Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Obsidian
First Re: "From your answer to (1), it appears to me that you were raised “in the church” and, as many are..."
Interesting. Appears we have a bit in common. *chuckle*
Second Re: "I find your position on worship interesting......Have I articulated this position correctly?"
Yep. Sounds about right. You pretty much nailed it. lol Now, of course I realize that on the surface my position on that may seem incredibly arrogant. (Who knows? Maybe it is.) However, it really isn't meant to be. Yes, I am incredibly independent, and rules to me are usually just suggestions that are begging to be bent (and sometimes broken), depending on how silly I deem them to be and/or how much they interfere with my completing a task/assignment. That being said, I was raised to be respectful and polite, and that I should always lead by example. And having spent several years in the military simply reinforced that. Now, my personal views concerning respect could be an entire topic of discussion on its own. Short version for now, though, is that I believe respect is something that has to be EARNED, and I do not give my respect lightly. Worshipping, on the other hand.... Well, that is something I never got the hang of, even though I was raised being taught that I should worship God/Jesus. I do not recall a single moment in my life where I ever felt comfortable with that word ("worship"). Even as a child, it held so many negative connotations for me. So many times I would consider it and think to myself, "If God is so incredibly powerful and loving and caring, then why would he need me to worship him? Why would he not be okay with my simply RESPECTING him?" It just seemed all too silly, is the best I know how to explain it. Speaking for myself, I know I would never like the idea of anybody worshipping ME, no matter how much power or influence I might have. Simply having others respect me would be just fine with me..... as long as I actually earned it.
Third Re: "...is there any hypothetical deity that, if proven to exist by indisputable scientific evidence, you would feel compelled to worship because of... I am trying to explore the depths of your position on when something, even something purely hypothetical, would be worthy of worship."
Ahhh.... I really LIKE this question. This question actually made me smile. Honestly never directly considered it before. Actually been thinking about it off and on the last couple of days since first reading it. Fascinating. Tell ya what, in the interest of keeping this post to a reasonable length, please allow me to address that question in a separate post. In a small way, I partially answered this in my above reply regarding respect. However, the way you worded your question has added a bit more complexity to it for some reason. Still trying to pinpoint why, even as I type this. Wonderful concept to explore.
@Obsidian Re: "...I am trying to explore the depths of your position on when something, even something purely hypothetical, would be worthy of worship."
Something just occurred to me literally between the time I saved that last post and the time I started this one. Namely: What in the unholy name of all creatures big and small could some omniscient entity with unlimited power possibly gain by my insignificant little ass worshipping it? In the grand scheme of things, I am but one tiny "microscopic" speck out of all the BILLIONS of people who have come and gone over the centuries. Yet this All-powerful/All-knowing god needs ME to worship it for some reason? I mean, if I don't worship it, does it lose power or something? If I DO worship it, does it maybe gain something like frequent-flyer miles, or maybe points toward a free toaster? The more I think about it, the more absurd the whole thing becomes. Seems to me that a being that powerful and knowledgeable wouldn't give a thin slice of a rat's turd about what I do in/with my life. And if this god supposedly loves and cares about me as much as it claims, then requiring me to bow down to it and grovel at its feet certainly is an odd way of showing that "love." Exactly how insecure and narcissistic is this being? Just an observation. Anyway, back on topic....
Is there anything/anybody I could ever worship?..... Hmmm..... Well, right off hand, I cannot think of a single thing, regardless of what qualities/powers he/she/it might possess. Maybe I simply have too much pride? Or maybe it is just a strong sense of self-respect. I don't know. In my mind, though, to require/force somebody to bow before you and "worship" you is to show a great deal of disrespect to that individual. In other words, it is very wrong, in my opinion. As I said already, I would never want anybody to worship me. Matter of fact, even if I had that kind of power, I would not ALLOW anybody to worship me, not even voluntarily. I would forbid it, if at all possible. And, as you might have noticed by now, it all comes back to the whole respect thing. With that in mind, I can think of many qualities/characteristics of a god/deity that I could easily respect. Heck, for that matter, I might even go as far as "being of assistance" to that particular god/deity should it be required. (Although, why any all-powerful/all-knowing deity would need my assistance with anything would be considerably puzzling, to say the least. But I digress...) But worship it? Nope. Sorry. No can do. Besides, I have bad knees. Makes kneeling rather difficult. *chuckle* Of course, any deity/god I might respect would never require me to worship it in the first place.
