Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,747 Year: 4,004/9,624 Month: 875/974 Week: 202/286 Day: 9/109 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 1 of 82 (698276)
05-05-2013 2:55 AM


The God Hypothesis Revisited
Perhaps I should not have used Delusions of Grandeur as the title of my post. It could very easily be misinterpreted as a self-effacing defense mechanism. Considering the humble nature of this post it would be an irony if it were to be interpreted that way. But not unprecedented especially considering the nature of the topic and the debate sparked by my previous post on this debate.
Considering the education and motives of those most prominently involved in this debate namely Dawkins, Behe , Hitchens , Dembski, Dennett etc. to use a psychological term usually reserved for for those with serious mental illness such as schizophrenia may be going too far for some. But I assure you I am using the lesser meaning of being blinded by egoism and confirmation bias that TOE or Theories of Everything wrapped up in a neat little box Whether it be of Natural Selection or Intelligent Design.
The Reason my last post was called The God Hypothesis was because Richard Dawkins proposed the idea that God was a provable and there for disprovable conceptual framework of the origins of life and intelligence.
In chapter 2 of The God Delusion Dawkins referring to the God of the old testament of the bible says of the biblical deity it is unfair to attack such an easy target.
Yet this is exactly what he does. He starts by making the self-evidently true claim that Monotheism is not really an improvement on Polytheism. Then he goes right back to his easy target. Monotheism. But even Dawkins only rates himself a strong 6 on a scale from 1-7 in the spectrum of Theist to a Strong Atheist.
That is the poster child of Atheism states on Monotheism that God is a very low probability and that he lives his life as if he is not there. Dawkins is not firmly committed to 7 as a strong Atheist that asserts God as certain proven in his lack of existence. So Dawkins whole book The God Delusion is based the idea that God can only be conceived in Monotheistic terms. That is he assumes the same thing his adversaries assume in this debate.
Namely only God as A person /Creator I.e. Designer is conceivable as worth considering or rejecting.
So I came to this board because of research and because I know those on the other side of this debate are creationists in disguise. So posting on boards that support Intelligent Design would be an exercise in futility. So that being taken into consideration,... I knew that would mean that any debate on Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection would revolve around God of the Bible... whether posters admitted to this or not.
Those who claim it could be aliens or super architects are only kidding themselves. Without a Monotheistic God The Discovery Institute could not promote their Social Engineering Agenda to create a Moral Imperative based on Theocratic Principles.
Dawkins point in The God Hypothesis was to Challenge NOMA of Gould. And rightly so . So let me begin by stating what the God Hypothesis of Dawkins and of Intelligent Design Advocates everywhere is ...that Dawkins maintains is falsifiable .
The God Hypothesis suggest that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the Universe and at least in many versions of the Hypothesis —maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles, which are temporary violations of his own otherwise grandly immutable laws.
The God Hypothesis of Dawkins goes on to point out that those scientists of the NOMA School of thought should concede that a Universe with a Supernaturally Intelligent Creator is a very different kind of Universe from one without
Again this frames the debate on both sides. So let’s start by defining Supernatural. First the Theist definition that buffers Christianity and Judaism.
supernatural (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
There is no point in defending these theistic principles since Theism itself is self-evidently absurd on the face of it. These definitions have to do with magic and Gods of Myth. Although number 2 is a bit iffy since technology does appear to violate and go beyond natural forces even though technology cannot operate outside of physics and is there for natural by definition.
Now back to Dawkins. Dawkins freely admits that his book The God Delusion is not about demolishing Pantheism.
My title The God Delusion does not refer to the God of Einstein and other enlightened scientist of the previous section.
As stated before my God Hypothesis is based on Pantheism. Of which Dawkins refers to as sexed up Atheism. So you would think Atheist would welcome me. After all, the one thing Atheism lacks is seduction. Theism is very well disguised Nihilism. Atheism on the other hand is quite naked in its Nihilistic leanings.
Atheists do not claim that life is meaningless but on the contrary that life itself has all its meaning self-contained in the whole process. And I have to agree on this principle but I challenge what materialist see as the process of life and what is Natural versus Supernatural. I also contend "self-contained" meaning is a contradiction in terms as well as superfluous.
Atheist would lean to the extreme definition of Supernatural originated by theist but not claimed by theist because of the Pejorative implications.
Definition 4
4.
of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
That is the Religious or Magic definition which brings to mind why Intelligent Design proponents even attempt to frame their opinions in scientific terms.
