2 2
mbohu

Inconsistencies with Atheism

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Skwrl said:

I'll take it a step further: one could be a Theist (using your definition) and not have a moral code either.  One could believe in a God or a transcendent or something beyond the physical and still not then conclude, "aha, I should do this or that..."  If there is a transcendent reality, how do I know what it wants me to do?  The one (atheism/theism) doesn't address the other (moral ethics).

Absolutely. There is certainly a kind of theism one can imagine that would be completely amoral. An amoral God would actually solve one of the biggest arguments that theists usually have to defend themselves against, which usually goes something like: "If God is good, why does he kill and torture all these innocent children all over the world (via war, horrible diseases, natural disasters, etc.)"
I actually find it likely that, if there is a conscious being that is the source of everything that exists (and in my view would have to--in some way--not be separate from this creation; so would also experience all that suffering himself--and isn't that what Jesus is a symbol for in the Christian belief?), this being would naturally have to at least have a very different understanding of morality than we do.
(For the religious people: Such a being would not negate religious beliefs--at least not all of them--but would leave them intact as various "stepped down" interpretations and translations into a human language of something that would be completely incomprehensible to the human mind. Same for atheism: Such a being would be of such a different nature that saying "it doesn't exist" is almost as good of an approximation of it as any other definition--and of course all physical laws and scientific theories would have to be a part of this being's modus operandi)

To come back to your criticism of my argument (or the headline I employed): Yes, physicalism may be a better word (if not completely encompassing). In my defense, I DID elicit one of the responses I was hoping for, which was that multiple people did write that they clearly believed that "brain=consciousness". And again, my argument was that, if that is your belief, then it begs the question where there could be a "conscious agent" whom we can assign "morality" to (without redefining the word to mean something like a simple "program" that runs on auto-pilot and is nothing but an effect of physical laws. In that case physical laws (or chance, if we include quantum effects) would be the "moral" agent).

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Thanks for the link, Coreece. I think that article points to some part of what I'm trying to get at, which is that the belief that "atheism is purely rational" is simply not true in most cases.
My experience is that most people do not fully think this trough all the way, and hold their rationalistic, physicalistic, atheistic "belief" on one side and then have a separate set of moral, humanistic, social codes they live by, some of which actually contradict the former completely.
Now, certainly this would be just as true for theists and religious or "spiritual" people, but they generally do not argue that their entire worldview is based on pure rationalism, so THEIR inconsistency is therefore perfectly consistent. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbohu said:

To come back to your criticism of my argument (or the headline I employed): Yes, physicalism may be a better word (if not completely encompassing). In my defense, I DID elicit one of the responses I was hoping for, which was that multiple people did write that they clearly believed that "brain=consciousness". And again, my argument was that, if that is your belief, then it begs the question where there could be a "conscious agent" whom we can assign "morality" to (without redefining the word to mean something like a simple "program" that runs on auto-pilot and is nothing but an effect of physical laws. In that case physical laws (or chance, if we include quantum effects) would be the "moral" agent).

And again, you're positing nothing more than a god of the gaps. You are begging the question by demanding that an atheist reponse has to be framed in the context of a human being a meat robot. It doesn't.

 

Quote

My experience is that most people do not fully think this trough all the way, and hold their rationalistic, physicalistic, atheistic "belief" on one side and then have a separate set of moral, humanistic, social codes they live by, some of which actually contradict the former completely.

There is no contradiction between having rational atheist beliefs and a moral code. They are sperate things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

And I am at a loss as to why people cannot understand this.

Each of is unique, no two of us are the same.

Jerry Baumchen

Does that mean that Professor Kallend told me an untruth?

He said, (Paraphrasing), since the universe is infinite, anyone, and anything already has been, and will be. 

If I understand infinity correctly, in regards to that statement above, then somewhere in the universe, there is an infinite number of you, and me, and we could not, by default, be unique.

Just like everyone else!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

If I understand infinity correctly, in regards to that statement above, then somewhere in the universe, there is an infinite number of you, and me, and we could not, by default, be unique.

That is not the theory of the uni (one) verse. That is one theory of a multiverse. No one understands infinity correctly. It is beyond comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
27 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That is not the theory of the uni (one) verse. That is one theory of a multiverse. No one understands infinity correctly. It is beyond comprehension.

John Does.

 

Seeeeeeeeeee!