Sooooo..... Looks like I have basically gone around the world to simply say, "Nope. Can't think of any god(s) that I would ever worship." But, dog-gonnit, I still like that question. *smile*
(Edited for punctuation)
Tin-Man,
"Nope. Can't think of any god(s) that I would ever worship."
In ancient times people made up assorted gods to help them with their life problems. The primary reason common people today worship gods is because they think that by doing so the god will grant them eternal life in heaven or paradise. Mormons take it a step further and thing that the men will become gods themselves, each with his own planet and harem.
If the idea of gaining eternal life isn't appealing then there's no reason to worship any deity. But it's still hard to break the association of some type of religious service with one's own death.
Tin-Man:
Thanks for the explanation. It was fun to read and insightful. Your response has made me question whether, at the core, there is any substantial difference between “worship” and “respect”. I am literally making this up as I go as I have never considered the issue before.
For example, presume, out of respect for a hero, I take off my hat or salute when he passes. Essentially, I have taken a physical action as a sign that I acknowledge the hero, his good actions, and my admiration for him. Would that act be converted to “worship” if the hero happened to be a deity? If not, what is missing that, if added, would convert an act of simple respect into “worship”? Or is “worship” just a fancy way of saying that we show our respect for “god”? Is the difference between respect and worship simply a matter of degree?
Perhaps “worship” is simply a system of formalized actions designed to show respect in a group dynamic? If so, I could see an argument that the entire idea of “worship” as a group activitity might be a result of communities developing ritualistic processes whose net benefit is creating a sense of oneness out of an otherwise disparate group of individuals. “Worship” doesn’t exist; instead there is just a group dynamic created by human communities to foster bonding over a shared experience. This would play to peoples innate desires for security, prosperity, etc. by suggesting that security and prosperity can be obtained through the simple process of offering to a hypothetical deity something even the poorest members of the community can give freely: respect. The individual receives the comforting feeling that a deity is on his side and the community forges bonds that help the community survive in the face of external threats. “Respect” has been converted into “worship” in a way that increases survivability of both the individual and the community.
An interesting line of thought I think will probably bug me until I figure out my position. I am aware that there are arguments that the entire history of religion and the creation of gods can be explained as a consequence of evolutionary pyschology. This line of thought would seem to fit neatly there.
Either way, I know some people find these types of fine distinctions and questions pointless or boring but I often find that taking the time to nail down these previously misunderstood or even simply unexamined areas of thought highly rewarding. Thanks for sparking a new line of reasoning for me.
Forgive any errors, I have no time for extensive proofing right now.
ObsidianPhoenix
@Obsidian Re: "Your response has made me question whether, at the core, there is any substantial difference between “worship” and “respect”."
Funny you should mention that, because even as I was writing the last two posts that same question started pinging in my mind. Yes, the two concepts (respect vs. worship) are indeed similar. I would say "worship" is definitely a step above "respect", but where exactly is the line drawn between the two? Intuitively I know the difference, but to actually put it into definitive terms seems rather "slippery" for some reason.
I'm afraid I am pressed for time this evening. (Just taking a quick food break right now.) However, it is definitely something I would like to continue discussing. I'll be mulling it over, and maybe we can compare notes later if you would like. Fun stuff. *grin*
Tin-Man:
I absolutely accept your offer and look forward to the discussion. My work day tomorrow is pretty busy so if there is a delay in my response until Thursday, apologies in advance.
ObsidianPhoenix
@ObsidianPhoenix:
I apologize for interjecting here, (again?)
But, your comment above concerning respect vs worship.
To me, even just "respecting" a solider with a salute or wave, is very different then "respecting" a deity. The soldier is there, his existence is not in doubt, his ability to acknowledge your respect is apparent. Also among 2 humans you are both, should be roughly equal. Most people consider their gods to be anything but their equal.
Two very different things for people to "respect" a person, versus their "god" even if we decided respect and worship are essentially the same thing.
(I do not think respect and worship are very similar at all.)
Sorry guys, but it looks like we will be swinging into a bit of philosophy! Put your seat belts on! Hard to avoid philosophy in questions like these.
@ObsidianPhoenix,
Haven't we atheists been around this block a few times already? You could probably just read those threads. But, since you write well and exhibit signs of intelligence I'll go around that block again just for you! Never say that an atheist didn't do you a favor!
