Inconsistencies with Atheism

[mbohu 77]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I strongly disagree with this. And the reason is right in your sentence. You have put "spiritual" into quotes. Why? Because you know that it can not be defined. I would hold that the reason it can't be defined is that it is essentially meaningless

I have put it into quotes, because I did not mean it to denote any kind of religious meaning.
What I mean by spiritual: An aspect of reality that cannot be found in the world of simple objects. "Simple Objects" being things that you can point to in physical reality. They generally have "simple location" (meaning they are in one specific place at one specific time--some quantum effects being the exception) and can be perceived either by our physical senses or by instruments that are extensions of our physical senses.
Brain cells would be an example of such simple objects.

"Spiritual things" on the other hand cannot be pointed to in physical reality. They can include things like "morals", "values", "consciousness", "meaning", etc.
If you think that these things do exist, then your theory of the world has to somehow include them. If you construct a theory of the world that explains how everything comes into being but these things are excluded, then your theory is incomplete and cannot explain things that depend on these "non-physical" (to get away from the word "spiritual") realities.
Again, none of this says anything about religion. I am getting just slightly annoyed that a lot of responses seem to assume that if I point out something about atheism that questions it in any way, it must mean I'm arguing for organized religion (as if there were only 2 possible positions). It just happens that religion doesn't have THAT particular problem, because it not only accepts such non-physical realities but holds them at its very core.

[gowlerk 1,915]

2 minutes ago, mbohu said:

It just happens that religion doesn't have THAT particular problem, because it not only accepts such non-physical realities but holds them at its very core.

Christianity does not hold morality at it's core. It teaches that all sin can be absolved through Christ. It is nearly completely immoral in that regard. To me spirituality simply means wonder or awe, an acknowledgement all things are connected in some way that we can not ever understand. I am atheist because I say I am. I am spiritual because I am human and my consciousness must have some way of dealing the mystery of existence. Is this the inconsistency you are trying to understand?

[mbohu 77]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Right. For instance I am self aware. I can think and feel, and I know other do the same. Does that count as being outside purely physical reality and therefore “spiritual”? If it does, great - the OP must accept that atheists can be spiritual and therefore moral without needing to believe in any woo-woo.

This goes to the crux of the matter.

So, in your case, you do accept that there is a "non-physical" reality, which includes your self-awareness. So yes, the way I use "spiritual", you do believe in spiritual reality (If you are spiritual, I think is more of a judgement and I'd say, of course you are.)

But now the question is: In your view of the world and how it works and came into being: Where does this spiritual reality come from? Do you think it is an artifact created by something in physical reality? Or do you think it has an existence on its own--meaning it does not depend on physical objects and would cease to exist if these objects were taken away?

What is your evidence and proof for the statement "I am self aware". Can you proof this in the traditional objective way? Or are you saying that you do accept some kind of reality without needing objective proof, simply because that reality is self-evident (to you?)

[gowlerk 1,915]

12 minutes ago, mbohu said:

"Spiritual things" on the other hand cannot be pointed to in physical reality. They can include things like "morals", "values", "consciousness", "meaning", etc.

Those are concepts, morals and values have no spiritual component in my way of thinking. Math is a concept that can be used as a tool, but it is not a physical thing. Same as morality.

[mbohu 77]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Christianity does not hold morality at it's core.

No. It holds spiritual, non-physical reality at its core.

 

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I am spiritual because I am human and my consciousness must have some way of dealing the mystery of existence.

Again, so you do in some way believe in some kind of non-physical reality that cannot be boiled down to "proof".
The inconsistency I am trying to understand is simply: If you say to a religious/spiritual person that they need to PROOF in a physical/objective way whatever they believe but you also believe things that you cannot proof (and as far as I can see are actually un-proofable in principle), then how is that different?

 

[mbohu 77]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Those are concepts, morals and values have no spiritual component in my way of thinking. Math is a concept that can be used as a tool, but it is not a physical thing.

Where do they exist?

[jakee 1,257]

23 minutes ago, mbohu said:

"Spiritual things" on the other hand cannot be pointed to in physical reality. They can include things like "morals", "values", "consciousness", "meaning", etc.
If you think that these things do exist, then your theory of the world has to somehow include them. If you construct a theory of the world that explains how everything comes into being but these things are excluded, 

Well there you go then. I'm an atheist and my theory of the world doesn't exclude consciousness or morals. Inconsistency resolved. Simples.

[mbohu 77]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

I'm an atheist and my theory of the world doesn't exclude consciousness or morals. Inconsistency resolved.

Yes. But your argument against religious beliefs should not include "you have to PROOF this to me", since you also include things in your worldview that you cannot proof. (There are plenty of other valid arguments one can make against organized religion anyway)

[jakee 1,257]

12 minutes ago, mbohu said:

So, in your case, you do accept that there is a "non-physical" reality, which includes your self-awareness. So yes, the way I use "spiritual", you do believe in spiritual reality (If you are spiritual, I think is more of a judgement and I'd say, of course you are.)

