mbohu

Well, it makes it an undeniable reality for the one who experiences it. You cannot explain it away by reference to externalities. If you say it's a "concept", it doesn't explain why you experience it. You don't experience software. The computer doesn't experience software either. But you do experience consciousness. The question is where that experience comes from. Agreed, according to your definition...and I started with that footnote in my very first post to make clear what I meant. But: If I'm not talking about atheism, then neither is Richard Dawkins, because he uses that same definition...and the reason I posted it here was that it seemed to me that at least some here held a similar worldview (and it does seem to be supported with posts like "consciousness = brain", etc.) It was that worldview that I wanted to explore and challenge, and the topic of morality seemed like an easier entry than ontology.

Yes, and there are many more: God as initial creator who stands outside her creation and then does not interfere God as creator, standing outside who DOES interfere but only rarely God as immanent in creation and pretty much identified with it God as immanent in creation but also transcending it in some way (for example, we may be a part of "God's body, just like cells are part of our body and physical laws would be the way that god's body operates--but then he would also have an individual consciousness that can not be explained by the physical actions of "his body") ...

Yes. As seen from the outside that is exactly true. The "problem" with consciousness is that it is not just a concept describing something from the outside. We EXPERIENCE it from the inside. When I talk about consciousness it is that experience from the inside that I am talking about. And of course, as someone (I believe jakee) pointed out, I can't even know that you experience it from the inside, I can only know that I do, but it's an assumption I'm willing to make.

Oh, there are probably hundreds of inconsistencies, but we're not talking about any religious point of view here. No. I made that very clear before: I am not talking about existence of god or not. That wasn't the definition I'm interested in. I am looking at the view of "nothing but proofable physical reality exists" (again, in essence--please don't attack this simplified statement as we already went through the process of clarifying that above) As for "the existence of god". That would be an interesting discussion, but the way I would approach that is to first look at what possible definitions of "god" there could be. Then we could look at each of them and see if any of them are at least theoretically possible, and what inconsistencies these ideas of god may have. That would be another good discussion.

Of course. But, depending on which religion you talk about, that is often not their belief. Otherwise "surrender to God's will" would simply be a given and not a choice. Most believe that it is a choice and that THEY are making this choice but you and I aren't. Not entirely my point. More that the belief system isn't quite as well thought-out as it presents itself and you can notice that in shows like Matt Dilahunty's and others, where the argument then usually shifts back to how idiotic the religious view is, whenever inconsistencies start to arise. I started with one concrete example rather than a generalization, because I find discussions stay a little more grounded that way ...but yes, in the end we went way beyond that.

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: 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.

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.

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)

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?

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)

Where do they exist?

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

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?)

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.

No. I studied Physics at the Technical University Vienna, but changed to Philosophy, and later Computer Science. Yes. In spite of not graduating in physics, I am still fascinated by theoretical physics and keep up on a lot of the new theories. However, I find that MOST people who are not actual physicists and base their belief systems on scientific rationalism do so mostly on the assumption that Newtonian way of seeing reality is still pretty much intact.

Skycatcher68: Yes, I know his show very well. There are many others too, who are intelligent, funny and interesting: Ricky Gervais, Pen Gillette, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Sam Harris and of course Richard Dawkins come to mind--I watched many of them and quite a few of Matt's shows. Let me try again to define what I mean by atheist in this particular post--and I understand that anyone here might not define themselves that way--but most of the ones mentioned above (the ones with the YouTube videos) DO mostly define themselves that way: They hold the belief that nothing other than physical reality exists. That all of reality can be ascertained by external objective observation. This IS a belief. It is supported by the fact that nothing else has been objectively PROVEN to exist--but that somewhat ignores the fact that nothing else CAN possibly be objectively PROVEN to exist, because the very DEFINITION of "objective" precludes this A PRIORI. Like I said, this is a specific definition that I am using (but many others do as well).If, on the other hand, we define Atheism only as saying that no GOD exist, then Buddhists would also be included as atheists, as they do not believe in any kind of GOD. They DO however believe in some sort of deeper reality that cannot be reduced to outer observable fact. They also believe that the mind is PRIMARY to external physical experience and NOT an artifact of brain activity. Anyway, Yes, Jerry, of course that is a very valid moral position and I think even if one does not completely believe in "moral relativism" (which is the extreme form of this position), in SOME way what you say is true for certain: Even 2 Christians of the same denomination will actually have slightly different morals, if you dig deep enough. But you still need to accept SOME kind of "spiritual" reality, it seems to me, in order to say that you have ANY kind of moral position. (By "spiritual" I mean something non-physical, such as the concept of "meaning" or "values", etc.) If you believe that all you do, is pre-determined by simple physical interactions of atoms, which combine into brain cells, which then regulate muscles, etc. then THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY of morality. There is actually no person in there, who could be blamed or lauded for their actions. I think that's pretty self-explanatory, no?