 
Quote

 

guardianlv.com/2014/01/observable-universe-is-likely-infinite/

In an infinite universe anything that can happen will happen - an infinite number of times.

 

 
Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 1/7/2020 at 6:24 PM, JerryBaumchen said:
On 1/7/2020 at 5:27 PM, mbohu said:

there really is nothing in atheism that one could base one's moral values on. 

Hi mbohu,

How about the crazy concept that one's moral values are unique to every person who has ever lived? 

Sorry, just had to: This video explains best what I mean. Since brains are not black holes and other than for black holes all evolution equations are time reversible (even quantum equations, which I previously wasn't sure about), there is simply nothing that could be called "moral choice" if your view of the world makes consciousness only a phenomenon of brain activity.

To make sure, @JerryBaumchen and others: I am NOT saying that YOU cannot be moral if you are an Atheist (in the sense of "material reality alone exists"), but that, if your view is entirely correct, NO ONE can be moral. (or otherwise the definition of the word "moral" would be entirely meaningless)

Here is the video: 

 

Edited by mbohu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Sorry, just had to: This video explains best what I mean. Since brains are not black holes and other than for black holes all evolution equations are time reversible (even quantum equations, which I previously wasn't sure about), there is simply nothing that could be called "moral choice" if your view of the world makes consciousness only a phenomenon of brain activity.

If you believe that your interpretation of that science is correct then it makes no difference if you believe in god or spirit or anything else - you think morality is an illusion regardless and we're all robots acting out pre-determined pathways. So why single out atheism?

Quote

To make sure, @JerryBaumchen and others: I am NOT saying that YOU cannot be moral if you are an Atheist (in the sense of "material reality alone exists"), but that, if your view is entirely correct, NO ONE can be moral. (or otherwise the definition of the word "moral" would be entirely meaningless)

Hence why this entire thread is meaningless. There is either free will or there is not. There is either morality or there is not. There is no problem for atheism either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jakee said:

If you believe that your interpretation of that science is correct then it makes no difference if you believe in god or spirit or anything else - you think morality is an illusion regardless and we're all robots acting out pre-determined pathways. So why single out atheism?

Hence why this entire thread is meaningless. There is either free will or there is not. There is either morality or there is not. There is no problem for atheism either way.

No. I am saying Atheists are believing that. 
Again, maybe I should say "Reductionist Materialists" instead of "Atheists". Maybe that will clear it up better. But the fact is, that if you go through the thread, you will see that quite a few posted "There is no consciousness except what is in the brain" (or something to that point.)

So, if you are not believing in "Reductionist Materialism" but are an "Atheist" by some other definition, then: my apologies. This does not apply to you.
I am simply saying: In order to make a concept like "Morality" useful, you HAVE to allow for something that has an effect on (at least) internal perceptions, that is NOT based on material reality. (And to be able to make your morality "powerful", i.e. able to effect material reality, you have to even believe that that OTHER thing can have an effect on material reality--something I am not personally sure of, but open to).

And no: The "God of the gaps" analogy does not apply here. In fact it is the other way around: If you say that we just haven't found the part of material reality yet that can make a concept like "morality" useful, you are a) going against what current science says is pretty clearly true and b) are also looking for something that science pretty much excludes from material reality "a priori" and not just as a result of current theories.

Again, apparently the "atheist" definition seems to be a real problem for people. The reason I conflated "Atheist" with "Reductionist Materialist" is that most public figures in the "New Atheist" movement are clearly both (Matt Dilhaunty, Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais, even Sam Harris when he talks about this part of his philosophy--although he has no problem talking about other things, including morality, as if he hadn't just stated his believe about materialism, which somewhat invalidates the rest of what he says)--and don't get me wrong: I listen to all of them and love their intelligence and many other points they make...but they really are inconsistent in that particular way.

So, if you are not a "Reductionist Materialist" then I did not include you in the term "Atheist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mbohu said:

No. I am saying Atheists are believing that. 

If you believe the science is wrong then you can't use it as evidence to support your point. Everything else you've written after this is therefore irrelevant.

Quote

Again, maybe I should say "Reductionist Materialists" instead of "Atheists". 

Nope, still doesn't help. Any mention of morality remains utterly irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jakee said:

If you believe that your interpretation of that science is correct

So: That seems to indicate that you may have a different interpretation of this science, so let's explore what that interpretation is. Here is "mine" (I don't really think that is an interpretation, but let's go with it.)