I think a more workable definition would be definition 1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
But then if I am to argue that the Supernatural exist I certainly would prefer a better word then one that suggest a theological Deity or religion in any sense of the word. This is why I proposed Quantum Physics as is for a framework that transcends Newtonian Law as we know it. This also allows for Pantheism as I see it. Where God is not a supernatural deity as we know it in religion that can be understood as a personification of our desire to be ruled by divine justice and our addiction to a law giver as conceptualized by the mythological deities on monotheist.
Instead we met God and God is us. But this cannot be true because Atheist have disproved all known God Hypothesis(s) and Religious leaning scientist see the hand of God everywhere and their God is definitely "other" than us. In other words God can only exist if he is not us and since science has disproved all God(s) outside of us the only debate is whether science trumps theism. Obviously I think there is another viewpoint.
In a world where we could create Virtual Universes on our computer fine tuning would be conceived as a team of scientist creating a program or set of programs set to evolve Universes. These Universes by nature could not by definition be perfect. Would our goal be to maximize life while minimizing suffering? Or would the programs be designed to fine tune a Virtual Universe suitable for life and once initiated progress to the point of creating competitive organisms that by nature must fight for survival or become extinct?
In scenario 2 would we be considered benevolent beings by any sentient beings' standards that we could conceive of? If not why do we assume that making God into a single person with unlimited intelligence would not only necessarily follow as a benevolent deity but we also assume that the alleged deity could conceivably provide more meaningfulness and purpose then we could by ourselves?
The idea that the whole Universe was designed by a benevolent deity simply to advance a species known as humans and make them happy but only in an afterlife based on their behavior in this one goes beyond delusions of grandeur and borders on complete insanity.
The other extreme offered by materialist atheist that ignores all advances in Quantum Physics and attempts to sweep under the rug the hard problem of Consciousness in order to advance pure egoism is not much better. Both delusions are based on the delusion of grandeur of thinking we have it all solved.
Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. This is where Theist leaves us with their moralism and Intelligent Design. And their Anthropomorphic God cannot console us the way they think he can.
Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes.
To a Theist a God without human form or emotions is not personal and therefore not desirable.
Anthropocentrism is the position that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[2] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy.
Now here we have a concept that covers the full spectrum of human thought from Theism to Humanism and even to Nazism or Eugenics!
My point being... that Atheist in this debate have the same delusions of grandeur that theist have... They assume that we are bags of flesh that have a right to pursue our own desires based on a mixture of our own values feelings of guilt or what we think we can get away with in this life.
Contrast that with theist beliefs that we are divinely created beings that were created so... that God can test us as experimental subjects in a program on ethics... that will result in eternal damnation or salvation depending on your level of faith and obedience.
Both views support social engineering to get us to the right way of thinking.
But if we are God then perhaps we are part of a self-aware universe and maybe we should be more concerned with waking up to our true nature then in trying to think ourselves out of one box after another only to wake up to more and more complicated boxes.
Maybe Pantheism isn’t Sexed up Atheism. Maybe Einstein was actually on to something that didn’t fit into Mythological Constructs that regular Theism depends on to thrive. And maybe he understood that E=Mc squared has to lead to Mc squared = Energy. Maybe this energy was awareness itself and that is why Quantum Physics is so strange . If the source of Energy is Awareness itself then that would explain why the hard problem of Consciousness is so hard to explain away.
Maybe we have something that simply can not be fit into equations and is not in itself supernatural but definitely not something Newton could have envisioned with his Divine Watchmaker. Perhaps our Universe is not Mechanical in any sense of the word and therefore Quantum Mechanics is a misnomer. Perhaps the Universe like our Earth is organic and alive. Maybe the material Universe like our brain is a source of consciousness that cannot be traced back to its source because be their very nature a Universe does not exist by itself but only in relation to other Universes .
If we are to escape our delusions of grandeur ironically we may find that there is more to us than just our imagination or what we term as observable reality. Maybe what we term "observable reality" is only one level of reality and our "observation" of reality is only a filter that lets us perceive only levels of reality that conform to our own egotistical biases. Unfiltered by ego and observed without filters reality may be perceived as awareness itself.
Perhaps Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox can be resolved by accepting that not only is the cat both alive and dead but that we ourselves exist outside of this Space Time Illusion and that is Awareness that is the major component in the Quantum Flux that generates Universes . Maybe I am wrong. But I do not assume that I have it all solved.