Following up on the recurring topic of religion vs. atheism, and seeing that there is a good crowd of people who self-identify as atheists on this forum: One area where this discussion often lands is the area of morality. Religious people often argue that religion is needed for it's strengthening influence on moral values (whatever they may be) and of course atheists argue that religion is in no way needed for that (and often point how it has had opposite effects in the past) and can, of course point to a large number of atheists with very strong moral values. So far so good. But, there is one logical problem, I think Atheists*) have, and I haven't seen this addressed very well: If you look at it in terms of the source of one's moral values, there really is nothing in atheism that one could base one's moral values on. On the contrary, at least given the definition of atheism in my footnote, everything in that particular "belief system" points to seeing "moral values" as an illusion, or irrelevant in terms of having any real effects on reality. This does not preclude atheists from being "moral" people, but it does point to the fact that--at least in purely logical terms--their morality cannot have its source in their atheism. It is something quite separate from it. To explain: If you believe that there is really nothing but the physically observable universe, in which realities, such as "meaning" and even "values" truly have no existence whatsoever, then you really cannot base any moral values on this belief (as the very term is meaningless.) If you believe that any action that you undertake is in essence nothing but an effect of some nerve-firing in your brain, which, by the way has long been predetermined through prior influences, not just on the biological but also the atomic level, then there is no meaning or value to your action, nor are "YOU" really responsible for them, especially given that the concept of "you" as an integral self-determining unit is highly suspect and likely illusory. At best, one could say that "morality" is a set of actions that have evolved because they kept our species alive, but there are just as many actions that most people would consider "immoral" which have contributed to our species' survival. In any case none of this can be attributed to any person's individual "goodness" as again, such a concept does not (and likely cannot) exist as a physical reality. I do wonder, how someone as a self-described atheist responds to this question. *) In this case I would go with a definition of atheist that includes a purely objectivistic view of the world. Sure some atheists simply say "I don't know and I simply don't believe in anything until I have reasonable proof". That would not exclude any reality beyond the purely objective, physical...but my sense is that most atheists reject such a reality out of hand or at least work under the assumption that it does not exist.

Well, I was referring to "surrender to God's plan", so I think it doesn't apply so much to Atheists and Satanists, maybe to Wiccan's, if you replace it with "The Great Mother's plan" or "nature's plan"?

That seems to be the problem with just about ANY kind of incentive system. ANY system you implement, will in a sense be a game and have certain rules. Someone looking at the rules, will always be able to find ways to use the rules to their advantage, and that advantage may not align with the intended outcomes. When I worked at a software company, their sales people got bonuses based on achieving and exceeding certain monthly sales goals. No bonus if they did not exceed the goal and then higher bonuses at different levels above the goal. When it was clear they weren't going to meet the goal, they would delay all their sales towards the end of the month. Since they weren't getting any bonus (or only a small one) this month, they just dragged their feet so they could add the sales to the next month, ensuring that they would reach the goal and get a big bonus.--Not in the interest of the company, of course.

Right. But any Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Catholic would say the exact same thing.

I'm sure arguing is useless, but when you have over 5 Billion people believe in one of these religions, it may be interesting to understand just a little bit more about them. I'm not interested in disputing, but it may be that he will respond in a way that reveals something I didn't know before. If you talk about pointlessness: the discussions between you and Joe on the one side and Ron and (sometimes) Coreece seems to be the pinnacle of pointlessness, no? (not saying that other posts of yours aren't interesting or that I don't agree with many) but the back and forth personal attacks and belittling?! What exactly is the point?

So, after looking up the meaning of propitiation: "the action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person." You don't find that in the least morbid, that your God requires his son to be killed in order to be appeased about the supposed "sins" of everyone else? Would you be in the slightest ok with it, if your earthly father demanded you be killed for the sins of (for example) all the evil Democrats that you have nothing to do with??? Yes, yes, I know...there is mystery and deep spiritual meaning, etc.--and I actually can even relate to that in some way, but: It has to have you wonder even just a little bit, about the whole morbidity and moral dubiousness of the whole thing, no?

Sure. That part is unique to your faith (although, not entirely unique, because judging from your posts I get the feeling that you think the Catholics are pretty much of the devil--as many born-agains do--and they (the Catholics) do believe in that exact same thing as well) BUT: That wasn't the question. The question was: how could these other beliefs be COMPLETELY wrong, if they accept MANY of the same things...just not that particular one.

One more idea: In the long run I hope that we can (as humanity) establish a language and even some methodologies in the realm of subjective reality, that allow us to deal with it in ways that is more similar to the objective realm--where we get much better at discerning what is true and what may be distorted. So rather than throwing out the entire subjective realm, because it is "mushy" and most people aren't at all good at discernment, we can find ways to make it clearer and treat it with the same specificity and clarity as the objective realm.

Yup. But since we are talking about things like "God", meaning, death, the nature of experience itself; I think we are in the territory where both, objective and subjective reality is relevant. So in practical terms: If Ron says that he has an experience of "personal relationship with Christ" you can't hope that the argument "you cannot objectively prove that to me" is going to have any meaning to him whatsoever (much less convince him of anything). You are using and argument from one realm to refute one from a different realm, and it simply doesn't work. (and no: this is not the same as allowing personal beliefs to apply to parachute flying--I hope that is clear from what I'm writing)