Perhaps "conclusions/assumptions" is better than "beliefs." People believe things for the flimsiest of reasons, if reason is used at all, and I think you want to see more reflection and commitment.
To me an atheist is someone who consciously rejects all god-claims and their supernatural baggage. Rejection can be: 1) on the basis of positive evidence entailing reason; 2) because of a perceived lack of evidence as in "no beef, no belief!"; or 3) for no particular reason, there being no claim advanced. An atheist may use some combination of these rejection categories depending on how "God" is defined. Note that only the first category carries a burden of proof. (The theist still has his burden of proof.)
No positive conclusions/assumptions are entailed by an atheist's position under a "category two" rejection. After all, it is the theist's job to make the sale; the atheist need not enter in with any special presuppositions. He simply reacts to the claims being pitched at him; he is not arguing anything. For many of us atheists it's "No sale! Come back when you have something more convincing."
Speaking for myself, I have concluded that the Christian god of the literal Bible is hung by his own Bible, even as the Islamic god of the literal Quran is hung by his Quran. I have also concluded that had there been a compelling argument for God I would very likely have seen some version of it. A real proof of God could scarcely be prevented from leaping to the front pages of every major newspaper, to Wikipedia, to every pulpit, and would take the philosophical journals by storm!
I have also concluded, given our present knowledge, that the critical reasoning process must be abandoned in order to conclude that supernatural beings exist. This argument does not claim that such beings don't exist. It notes that, despite extensive testing, there is no serious evidence for a failure of natural law and, within their proper limits, no prospects of failure is in sight. (Nobody expects to land on a moon of Saturn and discover that gravity is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance; nobody expects to discover that a chunk of matter can be made to go faster than light in a vacuum. Nobody expects to discover that energy is not conserved.)
Since these laws of nature are based on the most extensively tested facts known to the human race, there presently being no immediate prospect of failure, the rational (and best) conclusion must be to reject supernatural beings. No claim of certainty is entailed any more than it is in the sciences. I reject a conclusion for the supernatural on the grounds that it is significantly inferior to the alternative. (A perfectly rational thinker always tries to maximize his or her chances of being right. He or she is not interested in the merely possible, only in what is probable.)
Therefore, my own atheistic position carries some positive claims.
I attach no fixed definition to "God" since every religion and sect has their own ideas. Usually I'm thinking of the conservative Christian's idea of "God" since I live in a country where conservative Christianity is the main offender. It is that general concept of "God" that I have some familiarity with. Thus, I usually address what most Christian theologians call an omnipotent, omniscient, and benign being. My claim is that the likelihood of such a being is vanishingly small if we take the Bible as his handiwork. That is, if the Bible is held to be God's own words, then it is clear, beyond the slightest hint of a reasonable doubt, that the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Bible-writing Christian god doesn't exist. In short, the god of the literal Bible is hung by his own book!
Regarding the "supernatural," I understand that it entails the idea that nature's laws can be overridden. Usually an agent, such as God, is assumed. I claim that critical reasoning rules out (beyond a reasonable doubt) such agents or situations, that being our best conclusion at the present time. (New evidence could conceivably come to light that might change the picture.)
Nature's laws and their related events fit together like pieces to a jigsaw puzzle. Sooner or later, a natural event would be expected to find its place in this puzzle. A "supernatural" event would be like a piece from another box. It would never fit in no matter how much progress we made in putting our puzzle together.
In our imagination we can think up scenarios that show no promise whatsoever of being explained by natural laws. Imagine a swimming pool that freezes solid when the last person leaves and instantly becomes a heated pool the minute someone enters. One might imagine that scientists would eventually explain it according to natural laws, if not today then in a 1000 years from now, but the difficulties are so fundamentally severe that the best conclusion would have to be that nature's laws have failed--that we have a supernatural event! But, that event would be like a piece from a puzzle in the wrong box; it has no connection with the other pieces. Thus, a supernatural event could never be a part of science even if it were verified! There would be no way to explain it, and no way to use it to explain other things. For all we know it might not even have a cause! Why should a supernatural event, which ignores all the other rules of nature, even have a cause?
If strong evidence contradicts some of the properties assumed for a particular god, and no remedy is available or, else, is far less credible than the case for the contradiction, then the only rational conclusion is to reject that hypothesis. Certainty is not claimed here any more than it is in the sciences. However, we can be pretty sure that the sun will rise tomorrow and that the earth is more or less spherical. The lack of certainty does not rule out firm conclusions.
