Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, I always thought you must be further south. Didn't know the song!

I'm a great deal further south - even further south than the Tropic of Capricorn...

Even neuroscience is on the fence about this, it is a question worth pondering.

It’s not ad hom. It’s an epistemological question that applies universally.

ALL human reasoning fails on one ground or another, even if it’s as simple as a circularity. There’s just no way to get around that. It doesn’t mean that, say, evolution is wrong, or that Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong about gravitation, or that Jesus was never God’s Son. It’s logically possible to be right about any of those things. The problem is it is impossible to draw a completely valid conclusion about those things because of circular reasoning. If the conclusions are invalid, then they are unreliable. The only remedy for circular reasoning is omniscience, without which one cannot claim any amount of knowledge.

Faith is required because while one cannot claim to know anything, one may come to trust something or someone apart from their own mind. If you gain some amount of certain knowledge, you can begin to make logical conclusions. So where does your information come from and how can you be certain that it’s reliable? That, basically, is the short answer.

Mate,
I am a big boy.
I am not in the least offended.
Personally, I'd rather have a more open and honest interaction.
Slander, on the other hand, would validate your involvement.

The comment was kiddy stuff.
OOPS!
Was that: "skating rather close to the edge"


I took no offence. <shrug>
Why should I?
I have plenty of self-confidence to spare.
Want some?

As I understand it, Rho, your argument is:

1) you can’t trust your senses
2) given that you can’t trust your senses, knowledge of the world is impossible
3) axiomic knowledge like counting cannot be used to deduce things beyond the direct realm of those axioms. Sure 1+1=2 ultimately leads to complex powers, but it never leads to “Apple”. So axioms are no help with the physical world either.

After that I must admit that I don’t follow you. Is your argument “I read the Bible and felt the presence of God” (in which case, how do you know either your perception of the Bible or the revelation of God were reliable and trustworthy sensory experiences rather than mistakes?) or “because knowledge is impossible, my decision to believe in God is just as valid as your decision not to”, or something else?

Anthropologists have speculated that indications of ancient religions only occurred after the evolutionary development of a certain aspect of the neocortex.

In essence, the brain needed to evolve to a certain level of sophistication to allow for complex intellectual constructs such as religion.
Surely this is axiomatic?


Through metacognition, life experience, dialogue with psychologists and psychiatrists and research.
I have studied psychology for over 40 years.

You form opinions based on your own personal experiences/knowledge/wisdom.
I am no different. <shrug>


I am responding to you presumably in a rational manner.
I believe it is reasonable to assume I have some ability in analysing what you are writing and responding appropriately.


I value objectivity and truthfulness above emotional needs and wishful thinking.
It is a discipline I have developed for over 40 years.
But ignoring this reality, how would you form an opinion?
Are you saying *your* life experience is unreliable?
Are you saying life experience has no worth?

I find your approach a little amusing if you aren't simply playing "Devil's Advocacy".

BTW,
I am not a fan of "Devil's Advocacy".
I prefer sharing information with the intention of mutual growth.


Well, it is mine.
I am not a fan of stamping my foot in frustration /exasperation if we come to an impasse.
I have spoken to many theists over the decades and intimately understand that:
"East is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet."
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."


Yes,
One never stops learning,
Assuming one embraces the desire to do so.

I have postulated previously that it is the emotional component of humanity which distorts/corrupts the perception of reality, (within human capability, of course).

I'm going to have to remember that line.

Not quite. The senses are trustworthy to the extent that they are reliable. My senses cannot immediately determine the position of the Galilean moons at the present moment, although with a telescope and a clear night sky, it's not quite such a challenge. Unassisted, however, and without specific conditions, that's knowledge that remains hidden from me. And even with the telescope, there's the question of whether the telescope itself is reliable--the position of the mirror, correct alignment with celestial north, etc. And then there are limits of knowledge of optics. I have to assume that it "just works." I could consult with experts in optics and with astronomers, but then I'm faced with the limits of THEIR knowledge. I can't know that my telescope is telling me the truth because none of us know everything. I have to ASSUME two things: That my senses are reliable enough, and that their knowledge and expertise is enough that I can make a reasonable conclusion. Notice that involves both circular reasoning AND appeal to authority.