I see science as an extension of philosophy as meant to probe the questions of our existence. I see religion as a means to control the masses by instituting accepted dogma by consensus. When science gives into an agenda to promote politics as usual with fear of Climate Apocalypse or Evolution as a random event that is obviously a form of Biological Determinism so as to promote a more liberal agenda ..then science starts to look a lot like religion. Although I admit that this is not to promote Theocracy ...still even in this case... the base is still ideological ...and therefore Political in nature.
In both cases it is Confirmation Bias that fuels the debate. If we were to clear away confirmation biases perhaps we would not find anything that could be called Pantheism. Perhaps my attempt to escape the delusion of false alternatives is delusional in of itself. I prefer not to assume the nihilistic conclusion that delusional thinking is built into our nature.
I do not feel that I have it all solved. I think that on the contrary that we should pursue truth even if it makes us extremely uncomfortable. I believe that Awareness is truly significant. I believe that Awareness can bridge the gap between Quantum Weirdness and the Hard Problem of Consciousness and has Cosmological Implications.
Like any other Hypothesis my God Hypothesis would have to be tested and substantiated. Dawkins refers to the Religions of man and Intelligent Design as the God Delusion but he doesn’t say that the God Hypothesis is to be mocked or ignored. He states that this is a real hypothesis and that and Intelligently Designed Universe would be different Universe than the one we observe. And I concur. Which is why I never implied in my God Hypothesis anything that would substantiate ID or Creationism. Because I do not see our Universe as Intelligently Designed but as a self aware work in progress attempting to grow spiritually by waking us up in the process of becoming aware through us and other sentient beings.
So although I did not imply ID as substantiated, ...I did imply however that both Supernaturalism and Materialism are outdated views..and perhaps that it is time to pursue other lines of questioning in seeking the true nature of both reality and illusion before declaring that it is all solved by science or religion.Perhaps it is time for both science and religion to move over and let philosophers do their job before we move on from trying to seek the true nature of reality as a case closed where we are only really debating who won.
Thoughts?
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-05-2013 3:44 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 05-05-2013 5:38 AM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2013 5:58 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 14 by Dogmafood, posted 05-06-2013 4:24 AM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 15 by Pressie, posted 05-06-2013 7:19 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 2 of 82 (698277)
05-05-2013 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-05-2013 2:55 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Please consider putting this topic under Intelligent Design not Creation Miscellany. I am challenging Intelligent Design here although I am doing this with Pantheism not Evolution with Natural Selection.My Pantheism is close to Einsteins and therefore not supporting Creationism in any form.I do not pay lip service to Evolution like the ID movement does. I do agree something is going on but nothing predetermined by a Deity. Anyway I just don't like the word Creationism. It puts me in with Bible Thumpers. And I think the Bible and all holy books are bunk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-05-2013 2:55 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


(1)
Message 5 of 82 (698306)
05-05-2013 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
05-05-2013 5:38 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Yes I think that I am 90% Atheist and 10% Pantheist. This is because of several reasons. One being that I come from a background history of being very Atheist leaning historically. Pantheism is like Buddhism very Atheistic leaning. The only reason that my Pantheism has any inclination towards the Pantheism of Spinoza is because I believe that the soul has more validity then any God Concept.
Because of this my view of God is closer to that of Einstein. My idea of a soul however is somewhere between Buddhism and Animism. I do not believe we are simply here. I do not believe that we are philosophical zombies with the illusion of self-awareness. And I do not have any idea of a God that would fit anywhere in any type of Theology.
I practice Buddhism as a form of advanced psychological analysis. I use Shamanism in my practice of understanding my soul and the energies of the Universe. And I study Quantum Physics as a way of bridging the gap between the two.
I do not need any of these to understand myself or the nature of reality but I use them all to make clear to my ego the underlying depth of the nature of reality and to achieve clarity for my mind. Philosophy to me is an attempt to erase ego boundaries so that my soul will become self evident to my mind and higher levels of enlightenment will be attainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 05-05-2013 5:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 8 of 82 (698342)
05-05-2013 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
05-05-2013 12:22 PM


Re: My summary thus far
Verbosity meaning the number of words I use ? How about addressing the content of my speech instead of a word count?
The last time I posted on this board I just heard the words Jargon and Jargonistic over and over. Jargon itself is jargon. It has no actual meaning. It is simply a word signifying that the listener has a low vocabulary or a limited understanding of the subject matter.