For many definitions of a god, obvious evidence supporting rejection is at hand, often in the form of supposed revelations to their prophets or in written scripture they supposedly authored. Their very words are the noose to hang them by.
For supernatural gods in general, their Achilles' heel lies in contradicting the best verified knowledge we have about our universe. When the choice comes down to either wild, religious speculation or the best verified knowledge we have about our reality, the conclusion should be obvious to any rational mind. My claim is that the latter choice is far more likely to be right--not that we have certainty.
What do you imagine is going on in Paul's head when he reads this stuff.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZM-HZDZTc0
How many ways can we say the same thing over and over and over again?
@ Cog
"Imagine"
I just snorted Shiraz out my nose...I am sending the bill!
Greensnake:
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I’m sure you guys often get questions like this and it gets kind of frustrating having to go over the same things again and again. After reading your post, I have a very strong respect for your willingness to differentiate between certainty and probability in rational thought. I’m hopeful that we can have a very interesting discussion.
And, for whatever it’s worth, I have absolutely no problem getting into philosophy when it comes to these topics. Although I readily admit I’m nothing more than the rankest amateur, I do enjoy philosophical arguments, especially those associated with the intersection of philosophy of religion, mind, and science. Along with physics and biology, I think those fields are really the battlegrounds where intellectual debates over these topics must be fought. Too often, people reach conclusions in both of those areas without at least making an attempt to read the relevant literature on all sides. Among atheist philosophers that I have read, my current preference is for Oppy’s, “The Best Argument against God“, especially for its considerations of minimalist theism as opposed to the tenants of a more fully fleshed out religion. Is there a better text you would recommend for the layman?
And, although I understand entirely that you were joking, I would never say that an atheist never did me a favor. Arguments for atheism are one of the reasons I moved away from organized religion and began exploring the topics for myself. Just because I ended up in a different place doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the fact it was willingness to challenge tradition that created the relevant progress. This is obviously true in both science and religion, as well as most other areas of life. Rarely is progress made by those sitting in an echo chamber.
Although I’m not responding to each word of your post, please know that I have read your post in detail. As promised, I have no intention in this thread of challenging anyone’s positions. I just want to understand your personal position and thoughts, to get out of the “echo chamber“ of my own investigations if you will.
In that vein, you stated:
“This argument does not claim that such beings don't exist. It notes that, despite extensive testing, there is no serious evidence for a failure of natural law and, within their proper limits, no prospects of failure is in sight. “
Later in your post you said:
“In our imagination we can think up scenarios that show no promise whatsoever of being explained by natural laws.”
That caught my eye because you raised philosophy earlier. I think one of the major questions currently challenging practicing philosophers in the relevant areas, and scientists who care about it, is the mind/body problem. Unless there has been some type of advance in the philosophical literature that I am not aware of, it has at least been floated in the community that the mind/body problem may be precisely the type of scenario you were talking about here. It appears that there is, at least currently, a complete failure of the known natural laws to formulate a coherent answer to the problem. More importantly, there is serious debate going on in the relevant literature about at least the possibility that the entire current framework of scientific investigation, especially if limited only to a reductionist materialism, ultimately must fail to solve the mind/body problem and that such failure will require a fundamental revision of scientific understanding. Probably the most famous person to advance this line of thought
in the lay literature, although he was excoriated for doing so, was atheist Thomas Nagel in “Mind and Cosmos.” What are your thoughts on this? Do you have a preferred theory on the mind/ body problem?
I trust that I don’t need to point out that the above is not any type of argument that the mind/body problem and the potential failure of science to explain it is, by itself, any evidence for the supernatural. That would be an argument from ignorance. I just want to know your position because I do think, in conjunction with other relevant philosophical arguments, the mind/body problem rests at the heart of any serious discussion of modern theism.
Second, throughout your post, you make numerous references to natural law, by which I assume you mean traditionally understood “laws” discovered by science. At least some scientists and philosophers put forth the idea that all of the scientific fields are ultimately reducible to physics. Do you fall into that camp? If not, where do you fall on the issue? I’m asking because I would be interested in knowing your position on the philosophical arguments for realism of universals, especially if you are reductionist.
@ObsidianPhoenix
I do not want to intrude on the excellent discussion you and greensnake have going, but curiosity has me asking:
What is the: mind/body problem? I am aware I could google it, but perhaps you can give a short summary what it is to you, or a link to a page that explains it well that you agree with?