One must ASSUME he can trust his senses. Knowledge of the world IS possible. However, there is a question of where knowledge comes from. If from the senses alone, then it's not knowledge, since possessing knowledge requires omniscience. The issue is what certainty one has to claim "knowledge." We survive by learning X == True 0.yy of the time. Ok, that's great, but what about the 1 - 0.yy that the water you're drinking is tainted? We cope by making the assumption that good things in life are to be expected and then do the best we can to correct errors. Since that comes from the senses, and we owe our survival to our senses, I think it's more important to consider what tells us our senses can be trusted. Is it possible to tap into unlimited knowledge enough to know that our senses can be trusted reasonably well enough to, at a minimum, ensure our survival? Because if it is, the assumption that the senses can be trusted is not based on circular reasoning and hence, is derived from a valid, logical conclusion.



Except axioms are necessary in order for reasonable conclusions to be drawn. The scientific method, as my favorite example, is not itself a conclusion drawn from a non-circularity. It can only be assumed, not proven, that the method offers the most explanatory power in our world. The only way around this is to accept the circularity and proceed. However, if it is revealed that, say, the senses are reliable and the rational mind is sufficient for drawing conclusions, then the effectiveness of the Method is not a matter of circularity, but is established, reliable FACT. It can be revealed to be self-evident and not requiring proof. But the conclusion that "we can't prove it, so we're just gonna say 'it's self-evident'" is not a logical statement because it lacks a means of arguing outside of circular reasoning. Axioms are helpful with the physical world if and only if they are true. How do we know them to be true without falling back on circular reasoning? We have to know everything, first. And since we don't know everything, then either certain knowledge cannot exist, or we need access to an omniscient agent.


It's a good question, isn't it?


To me, that's more of a side-effect of the whole argument. Ideas, concepts, numbers, etc. are transcendental. I can't give you evidence of an "idea." I can't show evidence of the number "1". Those things have no basis in physical reality, but may manifest themselves in some way: One hotdog. A computer operating system. The universe. "One" is realized in terms of how many hotdogs you have. "OS" is an idea realized in code. The universe is something that began to exist, and therefore had to have been caused to exist. Each of those things are evidence of the invisible, the transcendent--they are not the concepts themselves. But not everyone can look at "one hotdog" and get "1," or use an OS and get "idea," or "universe" and get God. In fact, nobody can. Those truths have to be revealed on some level and accepted on faith. One can say "Big Bang," but merely saying "Big Bang" doesn't obligate the other person to accept that the Big Bang happened. One can say "God," but that doesn't obligate the other person to believe in God. One can scream "Evidence, PLEASE!" but what even IS evidence? How are you certain you've drawn the correct conclusion if you don't know everything?

To answer your question more directly, I could claim that my decision to believe in God is just as valid as the opposite, sure. But in the same breath I would also be admitting that NEITHER my conclusion nor the opposite is valid. I don't see my decision as invalid. I see that as something that has been revealed to me with no margin for uncertainty. Arguing/demanding evidence is futile in the same sense arguing with a mathematician as to whether numbers exist is futile. I'm not aware of math teachers losing their jobs because teaching a transcendent subject is inherently religious. However, if transcendent things like math concepts are accepted as real from having been revealed to us, it's logically possible to know of other transcendent things that have also been revealed to us. In fact, I believe that's the only possible way anything at all can make logical sense.

I'm pressed for time, and I may get around to your other post. Always friggin happens the few times I'm actually interested in something in PPR!

But I did just want to comment on this, because I can keep this short. I think emotions versus perception is a whole different topic for discussion aware from atheism versus theism. When it comes to emotions versus logic, I think emotions are the reason WHY we have logic. Logic doesn't, strictly speaking, tell you what makes you happy. Music is my thing. That make me happy. Learning new things or new ways of doing things makes me happy. I didn't get that from logic. There's nothing logical about it.