As for Rhetoric.definition 1
is simply the art of speaking or writing effectively .
A Rhetoric device is simply the act of persuasion.
The purpose of this thread has you baffled.
So what I get so far is that you have no understanding of the topic . So it is not that you disagree or have any counter points but simply that you feel I use too many words?
If that is what you get from this thread please do not bother posting.
I can handle disagreement or even debate. But what I often see in my threads which makes me disinclined to post is just an attack on a persons character . Claims that someone is pretentious or uses jargon is verbose etc. Not one word on the actual subject of the thread.
If this thread becomes an actual discussion about the actual topics I brought up ...I will happily rejoin this thread and continue discussion and debate.
But objections of Verbosity Jargon etc can be thrown at any post on any topic and does not further discussion. They are simply empty attacks signifying a complete lack of the intellectual ability to understand or discuss anything meaningful.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 05-05-2013 12:22 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 05-05-2013 8:20 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 9 of 82 (698344)
05-05-2013 7:58 PM


Dawkins God Delusion
Richard Dawkins framed the ID debate using "The God Hypothesis"
"I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus, or Wotan. Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it."
Dawkins Chapter 2 of God Delusion
All I did in this thread suggest there was an alternative to the 2 views Dawkins proposes.
Dawkins proposes only these two views
1.The God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
or 2.Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it
So if there is verbosity it is Dawkins' not mine.
I simply offer that there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan.
There are not just 2 sides to this debate as many Theist and Atheist would have you believe.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mrnobody42, posted 05-22-2013 12:11 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 10 of 82 (698345)
05-05-2013 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
05-05-2013 5:58 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
But this cannot be true because Atheist have disproved all known God Hypothesis(s)
I'd be interested in reading your defense of this proposition.
That would take a whole nother thread wouldn't it?
I addressed this subject mainly in my other threads with the idea of the Mythological Construct.
That is historically up to the period of Monotheism all forms of Theism in past culture were accepted as Mythology.
Mythologies are just stories to explain why there is death or how the leopard got its spots. We know these are stories and to my knowledge they were never presented as actual historical occurrences.
With the advent of religion Mythology was not good enough. So there were Crusades and Inquisitions and basically the murder of all opposing cultures to Monotheism. Then the mythologies were assimilated into holy books and presented as actual history changing the word gods to God .
All the words of other peoples myths were copied... from Flood Stories ...to Creation Stories and gods was replaced with the word God . These new stories were misrepresented as actual history so unlike actual Mythology you are left only with Constructs.
The main arguments of Theism have been demolished so many times in so many ways that most Atheist do not even find it a challenge any more.
To quote George Carlin
"When it comes to bullsh*, big-time, major league bullsh*, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion.
No contest. No contest. Religion.
Religion easily has the greatest bullsh* story ever told.
Think about it.
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullsh* story. Holy Sh* "
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2013 5:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2013 11:29 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 12 of 82 (698347)
05-05-2013 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
05-05-2013 8:20 PM


Re: My summary thus far
If you have questions or points you want to debate in my OP then simply ask your questions or challenge what you disagree with. It is that simple.
I will be happy to clarify my OP point by point if necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 05-05-2013 8:20 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 9:58 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 16 of 82 (698401)
05-06-2013 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
05-05-2013 11:29 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
It seems to me that you have simply made a pass at addressing a particular God hypothesis and then concluded that you have disproved "all known God Hypothesis(s) [sic]"
No not really my OP was not about disproving all God Hypothesis. I mentioned Carlin because religion doesn't offer anything better then the God he mentions. Therefore Theology has nothing to defend.
That is I could list all the Theological arguments for God here and why they don't hold water but what would be the point? At the end of the day we are still taking about an invisible man in the sky.
One that gets jealous and angry and has mercy and forgives and therefore not only has the typical personality of a narcissist human but a petty tyrant as well.
If we could start with a clean slate admitting that the Bible and all the other holy books have nothing to do with what God really is then atleast we would have a reasonable starting point.
If we could admit that all the theological arguments for believing in God thus far are irrational and deceptive as well as easily demolished by any thinking person...then maybe we would be one step closer to understanding what the concept of God could mean.
But even going so far as to being complete skeptics of God and using Atheism as a starting point then tentatively approaching agnosticism to see if there is anything deeper then simple atheism would only be a step in the right direction.