My cynical version:
It is the silly product of people who want to believe humans have souls, but are unwilling to use that discredited word. In short, since the exact way consciousness arises from particle interactions is unknown; it must be magic. What those people fail to realize is almost nothing can be expressed in that form. Even the properties of a single atom of gold can not be deduced/calculated from its constitute parts (it would require way too many calculations).
Essentially, unlike every other thing known; they want to believe the human mind/sou/whatever is more than the sum of it parts.
It is more formal/fancier version of good old magical thinking.
Nyarelathotep:
As I indicated in my original post, I don’t intend to debate anyone here. I just want to understand the positions of others. Perhaps you and I should start a separate comment run in this thread so as not to distract from the current discussion in this comment. Either way, I am confused by your response. Is it your position that dualism, as a philosophy, is tantamount to magical thinking? Or that the entire mind/body problem itself is somehow magical thinking? The latter would surprise me as I have never seen that position advanced by any philosopher or scientist familiar with the problem. Even those who believe it can be resolved in a manner in line with pure reductive materialism at least acknowledge the current difficulty of doing so and the legitamacy of the problem. This includes some of the most prominent academic atheists in the literature, specifically Nagel, Oppy, and Mackie. Therefore, if that is the position are you advancing, I think there is fertile ground for me to learn a new viewpoint.
If you have time, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss your thoughts on the issue in more detail.
Yes, but perhaps the term magical thinking wasn't the best term. It is a fantasy; an appeal to anthropocentrism. It is right there in the site you linked:
Fantasy right out of the starting gate. I'm sorry to pee in your wheaties, but dualism is just the same old idea of a soul, wrapped in a fancy dress.
Nyarlathotep:
Respectfully, as I indicated in my response to LogicforTW below, I am not a dualist. The cite to dualism was because that is the immediate search result that leads to an introduction to the mind/body problem on the Stanford website.
I agree that dualism is “just the same old idea of a soul, wrapped in a fancy dress”. You aren’t “pee[ing] in my wheaties”. Instead, it appears we agree with each other. Apologies if my original post did not make my position on dualism clear.
The relevant question is, if you reject dualism, do you accept materialism? If so, which of the relevant materialist answers to the problem do you find most persuasive? Why?
ObsidianPhoenix
Yes; if for no other reason than it produces results. While that remains the case, it the only choice even worth considering (imo).
Nyarlathotep:
An excellent point. It cannot be denied that massive progress has been made in scientific understanding by those utilizing a materialist perspective. Some other time a discussion on the extent of the role materialism as a philoshopy played in such advances would be interesting, at least to me. For now, given my stated purpose in this thread, may I inquire as to which particular materialist theory on the mind/body problem in particular you find persuasive, if any? If you do subscribe to one of the commonly suggested materialist theories, may I inquire as to why you find it to be the most persuasive, especially as opposed to other materialist theories?
Meh, I guess I'd go with reductive physicalism.
Nyarlathotep:
If you ever have interest, I would love to discuss openly your thoughts on these issues in a more in-depth way. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and provide insight into your perspective.
ObsidianPhoenix
Ah souls, and more then the sum of parts. I suspected it was somewhere in this area, but as I have not had to much discussion or reading on it, I am curious about their points. I personally struggle with the whole: When you think, what is listening to my own thoughts? I know the that is a flawed way of thinking. (A conversation in my head as if it was 2 different people.) Obviously I do not think this leads to evidence of a soul or something immortal, or simply "more." But it is a philosophical thought I been wrestling with as of late.
LogicForTW:
Feel free to ignore this, as many would find it long and boring. For what it may be worth:
My kids are napping so I have a quick moment to discuss the mind/body problem. To be clear, at least as far as I see it, the mind/body problem itself has nothing to do with “souls”. Dualism as an answer to the mind/body problem is often associated with claims of the existence of a soul but, as I indicated, I am not a dualist and do not think those arguments hold water.
Put as simply as I can in a short time period, and MASSIVELY oversimplifying to the point of near criminality against the subject, the mind/body problem is this:
1. Human bodies are composed entirely of materials known to science.
Humans are made of carbon, H20, etc. This includes all parts of our bodies, including our brains.
