201. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52744 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 1:32 am

phil rimmer said:

Animals have some vestige of consciousness.

I'm not happy with 'some vestige' when we're talking about consciousness. Come on – you're conscious. Could you imagine having merely 'some vestige of consciousness'? What if we asked a non-human animal about this? Oh, of course, they could never comprehend the necessary concepts because they only have some vestige of consciousness…

Vardu said:

If anybody thinks that emotions and consciousness are unique to human beings, they haven't been reading Frans de Vaal.

No one here has said animals can't experience emotions. Consciousness is something very different, even to a behaviourist like de Waal. Unless I've totally misread de Waal, he is not claiming that animals are conscious. Instead, his position amounts to saying that humans are not. What he might say, according to my understanding of his writings, is that by human consciousness we mean certain behaviours, many of which are exhibited by our hairy cousins.

However, I am not a behaviourist, and I think that consciousness amounts to something very much more than a set of behaviours.

202. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52652 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Corylus,

An interesting response - thank you. It is so nice to hear someone thinking (I didn't even have to listen too closely!). People around here seem to spend such a lot of time merely repeating things unthinkingly that it is refreshing to sense real thought.

Might it not be rational to behave non-rationally?

I mean, if you push a scientist, s/he might admit that we cannot know anything about what happened before the big bang, and therefore know nothing about why the universe is here, what caused it etc. Given this vacuum, doesn't it make sense to speculate about what might have caused it?

I am a teacher. Imagine that something appeared on my desk (I have no energy to make this an appropriate analogy, so please bear with me), and for some reason I have no way of finding out how it got there. Did a student create it and leave it there, or did it appear in a different way that I can't even guess at?

If I assume that it was a student, careful examination of it might tell me quite a lot about the student. Given that the choice is 'Someone designed it' or '?', why is it irrational to choose the non-rational assumption that someone made it?

Just to clarify, I do understand how evolution works, but I am talking about the existence of this universe with its specific structure etc. I do know how we got here, but I'm talking about how the universe got here in the first place.

Another question - you are a philosopher, so are intellectually free to choose either option. There are two options - God, Not God. The God package has some undesirable content, but the Not God package lacks morality, any purpose or point to life, etc. In fact, the Not God package requires far more intellectual weakness, because you have to pretend that Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. With the God package, you are surrounded by people saying (and singing) stupid things, but why is it the less reasonable option?

Do you not think that many people choose 'Not God' without committing themselves to the philosophical implications of their choice?

Sleep well.

203. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52634 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Religion is evil

Angieruns, do you really believe in good and evil?

204. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52629 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 2:50 pm

swamijie,

I refer you to my later comment, 39, where I said:

I would not have made this point myself. The reason is that, although there are clearly a very large number of ignorant people who misuse scientific language, speaking of 'scientific fact' without any understanding of what this really means, it isn't necessarily so. Good scientists, like good theologians, are aware of the nature of their assumptions and the limitations of their field of inquiry.

I wasn't making a point about scientists. I was making a point about how people of faith are referred to in this and other discussions. Please re-read 39.

205. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52625 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Hmmm.

physical correlates

So, we have a quality, consciousness, an awareness of our own experiences, which is found in humans. Humans evolved from animals that were not conscious. Therefore there's no essential difference between humans and non-human animals.

As long as you don't worry too much about the consciousness bit, it is all explicable by physical correlation.

206. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52620 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 2:29 pm

My memory of The God Delusion is he was keen on people studying comparative religion.

he believes that everybody should be taught both the history of religions and comparative religion

I have to disagree. What Dawkins actually said in TGD was (p340):

A good case can indeed be made for the educational benefits of teaching comparative religion... what transparent nonsense this is! These faiths are mutually incompatible... Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility.