With this particular definition of spirituality it seems to me to be synonymous with consciousness. So sure, I am conscious therefore I am spiritual therefore I can be moral. Job done.

 

Quote

But now the question is: In your view of the world and how it works and came into being: Where does this spiritual reality come from? Do you think it is an artifact created by something in physical reality? Or do you think it has an existence on its own--meaning it does not depend on physical objects and would cease to exist if these objects were taken away?

It comes from consciousness, therefore it comes from my brain. If you take my brain away then yes, my own spiritual reality would cease to exist.

 

Quote

What is your evidence and proof for the statement "I am self aware". Can you proof this in the traditional objective way? Or are you saying that you do accept some kind of reality without needing objective proof, simply because that reality is self-evident (to you?)

It's axiomatic. Ask Descartes.

[jakee 1,257]

4 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Yes. But your argument against religious beliefs should not include "you have to PROOF this to me", 

What does that have to do with the subject? it's an utter non-sequitur.

Quote

since you also include things in your worldview that you cannot proof. 

What?

[gowlerk 1,915]

4 minutes ago, mbohu said:

If you say to a religious/spiritual person that they need to PROOF in a physical/objective way whatever they believe but you also believe things that you cannot proof (and as far as I can see are actually un-proofable in principle), then how is that different?

Well that's pretty simple. It's the same as the difference between admitting you don't know something and saying that you do know something. If you say you know something and want me to believe you, you will need either evidence or a track record that I trust.

This gets to the reason I never ask someone like Ron for example to justify or prove his beliefs are objectively true. He can't, I know it and he knows it. So it's pointless. I try to never ask someone for proof, so your question makes an assumption that I do something that I don't.

[gowlerk 1,915]

14 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Again, so you do in some way believe in some kind of non-physical reality that cannot be boiled down to "proof".

Just because I can not prove something, or understand something, does not make it non-physical. My feeling is that everything is physical, but we are not capable of understand it all. If there were a heaven and a hell they would both be physical in nature. However, I don't believe in either, so in my mind they are not physical. Anymore than unicorns are.

Edited January 8, 2020 by gowlerk

[mbohu 77]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

It comes from consciousness, therefore it comes from my brain. If you take my brain away then yes, my own spiritual reality would cease to exist.

Ahhhhhhhh! See, now this is where it gets hairy: 
Your brain is a physical thing. It exists in the physical world. "Consciousness" is not a physical thing. You cannot point to it in the physical world (Where DOES it exist?) Now, how in the world, does this physical thing create something that is not physical? Where is the chain of cause-effect? How does this chain jump from one world to another?

 

[gowlerk 1,915]

16 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Where do they exist?

Where would you imagine any "concept" to exist? They are not physical constructs, they are mental constructs. Therefore they "exist" in our minds as such.

[mbohu 77]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Therefore they "exist" in our minds as such.

Where does "our mind" exist? 
(Thanks for indulging me here, I am trying to get you to understand what I am trying to say, so if you could simply answer this question like you did the last one. I am not trying to be annoying with these questions)

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, mbohu said:

Where does "our mind" exist? 
(Thanks for indulging me here, I am trying to get you to understand what I am trying to say, so if you could simply answer this question like you did the last one. I am not trying to be annoying with these questions)

A computer hard drive with a computer program weighs exactly the same as one that is empty. Where does the program exist?

It exists in information. Our mind exists in the firing patterns of our neurons. I highly suggest looking up Information Theory to answer some of your questions.

[gowlerk 1,915]

1 minute ago, mbohu said:

Where does "our mind" exist? 
(Thanks for indulging me here, I am trying to get you to understand what I am trying to say, so if you could simply answer this question like you did the last one. I am not trying to be annoying with these questions)

You should research that one. Much has been written of it, none of it answers the question. As far as any of us know each of us is the only one with a mind and everything and everyone else is a construct of that mind. Many people have come to believe this deeply enough to go crazy, I'm going to try to stay sane and believe that you and everyone else exist. I may be wrong.

[jakee 1,257]

12 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Your brain is a physical thing. It exists in the physical world. "Consciousness" is not a physical thing. You cannot point to it in the physical world (Where DOES it exist?) Now, how in the world, does this physical thing create something that is not physical? Where is the chain of cause-effect? How does this chain jump from one world to another?

I don't know. But so what? I know it does. You can put chemicals in my brain and my consciousness will change, you can hit my brain and my consciousness will change, you can remove pieces of my brain and my consciousness will change. Consciousness = brain. QED. So, I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. 

 

And I don't really know what your hole thread is getting at. You're saying there's nothing in atheism to facilitate a moral outlook. So again, I'm telling you I'm both an atheist and moral. Which one do you think I'm lying about?

[mbohu 77]

16 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

A computer hard drive with a computer program weighs exactly the same as one that is empty. Where does the program exist?

It exists in information. Our mind exists in the firing patterns of our neurons. I highly suggest looking up Information Theory to answer some of your questions.