2. Humans have minds.
This premise is very hard to deny. Eliminative materialism attempts to deny it but, as I have indicated in another thread, I think the position is self-refuting. Note that this premise has nothing to do with “free will” etc. It’s just the statement that humans have minds, i.e. that we have internal awareness and consciousness. To deny this premise, you must deny that you (1) think, (2) have awareness and (3) are conscious.
3. No individual material known to science has ever been shown to have a mind or even rudimentary mental properties.
A chunk of carbon in the lab does not have a mind or any mental properties whatsoever. No matter how much water you get together, it will not have a mind or any mental properties whatsoever. No element on the periodic table has any mental properties associated with it. There are no known particles, etc. that display mental properties. The only way I have ever seen to dispute this premise is something akin to panpsychism.
Based on these three premises, all of which seem very difficult to deny, especially for the rationally minded individual, there appears to be a problem:
How does a lump of non-conscious materials (a human) gain the capacity for awareness, consciousness, and subject experience? Or, how does our body, made entirely of things that have no mental properties, have a mind composed of mental properties? If no known materials have any mental properties, then how can those properties suddenly “emerge” from a combination of such materials? (Note that, and this goes far beyond the scope of this short description, things like the wetness of water “emerging” from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen are not counter-examples. Getting into why would take a fair amount of time discussing the philosophical arguments related to emergence and reduction. If you honestly care about it, I am happy to, some other time, get into the specifics.)
There are many suggested answers to this question and it has been debated in philosophy in some form or another at least for the last hundred years or so and arguably much longer.
The standard materialist (most atheists I read are materialist, although that may differ on this forum) answer is that, somehow, the brain creates the mind despite the fact that the brain itself is made up of elements that scientists do not believe have mental properties individually. Once the non-mental elements get arranged in some super complex way, mental properties somehow “appear”, despite not being present in the individual constituent parts. As indicated in the link that I sent you, there are numerous theories as to precisely how this occurs, including behaviorism, functionalism, identify theory, token identity theory, etc. However, most philosophers admit that all of these theories have major problems that seem to indicate that they are wrong or, at best, incomplete. Since Greensnake shares an interest in philosophy, I was interested in hearing which of the theories in the literature he subscribes to as the best current solution to the problem.
For what it’s worth, it’s a very interesting topic to explore if you have time. I would also respectfully caution against anyone dismissing the problem out of hand as “simple” to solve, not real, etc. A few hours research on Google will show that some of the most intelligent and respected thinkers of all time have wrestled with this problem, including prominent atheists alive today. New philosophical papers continue to be written on the topic and, to my knowledge, the entire scientific field of neuroscience acknowledges the problem. All of these people aren’t wasting their time debating and/or researching an issue that has an easy answer. To be honest, it took me several weeks of reading to even fully understand the issues at stake. The first time I began to look into it, the complexities of the arguments made almost zero sense to me. As I took the time to learn, I found the area fascinating, especially once one begins to grasp the full ramifications of the various answers. Even the materialist answers lead to some pretty mind-blowing stuff if they are correct.
And finally, to be clear, I don’t intend to argue the above with anyone in this thread. If someone has an opinion on the solution, I want to learn about it, not debate it. To the extent that solution is found in the relevant literature, I would love cites. However, that’s as far as I intend to go on the topic right now. If someone wants to explore the above with me some other time, I would love to do so but I don’t want to lose track of my purpose in starting this thread, namely learning from forum members their personal beliefs / convictions / thoughts on the basic questions I raised initially.
Thanks for the write up. I am still new to this ... branch? of philosophical thinking. I read your entire post. Certainly an area I am curious about. As long as it does not try to rope in "god" (as it is commonly defined) as a possibility/explanation then I am curious what as you say: many top philosophers including atheist ones have been wrestling over. I will probably need to re-read your post again when I am less tired. Before I can present my initial thoughts on the ideas you presented.
The notion (and I realize that ObsidianPhoenix isn't directly making this argument, and is just listing it with others) that a set can't have properties that none of the objects in the set have; is known as the fallacy of division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best example I can think of is friction. Friction does not exist at the particle scale (electrons don't exhibit friction). Friction is a property that emerges when a macroscopic object (an object that contains something on the order of 10^23 moving parts) is moved near another object with 10^23 moving parts. It is probably just the collision of huge numbers of moving parts, but no one really knows for sure; since the amount of calculations required to deduce friction from collisions is not even remotely possible.