If there is a God then no concept of God or any amount of theological apologetics will get you anywhere close to apprehending let alone understanding the nature of God.
If it were not for people like Spinoza or Einstein I wouldn't even bother using the word God in a sentence let alone claiming that there is evidence for or against the reality of Gods existence.
As long as God is a "person" and as long as religion has anything to say about it Atheism will be presented with an easy target and we will get no where near the true nature of reality which is God.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2013 11:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 17 of 82 (698424)
05-06-2013 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dogmafood
05-06-2013 4:24 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Recognizing that I exist and that I have an ability to pursue my desires is in no way comparable to believing that the universe was created for my benefit. The theist believes that this is all a big birthday party in their honour whereas the atheist sees some cake and has at it.
One position requires the fabrication of a construct and the other requires only observation. The social engineering that results from observing the way things work is bound to be more successful than social designs based on the way we wish that things worked.
While consciousness is indeed a phenomenal and grand thing where is the delusion of grandeur in recognizing my abilities?
No no I am not saying that an Atheist automatically has delusions of grandeur. I am saying when you watch Atheist like Dawkins and Dennett in debate or better yet read their books you will get the distinct impression they think that complete total Atheism solves everything . That science as it is now in biology and evolution and neuroscience on the brain explains everything to do with life and consciousness.
And these philosophers and scientist believe that they personally have solved everything. Dennet has his book Consciousness Explained and Dawkins has The God Delusion. So there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or God or ask about a soul because Science and Atheism and Materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know. There are no questions left to ask except questions in details. That is the Delusion of Grandeur I am talking about .
And the Theist are no better. Arguing that scientist think they know everything then pointing out some of the same things people like me say using ideas of real philosophers to show that maybe there is a limit to what materialistic science can know. And then concluding that justifies any pseudo science like Irreducible Complexity and that if there are questions that only philosophy can answer we should accept theological apologetics or obviously mythological based religions that are outdated by almost the entire history of human kind and have already been sufficiently refuted.
And on what basis?
Because they can dress up creationism in more scientific clothing? The same science they mock they use to justify religion for some political agenda to get prayers in schools and eliminate cutting edge science on evolution. But they represent themselves as honest philosophers seeking the truth.
I may not have all the answers but at least I'm willing to ask the real questions.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dogmafood, posted 05-06-2013 4:24 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dogmafood, posted 05-06-2013 11:37 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2013 11:02 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2013 11:04 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 2:17 AM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 22 of 82 (698510)
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


So Far So Good
OK now I think we are having a real discussion. So I will reply individually after I read all the responses and think on how to get my points across with more brevity.
So far I think the main objection to my points are 1. That I should use less words. And 2. that science as it is ...is all we have to work with.
So I do not think that science as it stands today is a complete method although it is close.
And I do not think that the Universe has thoughts and feelings like you and me let alone that the Universe should be called God because he/she/(it?) is a person.
This is where I see Theism failing by starting with the premise that God is a person that exist outside our Universe and is also the designer of our Universe.
But let me make it clear as a Pantheist I disagree on both premises.
Premises of Theist and don't really understand what is meant by the 3rd one.
1. God is a person (I submit is False)
2. God exist separate from the Universe (I submit is also False)
3. God is a "mystical" consciousness ? Not sure what is meant here so I can not clarify
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 5:10 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 24 by Stile, posted 05-08-2013 8:26 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 25 by petrophysics1, posted 05-08-2013 8:45 AM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2013 2:41 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 28 of 82 (698811)
05-09-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AZPaul3
05-09-2013 2:17 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
I think by your reply that you are missing my point. I am not targeting only Dennet or Atheist specifically. I know that superstition and religion is a problem. I also know that superstition doesn't solve problems. I am 90% Atheist and support the movement to minimize religion and superstitious thinking.
If you read my post I also target Theist equally as thinking there is only two ways of seeing things. Atheism being the wrong way and Theism solving what Atheist can't like problems of morality. Theist know there are gaps in scientific knowledge so many Theist use Intelligent Design as an alternate hypothesis to Natural Selection.
The problem is ID is disguised Theology.
So I think at least the Atheist are honest here. Atheist admit they are materialist but the ID proponent hides behind science preaching theology.
In fact I think there is very little in your post that I don't agree with. Maybe it was my fault for not pointing out my criticism applies equally to Michael Behe and William Dembski?