Well, no. I studied computer science, was a software engineer and founded and ran a software company for a decade. I got into computer science when it was still necessary to know much about hardware and machine language, so this is a favorite topic for me:

In a computer there is really nothing else but a large number of gates (which are physical objects that hold a physical state). These gates are connected in a way that certain results can be produced when the gates change their states. "Information" is simply an abstract concept that in essence describes the physical states of these gates.
Modern software (object-oriented programming, procedural programming, etc.) is just multiple layers of abstraction on to of that, but I can tell you that, in the computer, nothing really exists, but physical signals that are stored and interact with each other.

There is no "concept", no "mind", no "awareness" in the computer. It is, in my opinion, completely reasonable to assume that no matter the complexity of the computer (even if it exceeds the complexity of the human brain) there will never be anything of the type of "consciousness" to it, because it simply isn't necessary for the computer to work perfectly. "Consciousness"--the fact that someone is "in there" being aware of itself--is something that has nothing to do with the action of the computer. 

"Software" is an interpretation and abstraction of our minds that we superimpose on the computer to make it easier to work with. It requires our mind to work. So it requires something else, outside the computer. Same with the brain: "concepts" do NOT exist within the brain. They exist in the mind or in something that is not of the same nature as the brain. While you can draw relationships between brain activity and certain internal experiences, you cannot find "concepts" in the brain, nor can you find "software" (the meaning of the software) in the hardware of the computer.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Why? Do you feel you need that protection?

In today's religious climate - Absolutely!

[mbohu 77]

 

41 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You should research that one. Much has been written of it, none of it answers the question. As far as any of us know each of us is the only one with a mind and everything and everyone else is a construct of that mind. Many people have come to believe this deeply enough to go crazy, I'm going to try to stay sane and believe that you and everyone else exist. I may be wrong.

 You are a tricky one, because now you switched to a viewpoint that sees internal (subjective) reality as primary and objective reality as secondary. Certainly that's a possible standpoint and certainly that one can drive you bonkers.

So I am going to use jakee's reply here instead to continue my argument:

34 minutes ago, jakee said:

Consciousness = brain.

So, to recap the chain:
"morals" and "values" are concepts that exist in the MIND
the mind is something that exists in the BRAIN
the brain is a physical object which is governed by PHYSICAL LAWS
these PHYSICAL LAWS determine every single thing that happens in the brain
(physical laws do not contain anything such as a person, free will, etc.)

So in this belief system:
Every single "moral" or "immoral" action is simply a result of physical actions and physical laws that determined this action. There is no person that can be blamed or lauded for these actions because these actions are simply the result of mechanical processes that determined them.

 

I do not personally subscribe to this view, but this is where it inexorably leads. 

[jakee 1,257]

16 minutes ago, mbohu said:

"Software" is an interpretation and abstraction of our minds that we superimpose on the computer to make it easier to work with. 

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the rest of your post.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, mbohu said:

Ahhhhhhhh! See, now this is where it gets hairy: 
Your brain is a physical thing. It exists in the physical world. "Consciousness" is not a physical thing. You cannot point to it in the physical world (Where DOES it exist?) Now, how in the world, does this physical thing create something that is not physical? Where is the chain of cause-effect? How does this chain jump from one world to another?

 

Actually - I think you can - If I point to it, and touch it too firmly, it can be destroyed.  At the very least altered.

[jakee 1,257]

Just now, mbohu said:

So, to recap the chain:
"morals" and "values" are concepts that exist in the MIND
the mind is something that exists in the BRAIN
the brain is a physical object which is governed by PHYSICAL LAWS
these PHYSICAL LAWS determine every single thing that happens in the brain
(physical laws do not contain anything such as a person, free will, etc.)

How do you know that?

 

Quote

So in this belief system:
Every single "moral" or "immoral" action is simply a result of physical actions and physical laws that determined this action. There is no person that can be blamed or lauded for these actions because these actions are simply the result of mechanical processes that determined them.

So again - A) Followers of the biggest religions in the world have the same problem, except more explicitly. If there is an omnipotent god and god has a will, we're all just meat puppets. There's no morality in Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

 

B) So what? If we're all acting out a predisposed path then morality is irrelevant, but the fact that we still think we have it and can act in a moral way is also predisposed, so what's the point in discussing it?

 

Actually, at this point I think you're shifting to the argument that being a conscious human in its entirety is incompatible with atheism, so tbh I think you've wasted a lot of our time by starting the conversation with the misleading and limiting reference to morality. Why didn't we just start here?

[gowlerk 1,915]

22 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Same with the brain: "concepts" do NOT exist within the brain. They exist in the mind or in something that is not of the same nature as the brain.

Oh yeah? Sez who? That is a giant leap you've just made there. One that you can't back up. You can't have a mind without an oxygen and glucose consuming physical brain with neurons firing across synapses. If concepts do not exist within the brain then they simply do not exist at all.