So instead we just call it friction, and measure its effects empirically (instead of using theory/mathematics). And while calling it friction might not be quite as accurate as calling it collisions; friction is a far more useful idea as you can replace an almost infinite amount of calculations with a single, very simple calculation.
Notice we don't have theists trying to argue that friction is impossible because electrons and such don't exhibit friction. But they do make that argument when it comes to the mind, presumably because making the mind mysterious allows it to dove-tail nicely with their religious teachings, and ultimately that is all that matters to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greensnake gave several good examples above.
@Nyar Re: Friction example
Dang-it, like I said before, I love it when you talk technical. That was pretty cool, and something I never really thought about. Neat stuff. Amazing what we take for granted sometimes.
Nyarlathotep:
Thanks for the interesting example. As I indicated in my response to Greensnake and in the short summary of the problem that I gave to LogicforTW, my understanding of the relevant literature is that while friction is a great example of a reductive emergent property, it is inapplicable to the relevant discussion because mind is a different type of property, namely a non-reductive emergent property.
The existence of qualia is often cited as one reason why, even if emergence theory is correct, mind must still be a recognized as a non-reductive emergent property. And, since you earlier indicated a preference for reductive physicalism as your solution to the mind body problem, admitting the existence of a non-reductive emergent property would (respectfully) seem to be inconsistent.
Do you accept the existence of qualia? If you hold that mind is a reductive instead of a non-reductive property, do you have an opinion as to the best way to account for qualia under such an analysis? Alternatively, if you hold that mind is a non-reductive emergent property, what is your preferred explanation for how to reconcile this with reductive physicalism?
I realize that all of this may be getting too deep for this quick response format. If you have a suggested article or book on the topic, I will happily purchase and read it so I can better understand your position. Just let me know your recommendation.
In like vein, for those that may be following this discussion and care (which I realize may be no one at all), the link below, especially section three, discusses the relevant issues in some depth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Irreducible
Thanks again for the interesting discussion.
ObsidianPhoenix
@ObsidianPhoenix
I will read your link. I do not even know what "qualia" is.
Quick question: (Which I understand may be a long answer or way off topic.)
I thought it was fairly settled when it comes to the brain, conscious and all that.
Memory.
Without it, the brain's higher functions become nothing, identity is nothing, it becomes a useless hunk of biomass, other than the baser functions of the brain, performing things like breathing, metabolism etc.
In many ways you take away a person's memories, you "kill" the person. Much like if you put a person in a medically induced coma, forever, it is much the same.
Thoughts? Am I way off base here? To me, who we are, what "listens" is our own memories.
LogicforTW:
I think the area you are exploring is a somewhat different, but related, field of inquiry in philosophy. Specifically, the field related to questions of personal identity. Relevant link:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
One of the questions raised by inquires in such field is, presuming dualism is false and we do not have “souls”, what preserves our personal identity across time? Or, put differently, why am I, now 34, the same “individual” as my 8 year old self? Is it because I share the same memories? The same genetic code? The same body? Each of these easy answers raises immediate problems and has seriously counterintuitive results:
Memory: Does that mean I die if I get total amnesia? If I then recollect my memories, have I been resurrected from my prior death?
Genetic Code: What about genetically identical twins? Are they the same “individual”? What if my genetic code is altered by some future scientific process? Have I died? Do I die, and a new person emerge, every time this occurs?
Body: Humans replace dead cells at a constant rate. I don’t have the same cells my 8 year old self did. Does that mean he is dead? If he is dead, who am I? Do I have no past self?
The inquiry goes much deeper than this and gets into some seriously interesting stuff I think you might like. And, for whatever its worth, this isn’t some trick to backdoor an argument for God into the discussion. It’s just a seriously cool field of philosophy. If you ever want to discuss in detail, I think a thread on the topic would be really interesting, especially with so many intelligent people to discuss the issue.
ObsidianPhoenix
ObsidianPhoenix,
It seems to me that identity is something of an illusion, an illusion made somewhat real by our separation from one another in space and time. My guess is that identity is information based, which opens the door to some paradoxes.
That is the fallacy of division, again.
One of the corner stones of modern physics is that all information is stored physically. Sure you can group some of that together and give those groupings new names (qualia, memories, etc) but that is just an abstraction(CS) to make conversation easier. Just like friction.
And we all do this all the time. The only time you hear complaints is when it starts to touch on an area that is thought to be the bailiwick of religion.
Pages