Please read the full text - I have shortened this to prevent it being too long here. Dawkins isn't encouraging the study of comparitive religion, which is:

"a field of study seeking to derive general principles from a comparison and classification of the growth and influence of various religions."
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

He doesn't want people to learn from other religions. What he wants people to learn is that religions are different, they can't all be right therefore they must be wrong. When he talks of the 'educational benefits' of studying comparative religion, this is tongue-in-cheek. It's the Dawkins sense of humour at its best.

Richard Dawkins, and 777 Rock Against Religion, would be being disingenuous if they recommended that people studied and learnt from religious texts. Dawkins doesn't say that, and where these guys do, they contradict themselves.

207. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52497 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 6:20 am

Corylus,

I was really responding to 17., using the technique that Sam Harris used. The_Stone was making a point about 'the faithful' that I felt was unfair, and mirrors much of what I hear many people on this site saying about people of faith. The assumption The_Stone is making is that people of faith cannot be empiricist, do not understand science, and are not rational.

I have to say I completely disagree with The_Stone about this. I don't think that any weight is given to his point of view when people publicise songs recorded by dangerous Christian sects on this site. The fact that some or many Christians or people of faith are irrational does not mean that they are necessarily so.

So, I asked him to consider how it would be if this sort of approach were used against scientists. The criticism would be that scientists are unaware of the assumptions implicit in science, and unable to question these; that scientists deal with what we see, without realising that a great deal of processing of sense data has already happened by the time it reaches our consciousness etc.

Now, I would not have made this point myself. The reason is that, although there are clearly a very large number of ignorant people who misuse scientific language, speaking of 'scientific fact' without any understanding of what this really means, it isn't necessarily so. Good scientists, like good theologians, are aware of the nature of their assumptions and the limitations of their field of inquiry.

I hope you did feel insulted as a scientist at being told you were not questioning, thinking, reasoning beings. That is exactly how it feels as a person of faith to be told that I just don't understand, that I am too lazy etc.

Why are so many people upset at what I said (quite rightly so) and not upset at what The_Stone said?

As to whether I was trolling, I think, being quite accurate, that I was. Just as I believe that Sam Harris was trolling. I like what Sam was doing, and was merely using this as a way of making people think about how they refer to people of faith. I did want an emotional reaction from The_Stone, and others who would agree with his post. Then I want them to question HIS original post and see whether it is unfair in the same ways that mine was unfair.

Is it all right to question our assumption that it is wrong to troll, under these circumstances? I think it is always right to question assumptions.

208. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52378 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Don't make a fool of yourself by making your point hang on the silly suggestion that scientists and philosophers are two non-intersecting sets.

Given the nature of the article (taking a set of comments and replacing a word to see how it hangs), and the nature of The_Stone's original entry (17), I hardly think that's fair!

I could easily repeat the process with your quote, saying it is silly to say that scientists and people of faith are two non-intersecting sets, but you didn't seem impressed when I did it first time...

Don't delude yourself that merely declaring that your arguments...

That's a bit much too. Given that I merely changed a couple of words, they were hardly 'my arguments'. I merely hoped to do what the original article we're discussing did, and give a fresh perspective.

Given your response, I have to stand by 'Isnt it just easier to NOT 'know', but to question?'

209. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52305 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Philosophers are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the scientific. Us philosophers know how to conjure an argument, question the nature of empirical observation, attack assumptions made by empiricists and undermine their conclusions. We know how to use the philosophical method. This endeavor of philosophy is far too complicated for the scientist. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to question, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.

Science is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT 'know', but to question?

210. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52301 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Am I the only person who finds a lot of this contradictory. They say:

"We want to challenge the religious to read the texts of other religions and not to hate or judge other people because they don't know or understand them."

Then they say:

"The religious do not take what they're told and think about it; they take it literally,"

So, you aren't judging 'the religious' here in this sweeping generalisation.

I'll put my hands up and admit that I'm 'religious'. So, they want me to read the texts of other religions. Great - I'm always willing to read something that someone else has recommended. What will I get from these texts? You can't really expect me to go along with that recommendation if you follow it with "religion served a purpose to our distant ancestors..."