1) When you say "brain" equals consciousness (consciesness including all such things a s decisions, thoughts, beliefs, etc), this should mean:
1.1) The exact state of the brain at any given time determines completely the thoughts, beliefs, choices a person holds at that time.
1.2) It follows therefore that we can replace the terms "thoughts", "beliefs", "choices" with the term "state of the brain" (by "brain" we mean the physical particles making up said structure)

2) Now, as explained in the video (and apart from the part about quantum physics that was my understanding from when I studied physics at the Technical University in Vienna--but did not complete--this is not her opinion, but accepted truth:
"All evolution equations are time reversible"
2.1) That means that from any unique state of brain matter at time t there is an exact and unique state of brain matter at time t minus x that the current state emerged from, in other words:
2.2) Your current "moral decision" (=state of brain matter) is uniquely determined by the previous state of your brain matter at a previous time, let's say "your birth"--and in fact, since the state of your brain matter at birth is determined by states of matter in your parents, etc. it was determined long before (sometime after the Big Bang, I assume as maybe the physical laws don't quite apply during the early stages of the big bang).
3) So there is simply not a way that "YOU" (or I or anyone else) can make a moral decision. 

4) To be clear: I DO NOT believe this personally, but I therefore DO believe that there is a separate independent reality to internal consciousness (and that the question is more about how--if at all--it interacts with the material reality or, if that dichotomy is even valid in the first place.)


So: How do YOU interpret the scientific knowledge about time reversibility, that is different from my interpretation? Is there a specific point where it digresses from mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
21 minutes ago, jakee said:

f you believe the science is wrong then you can't use it as evidence to support your point.

Not quite what I am saying. I am saying that the "domain of science" is limited. That it is perfectly accurate in its domain. However, that domain does not encompass EVERYTHING that is part of our reality.

I personally would like to believe that there is an amount of interaction between the domain that science encompasses and the "other domain" in which I believe (at least aspects of) consciousness to reside--but I do admit that current science makes that space where this interaction can occur very limited...so I am not sure about that.

So I am saying: You seem to think that "Morality" is something REAL. It EXISTS. Beyond that: It is important
--I fully agree

I am then saying that in the domain of reductionist materialism it does not and CANNOT exist.

Therefore, we have to allow for some other domain where it can exist.

 

Clear?

Edit:
The other 2 logically consistent positions I can see is:
1. Morality does not exist and is irrelevant
2. Science is wrong (in some seriously essential ways, not just in the specifics of some current theories that may be updated)

--I do not subscribe to either of these

Edited by mbohu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mbohu said:

4) To be clear: I DO NOT believe this personally

Right. So again - if you think the science is wrong you can't use it to support your position. 

Everything you've written before and after this is irrelevant.

Quote

but I therefore DO believe that there is a separate independent reality to internal consciousness

To be clear, this means you think the science you are quoting is wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 minutes ago, jakee said:

Right. So again - if you think the science is wrong you can't use it to support your position. 

Everything you've written before and after this is irrelevant.

No. I am using a generally accepted method of finding logical fallacies. It does not matter at all what I believe in regards to science. I simply start with a set of assumptions. I then deduct from these assumptions and if there is a contradiction in the results that are deducted from these assumptions, we can conclude that not all the assumptions can be true. This is standard procedure and my believing or disbelieving any of the assumptions has no part in it.

Assumptions:

1. (Material) Science is true
2. (Material) Science describes the TOTAL of everything that exists
3. Morality exists

Now, we find that in the reality that science describes, Morality cannot exist (or the meaning of the word has to be redefined in a way that makes it not a useful concept)

Therefore: Not all 3 initial statements can be true.

The ONLY place that my own belief comes into play is that I now believe that statement 2) is the one that is incorrect. One may as well choose any other of the 3 statements or all of them as false.
But I do have some good reasons why I think it is most reasonable to assume 2) is the one that is incorrect.
 

Edit:
And I am also saying that "Reductionist Materialists" by definition consider statements 1. and 2. to be correct, and should therefore, to be logically consistent, consider statement 3) to be the incorrect one.

Edited by mbohu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Not quite what I am saying. I am saying that the "domain of science" is limited. That it is perfectly accurate in its domain. However, that domain does not encompass EVERYTHING that is part of our reality.