However, how do I achieve those things that make me happy? I play piano for church, private parties, and SOMETIMES I get to play in a band. I also teach during the day. So I make money with my musical ability. And with money, I can maintain my instruments or buy new ones. I can buy new computers, experiment with Linux, Python, Puredata, Csound, and all the commercial, 3rd party stuff I have on my MacBook Pro. I can also afford to eat. I enjoy running, so I keep my membership current with the YMCA. Make more money. Reinvest. Enjoy my freedom and time with my family. Logic dictates that in order to have things that make me happy, I have to produce something in order to trade for the things I love.

PURE emotion is a mistake people often make because they often exchange what they want for what they want RIGHT NOW. I'm hungry, so I'm going to buy a $75 steak. My car for work is breaking down, so I'm going to go buy a Maserati. I can't afford the 5-bedroom house, so I'm going into debt so I can have one. Those kinds of things are mindless pursuits that will usually end in misery or self-denial--I bought the $75 steak with the last of my paycheck, and it's only the 3rd day of the month. Now I can't eat. I only had liability on the Mas, and now after I wrecked it running a red light, I can't even afford a used car just to get to work. I lost my job and can't make payments on the house, so I'm about to go into foreclosure and won't have anywhere to go.

Or...much worse in some cases...I'm having sex with my wife because I married her and I have to, but I can't even remember why I married her in the first place. Dude, it's immoral to sleep with someone you don't love, so why bother marrying her?

And I think that's more where the majority of people are. We tend to look for immediacy, not whether a long range pursuit actually offers anything of value. I think the only satisfaction to be found in life has to do with what we build, what we want and expect from life. Emotional decisions don't have to be mindless decisions. It's just that more often they tend to be mindless, and I think that's unfortunate. Sometimes it seems that you're making sacrifices, but you're really not. You'll be much happier eating a $75 steak that you EARNED and DESERVE and have the FREEDOM to enjoy. An older, mature person takes the Mas across the country for the weekend for the love of driving. He doesn't take the Mas off the lot and immediately destroy its value by making it his work vehicle or engage in reckless activity. He doesn't buy the McMansion except that he's making money, working hard, increasing his family size, and cannot be more effective where he is. And if he's rolling in cash, what does he need a mortgage for? But if you burn through having nice things you don't deserve, you're never going to be happy with them for long. You don't get to live a billionaire lifestyle on a teacher's salary--YET a teacher can be just as happy as a billionaire. So I think it's important to decide what makes you the most happy and works towards that goal. That's not a logical decision, but it is possible to think logically towards achieving what it is you want.

I think logic is important, and I think the fictional Vulcans were on the right track. The trouble is they denied emotion entirely, which completely ignores the fact that their idealization of logic was entirely based on EMOTION. I'm not sure how many Trekkies out there will agree with me on this, but I ALWAYS felt that Vulcans, for all their admirable qualities, were the biggest hypocrites on the show. Without emotion, there is no desire for something. Without desire, there is no will. Without will, there is no cause. Without a cause, there is no action. Without action there is no result. Without a result, there is no REASON for doing anything. A person without desire or passion is the worst sort of human being, IMO: a mindless self-hater. Logic is the path to satisfying the emotions and finding happiness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP8XabjFmKw