I was pointing out that Atheist and Theist are presenting an either or proposition.
I would like to know why you lump Pantheism in with monotheism and polytheism?
Would you call Einstein a superstitious thinker or would you call him a clear thinker?
Monotheist and Polytheist argue how many Gods there are. And both Mono/Poly Theist understand God to be a person based on mythology or religion which is just a mythological construct passing itself off as actual history. Pantheism does not agree with either Monotheism or Polytheism in any way. In fact I wish I could call Pantheism just Pan... ...well something else because there is no "theology" in Pantheism so in some ways there is no real theism in it either. What I mean by God is completely different from a what a Theist means by God.
So I really do not want to waste my time defending Judeao Christian Theism while Atheist attack it . For the Atheists that want to argue with Christians or Theologian please go argue with Theist . I know Pantheism has the word Theism in it but it is nothing like theism. If you go to Pantheist org you will see it is run almost entirely by Atheist. Even Richard Dawkins called Pantheism Sexed up Atheism. So I suggest you read up on Pantheism and read Dawkins more carefully yourself.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 2:17 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 10:34 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2013 5:36 AM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 29 of 82 (698830)
05-09-2013 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by petrophysics1
05-08-2013 8:45 AM


Re: So Far So Good
I want to thank you for providing those links.
Here is a paper by Henry Stapp, Theoretical Physics Group at Laurence Livermore Labs, who has also worked with Pauli and Heisenberg. He goes through a step by step look about why the clasical physics approach doesn't work concerning the brain/mind/awareness and how QM does.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9502012
It may give you some better ideas on how to present your viewpoint.
This second paper by Mr. Stapp, easier reading, goes into a few QM ideas concerning consciousness. An interesting experiment is also presented.
Quantum Mechanical Theories of Consciousness
Because you are right the issue of Pantheism is not an issue of promoting the idea of "God" but of giving people a perspective on the mind that is not completely materialistic.
I hope other people on this board besides me will explore the links you just provided.
Also for those interested please contrast the views of The Discovery Institute which is now out of the closet as a religious right group with that of Noetic Science. (Michele Kattke, PhD – IONS) because I belong to the Noetic Science view not the Discovery Institute view.
See below
Discovery Institute (Promoting Theism)
"Board of Directors Mission:
The mission of Discovery Institute is to advance a culture of purpose, creativity and innovation.
Program:
Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West."
Noetic Science (Promoting Actual Science)
"
The Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded in 1973 by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research, education, and membership organization whose mission is supporting individual and collective transformation through consciousness research, educational outreach, and engaging a global learning community in the realization of our human potential. Noetic comes from the Greek word nous, which means intuitive mind or inner knowing. IONS conducts, sponsors, and collaborates on leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness, exploring phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor.
The Institute’s primary program areas are consciousness and healing, extended human capacities, and emerging worldviews. The specific work of the Institute includes the following:
Sponsorship of and participation in original research and publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals
Application of findings into educational products and trainings"

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by petrophysics1, posted 05-08-2013 8:45 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 32 of 82 (698966)
05-11-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
05-09-2013 10:34 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
You will call it a principle of philosophy. I call it an unnecessary intrusion by your incredulity and emotional-based wishful thinking. Such a person is not basing their philosophy, their personal decisions or their decisions in regard to others on reason by objective reality alone. Further, given this shallow level of critical thinking, such a person, given the right emotional stimulus, might be brought to believe in any number of other questionable ideas.
In my view your expression of belief belongs with the other classifications of theism.
Ok let me take this point by point
1. Argument of incredulity
The argument of incredulity is as follows
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P.
It is true that I could argue that I can not imagine that I do not have a soul therefore I must have one and it is also true I could argue that I can not imagine a Universe that was not God ...But I have never made either argument for Pantheism
Ironically many Atheist do argue from incredulity because they can't see how the Universe could possibly be conscious so that proves it isn't and the same argument is made in relation to souls.
Yet Atheist have all the facts on their side . WYSIWYG meaning you observe a Universe made up of parts that follow physical laws of causation so they do not seem to need conscious intent in order to explain how the Universe exist in the way that it does.
But if this is the case ...
and if all the laws of observation and theories of science exist independently of any need for the Universe to have any deeper reality...
... then why do Atheist feel the need to emphasize their incredulity of any theory that isn't pure materialism?
Some Atheist take it so far as to do deny that Quantum Physics has any Metaphysical implications even though even Quantum Physicist admit that their are Metaphysical implications.