These guys seem to be saying on one hand 'Other religions have some good points that you should listen to' and then 'No religion is relevant in any way'. So which is it? What is the rational religious believer to do here?

If they get Dr Dawkins out there, people won't be encouraged to read religious texts from other religions!

211. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52289 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Neil S

As an atheist, I'm inclined to say that this objective-but-relative morality, a work in progress, is all we have, and we might as well face up to it.

This wasn't how the United Nations responded to Nazi war crimes. It simply isn't good enough. If I asked you whether it is wrong to smother a baby born with disabilities, I hope you wouldn't say "I'll conduct a survey". What you're describing isn't morality, because morality is about what should or should not be done. You are merely talking about what people actually do.

their morality is also relative, flowing as it has from the writings of some men who claimed to know the mind of a god at some time and place

You imply that theologians see scriptures as the primary source of morality - this is rarely the case. Natural Law thinking is based on empirical evidence about what constitutes human nature. Situationism is based on a positivist claim that we should love others. Kant's ethical thinking is entirely rational, not at all based on scripture.

These are not bad as ethical systems go. As soon as you go down the cultural relativism route, you haven't just lost the argument, you've given up the right to even talk about morality.

(Cultural relativism doesn't allow us to criticise our culture's morality because our culture's morality is, by definition, good).

212. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52281 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 4:00 pm

D'Arcy.

Tut tut. Did you read what I wrote? Yes, I believe in God, but not because of indoctrination or superstition. Intellectually, I think an intelligent designer is, after careful consideration of all of the evidence that I have, the best explanation I can find. Therefore, I have not assumed that God exists, I have come to the conclusion that God exists.

Paul has previouly talked of his belief in God because of the "unlikeliness of the existence of humans."

Notice you even say 'because of' - my belief in God is because of... not an assumption at all!

Let's talk assumptions, though, because I bet you make a fair few. I imagine you assume things like 'Things will behave in the future as they have done in the past'. Quite hard to hold any scientific beliefs without that assumption, but it isn't necessarily true. Do you believe that there are physical objects? I bet you have no direct experience of them - all you experience is sense-data, and yet I imagine you are convinced that there is a physical world 'out there' causing your experiences. Do you imagine that the laws that hold in our tiny part of the universe, during the very brief time span in which humanity has existed, are the same laws that held when light left the oldest stars on its journey through space, and that these laws will continue to hold across the universe as time unfolds?

I am genuinely curious now, though. You suggest that the existence of an intelligence outside our universe is unlikely. Why? Have you misunderstood the reasons for believing that the existence of intelligent life in this universe is unlikely? The way this universe was set up, if there had been even slight changes, intelligent life could not have existed. Imagine a monkey gets up from a typewriter and hands me a manuscript, and it is word for word Hamlet. It could just be a fluke, a one in (let me work out how many letters in Hamlet, multiply by 26 or, allowing for punctuation and numbers, 50 odd...) - well, quite a large number. What are the chances that everything would fall into place in this particular manuscript? It's possible, but a better explanation would be either that there are billions of monkeys hammering away, or that there is an intelligence behind the typing.

Don't confuse this for a misunderstanding of how complexity arises through evolution. This is about the structure of the universe itself, which reeks of intelligent design. You can't turn this argument around and point it at the designer - it just doesn't work.

Does it?

213. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52181 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm

You can easily forget how unusual it is to have as much freedom as we do in the UK. We really are very lucky. It may seem the obviously right way to go about things, but there isn't anywhere near as much freedom in the States, in Australia, in many European countries, not to mention the Middle East, China, India etc. etc.

Freedom is a good thing.

214. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52176 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:19 pm

If we assume an intelligent agent, how do you know anything about it?

I wasn't assuming an intelligent agent. The argument goes something like this. The existence of a universe where intelligent life can exist is very unlikely.

