is a bit fuzzy (which even modern physics accepts). To really understand /answer what is there at a distance, you have to really understand what is nearer. The nearest thing that can exist, as far as you are concerned is You. That is the Self. But that self is Not Just the 'I get up tomorrow morning; go for work; go for play; go to bed.' You have to step out of that small fenced area and explore further. The first thing to explore would be your 'self-identity.'...what it means; what are just assumptions/projections; what are just beliefs. Ancient methods are available for such exploration and I believe these will be absorbed into mainstream Science, when Science gets bored with being obsessed by the 'External' World. Know Thyself...is more or less the Foundation of All Religions. Once you know that, some of the questions you had asked prior to that knowing, will seem irrelevant to you.

Satish

 

[Copernicus]

...The first thing to explore would be your 'self-identity.'...what it means; what are just assumptions/projections; what are just beliefs. Ancient methods are available for such exploration and I believe these will be absorbed into mainstream Science, when Science gets bored with being obsessed by the 'External' World...

It makes as much sense to personify science as it does to personify nature in the form of gods. Science is just a methodology for determining what is true in nature. It will never really get bored with that pursuit. As for "ancient methods", I prefer the modern ones. They have a proven track record.

Know Thyself...is more or less the Foundation of All Religions. Once you know that, some of the questions you had asked prior to that knowing, will seem irrelevant to you.

I don't think that religion is about learning anything, as it has failed quite miserably to explain the nature of things. It is more about personal empowerment. Through religion, one can hope to escape what we all fear most--death.

 

[Storm]

Through religion, one can hope to escape what we all fear most--death.

We don't all fear death.

 

[Copernicus]

We don't all fear death.

I think that we can only know that for certain when we are aware of its imminence. But fear of death is one of the most basic instincts in all living beings. Survival is a prime imperative.

 

[drsatish]

It makes as much sense to personify science as it does to personify nature in the form of gods. Science is just a methodology for determining what is true in nature. It will never really get bored with that pursuit. As for "ancient methods", I prefer the modern ones. They have a proven track record.


I don't think that religion is about learning anything, as it has failed quite miserably to explain the nature of things. It is more about personal empowerment. Through religion, one can hope to escape what we all fear most--death.

[FONT=&quot]
"It makes as much sense to personify science as it does to personify nature in the form of gods."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is NOT 'personalizing.' I would call it a 'scientific study' of the 'self.' I agree when you say "Science is just a methodology for determining what is true in nature." I want you to close your eyes, sit down quietly in a quiet place and try to "OBSERVE" in a detached way 'what is all going on' in your 'thinking arena.' You can write them down and later classify them. After repeating such experiments, you will find that there are not that many categories. Those were thoughts. Next, you can try to 'observe' the different sensations from the 5 sense organs. You can take down notes on that and later classify them. If the same method is followed in a group of 100 people, we may find some commonality in the observations and categorization and we will put the rest in the back burner for a later date. Then we repeat the same experiment in a group of 1000 people and see if the commonality still prevails. If it does, we have initiated the Scientific Study of the Subjective Aspect of Reality, which science has ignored so far. You have to first mentally cross the 'objectivity' block and see that "UNLESS there is a Subject....where does the Object of Study come from?"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"As for "ancient methods", I prefer the modern ones. "[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That is OK. That is your Personal Choice. But don't make judgment on other things until you have 'Personally' tried them yourself for an adequate period of time and have got feed back from others who have walked on that path.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"I don't think that religion is about learning anything, as it has failed quite miserably to explain the nature of things. It is more about personal empowerment"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].What you are talking about here is the 'Organized Religions of Buildings, Books, Priests, Rituals etc'. This is not true religion. Every religion has a core of 'study of the inner-self', which often gets suppressed by the more 'grandiose & powerful' Organized Religion. So if you really want to know if there is any 'substance' in 'religion', just ignore organized religion and try to DO, ....NOT just talk/analyze what the core-oriented folks are doing. But it is not a Do-It-Yourself in 7 days regimen.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Through religion, one can hope to escape what we all fear most--death." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-Sort of true for the common man to get from organized religion. But if you 'really experience the Self', you will lose both fear and the desire for immortality![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Experiment...Experience![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]