To quote Shakespeare "Me thinks thou protest too much"
In other words Atheists seem to need to make their own protest of incredulity even when the facts are supposedly on their side. And at the same time Atheist seem to revel in the fact that Theist argue incredulity as proof for Theism.
Atheist may not use their incredulity at anything spiritual being real as proof of materialism ...but they have no shame in using incredulity as an emotional attack or as an attack of character on anyone arguing against their case.
2. Wishful thinking
As for wishful thinking. That is a big assumption on your part. Again you lump all theism together with Pantheism . Most theist want a daddy to protect them a king to deal out justice and a guaranteed happy after life for those that believe what they do.
In no way does Pantheism match any of this criteria for wishful thinking. Pantheism in no way guarantees an afterlife and in no way describes a daddy protector or king of everything dishing out justice. I do think I have a soul and I do believe reincarnation is real . But the theory of reincarnation in no way promises me a heaven in exchange for anything .
As a Buddhist there is no way for me to go to any heaven. By choosing to be Buddhist I am denying heaven as a possibility and I am denying what most consider to be God . If there is a God I will be in Hell with all the Atheist.
So I get nothing out of my beliefs ideas theories etc that could emotionally fulfill any wishful thinking .
I got to what I understand about the nature of reality the same way all of you Atheist do, ...by observation and experience and using my ability to perceive and reason.
I am not a Theologian and I do not respect Theology . I am a philosopher through and through.
I use all the same methods of perception and reasoning any objective person would and I have experienced and studied the nature of reality and I simply draw a different conclusion.
I have been an Atheist all my life.That is I never believed in any Religion or God Concepts. This is what attracted me to Buddhism in the first place. Buddhism is very Atheist friendly and does not encourage wishful thinking.
It is true you can quote Einstein all day proving he was not a Theist. But that is because Pantheist are not by nature Christian/Jewish or even Monotheist. So nothing Einstein says will support Religion. Spinoza was rejected by Monotheist. Einstein was both attracted by Spinoza and Buddhism.
Since I have studied both Spinoza and Buddhism I can say that there is no room for Monotheism. The assumption that there is no such thing as true Pantheist thought in either Spinoza or Einstein based on a rejection of Monotheism is a non sequitar based on the assumption that Pantheism equates somehow to Theology or Religion.
3. One of the main principles of Philosophy is establishing a consistent Metaphysics. So asking what the relation of the observer is to reality is not an intrusion but a necessary Metaphysical question. And I have already covered this on my last thread in the original God Hypothesis. Please do not make me repeat all the points I made in that thread about QM and the relation to Metaphysics.
( I started this thread to clarify things I think were left unsaid or unexplained in that thread. Not to rehash everything said point by point all over again.)
But the nature of reality is deeper then WYSIWYG of Naive Realism.
Realism and quantum physics
Realism in physics refers to the fact that any physical system must have definite properties whether measured/observed or not. Physics up to the 19th century was always implicitly and sometimes explicitly taken to be based on philosophical realism.
Scientific realism in classical physics has remained compatible with the nave realism of everyday thinking on the whole but there is no known, consistent way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of ideas of the everyday world. "The general conclusion is that in quantum theory nave realism, although necessary at the level of observations, fails at the microscopic level."
Nave realism - Wikipedia
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 10:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 10:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 33 of 82 (698967)
05-11-2013 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Straggler
05-10-2013 5:36 AM


Re: No need for invisible men..
The problem here is that you have traded in one invisible man hypothesis for another.
You deride theists for advocating an invisible man in the sky. Yet your "pantheism" involves multiple invisible men (AKA "souls") as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us. Why you think your brand of invisible man hypothesis is any less worthy of derision than any other remains unclear.
As long as you are invoking an invisible man hypothesis (whatever it's particular form) you are going to get short shrift from the likes of Dawkins and Dennett who are advocating that such un-evidenced notions be discarded.
Please you can not equate George Carlin on the Invisible Man in the sky with The Ghost in The machine.
This is why even as an Atheist I have distanced myself from other Atheist.
Using your argument nothing not visible to the human eye or not easily understood can actually exist .
1. God is invisible
2. The Wind is invisible
3. Souls are invisible
4. Quanta are invisible
5. God does not exist
Therefore the soul the wind and quanta are all imaginary
It just doesn't work.