If the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been greater by one part in a thousand billion, the universe would have recollapsed after ten years. On the other hand, if the density of the universe at that time had been less by the same amount, the universe would have been essentially empty when it was about ten years old. - Stephen Hawking

Very, very precise energy levels in helium-4, beryllium-8, carbon-12, and oxygen-16 are needed for carbon to form in stars without it all turning into oxygen. Cambridge Professor of Astronomy, Martin Rees, and popular science writer John Gribbin, in Cosmic Coincidences, state:

This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable.

Given how extremely unlikely this universe is, it is more likely that there are billions of other universes, or that the structure of the universe, its rules etc, are the product of intelligent design.

So, we aren't assuming an intelligent designer, but by looking at the design (if we reject the billions of universes alternative), why shouldn't we be able to 'know the mind of God'?

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God. - Stephen Hawking

215. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52171 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Homosexuality is condemned as an abomination. It's only right that Christians share the view of their God.

No. As you know, the Bible was written in other languages - Hebrew, Ancient Greek etc. The translators were, many of them, homophobic. 'Abomination' is their word. I hope you won't mind me directing you to a webpage that explains this rather well (it's a Canadian site, written by a team of an agnostic, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Christian and a wiccan):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

216. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52169 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 11:55 am

If athiests are so immoral explain why we make up 14% of the US population yet only represent 1/10 of one precent of the prison population.

The question is a philosophical one. Atheists may well behave morally, just as many, many Christians behave in a terrible way. The question is, what does atheism say about how we should behave?

Now, 'atheism' doesn't have a code of conduct, but philosophically, can there be any grounds for objective morality if you don't believe in God? Put another way, can an atheist, with integrity, say that one course of action is morally wrong, or that we 'should' do this or that?

Personally, I don't think that morals, or any statements about what you 'should' do, are compatible with atheism.

Take this example. A scientist believes that one race makes a negative contribution to the evolution of the human species. Natural selection will take time. He decides to give nature a helping hand and attaches some genetic coding to a virus, killing off that race of people in one swift move. Could an atheist say he SHOULD NOT have done that? What possible grounds might an atheist have for such a statement?

Now clearly, an atheist can say that he or she would not have done that, or that doing so may have caused a great deal of distress, but have they any grounds for arguing that causing a great deal of distress is morally wrong?

The logical answer is no.

217. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52124 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 8:27 am

leigh

I share your implied condemnation of homophobia among religious believers. I also happen to think it is unjustified on religious grounds, certainly in Christian scriptures, but I doubt that would interest you very much.

My belief in God has more to do with the increasing unlikeliness of human existence. The more I learn about the science of the universe, the more amazing it seems to me that we exist at all.

Let me ask you this - if a universe were to pop into existence, with the structure of atoms randomly determined, and all other factors just as they happened to be, what would be the odds that, given 15 billion or so years, intelligent life would evolve? From what I understand, extremely unlikely. I disagree completely with Dr Dawkins that the probability of God's existence is very, very small. If we assume that there is only one universe, the probability of an intelligent designer seems very high. So, it seems to me there is either an intelligent designer, or many, many universes.

The next question is, if the universe has a designer, what would the nature of the designer be, and would the designer be involved in any way with sustaining the universe, even interacting with the intelligent life that evolved there?

I find very few atheists who will discuss these questions with me. The usual reply is that they would prefer to believe in many universes, but I'm not sure why this is a better response.

218. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52007 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 11:24 pm

"The same could be done in a secular setting."

This is true. The point is that it wasn't being done in a secular setting. There are hundreds of examples of religious groups beginning work that others see as good and start to support. In the UK, many of our charities were originally set up by religious groups.

I have only recently started reading and contributing to these threads, and have noticed a large amount of anger and malice in what people are saying. Sadly, I have seen that dark side of human behaviour among religious believers, and it scares me. It particularly upsets me because it is not rational behaviour.