Nope, you can't say that. If the science is perfectly accurate, you cannot argue that your seperate consciousness has any effect on anything your physical brain and body does. If it did the science would be wrong - things would be happening that are not covered by those evolution equations.

If your seperate consciousness doesn't have any effect on anything your physical brain and body does then you have an inconsistency problem.

Quote

I am then saying that in the domain of reductionist materialism it does not and CANNOT exist.

Therefore, we have to allow for some other domain where it can exist.

See above. You can't allow for a domain where it does exist without admitting you're wrong to say it can't exist in this domain. 

It either does or it doesn't. Here, there or everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mbohu said:

No. I am using a generally accepted method of finding logical fallacies.

That's a fallacy.

Quote

It does not matter at all what I believe in regards to science.

It matters if the science is right or wrong. If you're saying it's wrong, there's no problem to solve. If you're saying it's right, your 'solution' is broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mbohu said:


2. (Material) Science describes the TOTAL of everything that exists

Nope. Not even close.

"Material Science" cannot fully define 'consciousness'. Let alone explain it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a valid explanation for it (other than "God did it"), just that we don't know the explanation.
And trying to explain 'morality' as a consciousness concept without understanding consciousness in the first place is foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jakee said:

It matters if the science is right or wrong. If you're saying it's wrong, there's no problem to solve. If you're saying it's right, your 'solution' is broken.

But I am not saying that. Did you read my post? Did you study logic? This is a completely valid process. No one cares about believes when exploring logical fallacies (not even mine!...which I find very rude!:rofl:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jakee said:

Nope, you can't say that. If the science is perfectly accurate, you cannot argue that your seperate consciousness has any effect on anything your physical brain and body does. If it did the science would be wrong - things would be happening that are not covered by those evolution equations.

This is covered here:
 

37 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I personally would like to believe that there is an amount of interaction between the domain that science encompasses and the "other domain" in which I believe (at least aspects of) consciousness to reside--but I do admit that current science makes that space where this interaction can occur very limited...so I am not sure about that.

I agree that, from all we know right now, the space for an interaction of these domains is VERY LIMITED (if you are asking where that interaction can occur in current scientific knowledge, then one possible place would be the measurement domain, which she points out is not time reversible--but this is something where more CAN still be found out)

The main thing is that it is possible for other domains to exist, even if they do not interact, so the problem of interaction is a separate one.
In any case, I think the gist of my point is probably as well expressed as it can be in the post about the 3 Assumptions and why I find that they are not consistent with each other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Nope. Not even close.

"Material Science" cannot fully define 'consciousness'. Let alone explain it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a valid explanation for it (other than "God did it"), just that we don't know the explanation.
And trying to explain 'morality' as a consciousness concept without understanding consciousness in the first place is foolish.

No one says "God Did it". 

Did you watch the video? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mbohu said:

But I am not saying that. 

You are saying exactly that. You have offered what you believe to be a solution to the 'inconsistency' you believe you have found in atheist thought. Your solution, however, only works if the science you are using to prove there is an inconsistency in atheism is wrong.

This is your logical fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mbohu said:

The main thing is that it is possible for other domains to exist, even if they do not interact, so the problem of interaction is a separate one.

Are you even listening to yourself? If there is a 'consciousness domain' that does not interact with the physical domain then what the fuck do you think it does? If, without a seperate consciousness domain, we would just be two robots acting out this conversation only because it is a predetermined consequence of natural laws then, if there was a consciousness domain that did not interact with the physical domain we would still just be two robots acting out this conversation only because it is a predetermined consequence of natural laws. 

Quote

I agree that, from all we know right now, the space for an interaction of these domains is VERY LIMITED (if you are asking where that interaction can occur in current scientific knowledge, then one possible place would be the measurement domain, which she points out is not time reversible--but this is something where more CAN still be found out)

So its just like I said - it turns out you think the science you are relying on to prove that every physical thing is predetermined does not in fact mean every physical thing is predetermined. 

Once again, your premise is broken, everything else you are saying is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mbohu said:

No one says "God Did it". 

Did you watch the video? 

Lots of people use the logic that 'since we can't explain it, it must be "God did it".'
You aren't but others do. 

Not interested in the video on Black Holes. 

It has nothing to do with the fact that your assumptions are based on the idea that we actually understand what's going on in the brain and can understand how 'consciousness' operates. 

We don't and we can't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2