God in Theology is just a Mythological Construct mixed with Plato Idealism. There is no evidence of the Invisible man in the sky except religion. And religion simply steals other peoples myths and tries to pass them off as historical events like Flood myths and Creation Myths . Theological God Concepts are completely based on abstract principles like Perfect Beings and the idea of Good and Evil etc
There is no comparison in the mind body problem and the observer problem in QM .
We have no evidence of a God as a person.
But we do have evidence of our own minds and that awareness creates the hard problem of consciousness. You know that awareness is real but you only recognize one aspect of awareness. That of consciousness and only consciousness that can be reduced the Neuro-Chemistry of the Brain.
But Awareness is something more than Neurons firing and affecting the behavior of an organism.
All real philosophers acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness. Dennetts book Consciousness Explained was an attempt to explain where the hard problem comes from and how to resolve it.
If there wasn't a problem he would not have felt the need to write the book. His Multiple Drafts Theory is a recipe for insanity. There is no way a human being could be consistently aware and maintain an identity in relation to being aware if MDT is accepted. Also he is assuming that all conscious experience can be reduced to thoughts and emotions and sensory experiences which is a function of memory and cognitive abilities.
But my awareness exist independent of any thoughts or emotions. Thoughts come and go but I am not my thoughts. Emotions can affect my behavior but I can also act independently of them or even modify them. Also there is not just one state of mind with emotions being too much of this chemical or too little of that chemical.
So again this topic goes way deeper then invisible men.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2013 5:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2013 7:15 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 35 of 82 (698984)
05-12-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AZPaul3
05-11-2013 10:35 PM


Self Evident
The fact that I am aware is self evident. But your question on evidence borders on self congratulatory arrogance. There were already links posted on QM correlations to Consciousness and the links I provided to Noetic Science Research.
Further research to QM effects to the brain and hard problems of consciousness can be found at The Center for Consciousness studies.
Your no evidence idea is starting to sound like the Intelligent Design argument that there is no evidence for Evolution. Also Behe claimed that there was no evidence that the flagellum could exist functioning without all of its parts. Again he was proven wrong about a lack of evidence. This is because this has been refuted using examples such as The Type -III Secretory Apparatus which looks like the flagellum with a few missing parts.
The Type -III Secretory Apparatus
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" — tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial — even essential — to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.
In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Bttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).
At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact — the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.
I bring this up because apparently Atheist also believe there is no evidence that consciousness or the hard problem can be resolved in relation to QM or that there is room for a soul or freewill.
Yet the research in this area is also being done . Just as Intelligent Design proponents choose to ignore any research that challenges their theories ..Atheist also seem to choose to ignore research being done by the Noetic Science Institute or The Center for Consciousness Studies. Both Intelligent Design and the Atheist movement make the same claim that there is no evidence or relevant research to prove even the possibility they might be wrong.
An example of this research may be found on the website of The Center for Consciousness Studies.
How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will.
Abstract
Conscious "free will" is problematic because (1) brain mechanisms causing consciousness are unknown, (2) measurable brain activity correlating with conscious perception apparently occurs too late for real-time conscious response, consciousness thus being considered "epiphenomenal illusion," and (3) determinism, i.e., our actions and the world around us seem algorithmic and inevitable. The Penrose-Hameroff theory of "orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR)" identifies discrete conscious moments with quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons, e.g., 40/s in concert with gamma synchrony EEG. Microtubules organize neuronal interiors and regulate synapses. In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons. Quantum computations in entangled microtubules terminate by Penrose "objective reduction (OR)," a proposal for quantum state reduction and conscious moments linked to fundamental spacetime geometry. Each OR reduction selects microtubule states which can trigger axonal firings, and control behavior. The quantum computations are "orchestrated" by synaptic inputs and memory (thus "Orch OR"). If correct, Orch OR can account for conscious causal agency, resolving problem 1. Regarding problem 2, Orch OR can cause temporal non-locality, sending quantum information backward in classical time, enabling conscious control of behavior. Three lines of evidence for brain backward time effects are presented. Regarding problem 3, Penrose OR (and Orch OR) invokes non-computable influences from information embedded in spacetime geometry, potentially avoiding algorithmic determinism. In summary, Orch OR can account for real-time conscious causal agency, avoiding the need for consciousness to be seen as epiphenomenal illusion. Orch OR can rescue conscious free will.
The full article can be found here .
How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will - PMC

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 10:35 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024