What is being done in this initiative appears good. For a definitive answer as to whether it should continue to receive funding, I would like more evidence, as any rational thinker would. If the evidence suggests that people are being helped to manage their anger, deal with the things they have done wrong etc. then I would be happy.

Do you really want a society where the government has to decide on funding social programs by investigating the religious beliefs of the people involved, and then making some sort of qualitative judgment about those beliefs?

(My parents escaped Hungary in the 1950s after a failed attempt to overthrow the Communist government. Now, the Communist government is back in power, many of the same people as were in the 1950s government, and it is a blow to any free-thinking people in Hungary. They have another 3 years to wait to get rid of them!)

219. God Hates the World

Comment #51897 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Clearly this is awful in every sense of the word. What does it really tell us, however, about religious belief? There is clearly a lot to be learnt about indoctrination, and about how cults work, but...

Quite apart from giving attention to people who have already had far too much air time, I worry about the number of times I have seen atheists refer to the worst sorts of fundamentalist religious behaviour as though it were a necessary part of having a faith. If I were looking to question the atheistic standpoint, I would try to find the most competent exponent of 'atheism' out there, and have a reasoned debate. Too many people seem to watch this sort of thing and say "See, what did I tell you about religion?"

Put a different way, if I managed to find a cult group of mad scientists filled with hatred for a world that had turned its back on the scientific method, a group that even had 3 year old girls singing their songs of vilification, would that really tell us anything about science or scientists? Would Dr Dawkins find himself surrounded by an increasingly large space as people edged away from him because he was 'one of them scientist types'?

This really tells us nothing about people of faith at all.

220. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51824 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 6:31 am

Leigh, you argue that evolution provides "very powerful evidence against such an intelligence being specifically involved or concerned with day to day human concerns".

Imagine I believe aliens are responsible for crop circles. You come up with an excellent and scientifically sound theory that explains the evidence far better. There are still some 'faitheads' (quoting Vadjong) who believe that aliens are responsible for crop circles, but what can you do? So I now accept your theory on crop circles.

The thing is, however good your theory is at explaining the origins of crop circles, it doesn't give ANY evidence in favour of the proposition 'There is no intelligent life on other planets', or even the proposition that 'aliens are constantly being involved with day to day human concerns'.

Put simply, however much evidence you have to support evolution, it does not provide any, let alone 'very powerful evidence' 'against such an intelligence being specifically involved or concerned with day to day human concerns'. Evolution may undermine some of the reasons traditionally given for believing in God. It does not provide evidence of any kind that God is or isn't involved with day-to-day human concerns.

221. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51823 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 6:31 am

What to say first...

I have to take exception with Vadjong as a philosopher. I'm not even going to begin with considering what you might mean by 'REALITY', but I expect your only (indirect) contact with it is through your experiences. So I guess you're claiming that we know things through a process of induction. Can inductive reasoning lead to atheism? I'm a bit slow - please let me know how that works.

222. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51782 by PaulEmecz on June 24, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Inexorable - adjective, impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, reason; "he is adamant in his refusal to change his mind" WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

I think, Shuggy, you do Mr Blackford a disservice. I would be very disappointed if this forum represented people who were 'impervious to reason'.

It was a very competent reply, Russell.

223. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51764 by PaulEmecz on June 24, 2007 at 7:05 pm

"One of the things the creationist lobby wants to hear is that evolutionism leads to atheism, and since I'd have to say that to a jury, the evolutionists would lose the case immediately."

How can Dawkins get away with 'evolutionism leads to atheism' when he's a scientist?

Imagine if there was convincing scientific evidence that Roswell was a hoax. Would that lead to belief that there is no intelligent life in other star systems?

How can a theory about the development of life on earth provide any evidence, one way or another, relevant to the question of whether there is intelligent life outside this universe or whether such life could have been involved in causing this universe to come into existence?

"Evolutionism leads to atheism" is a totally unscientific statement, and if Dawkins feels he would 'have to say that to a jury', he is obviously making a huge error either of scientific reasoning or jurisprudence.