^^^

Great Explanation!
As Science Shows Emotions
are the Glue of Our Memory and
The Predecessor of Most all Rational
Decisions; Regulate Emotions; Integrate Senses;
You Get 'Heaven' Now Within in Balance Dark through Light;
Human Beings; and The Rest of the Animals are evolved for Intermittent Gratification
in how we Move, Connect; and Co-Create Together; And When We stay in the Sweet Spot
'tween Anxiety and Boredom; Constantly improving our Human Potentials We Not Only Survive
in Basic Subsistence; We also thrive in Dance and Song for Metaphor That is Real and Next thing
you know You
no longer
Expect
Straight
Lines of Life;
You Spiral You
are Water Waves
Ocean Whole Field
And Particle Wave as Well;
The Shores are Unlimited; the
World You Move Connect And Co-Create
Will Surely become more 'Heaven' than the other 'Reality of Hell' you may
not Move, Connect, And Co-Create now; and sure; All of existence in Heaven
on Earth Within in an 'Autotelic State of Being' Mastered through Bio-Feedback of Flow (Transient
Hypo-Frontality) in Whatever Arts and Sciences We Do to Achieve that Mastery of Balance is enough to Name
'God' and Give
Great Thanks
And Praise that
only increases the
Serotonin And Dopamine
And Oxytocin and other etcetera
Material Reductionist Parts of Existence
that in Synergy of our Human Force Positive
Energies Make Higher Frequencies of Our Vibrations; so, in general then;
A Guitar Man and or Woman (in General God) comes to Town with another Dance and Song of Bliss for all.

God is Music;

Some Folks Hear the Song;

And THere are those who Do THE Dance.

Others Do Not; other than the Fact We
Live and Die; it does not have to be Fair.

But at least We
get an opportunity
to LiVE iN Heaven NoW; if we Actually Work for that ForTune Now;
For those who Do; no Matter What the Form of Word or other Symbol
They use for the 'Essence of God'; They See IT as real without the need of eyes or ears.

In Other Words; It's a Whole
Experience of Life beyond
Repeatable Observable Science
as Every Human Mind's Eye is Potential of God Seeing; more or less.

If You Leave any of the Parts out; You are less likely to see the Whole;
Discounting Emotions are Discounting 'God'; no Surprise that those who do; do not see 'the Whole' Fully;
And are Usually the most Discontent People as let's face it; facts; there is no doubt That Emotions are what make us Happy or not; Additionally, in Balance What Brings Focus, Concentration and Greatest Human Potentials in Creating
And Productivity more; rarely will you ever find an original Artist who doesn't 'see God'; Simply for they see more of
the Whole of Creativity now and Promote that Experience to a more Beautiful Way of expressing it than just an other
wise empty 3 Letter Word of Shell; Lying on the Beach Never Changing; but still Beautiful Enough to Still See; Life is Better.

Are you using a formal philosophical discipline as a basis for your arguments?

Interesting but this thread is about atheism.
Perhaps you would like to continue this conversation elsewhere?
I.E. Start a new thread?

Strictly speaking, no. There is a question of whether a purely man-made approach is adequate for discovering truth. The only such discipline that could possibly allow for objective truth is one that presupposes God.

But in a different sense, do I presuppose logic? Sure, along with other things such as objective reality.

Why?
"This does not compute, Will Robinson".



Perhaps I am a bit loosey-goosey, but I consider "objective truth" and "objective reality" the same.

I don't need to presuppose a god to believe in the concept that humanity is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
That is a "truth" or "reality" of which I am very comfortable.

The trouble most people seem to have about "absolute Reality" seems to be connected with the fallacy that humanity/huwomanity is somehow a divine creation, which is obviously not the case.
Thinking we are "special" makes it hard to "think outside the box".

Lawrence Krauss has made some insightful and enlightening comments about human/huwoman intellectual development in regards to the limitations evolution has placed on concept comprehension.
But I can't see the concept of "absolute reality" as being one of them, with or without "god's" interference.

I already explained that. You cannot make a truth claim without accepting something on pure faith. The only way this is possible otherwise is if you already know everything. Human beings don’t know everything. But if someone knows someone who does and trusts an omniscient, intelligent being to reveal something as truth, then that person CAN make a truth claim without fear of circular reasoning.

Pure logic cannot exist within the human mind not just because humans lack omniscience, but because the human mind exists within a fallen creation that renders the mind useless. Think of mental patients in an asylum. The patient has to decide what part of his experience is real and what part is delusion. Without help from outside himself, doctors/orderlies who have a grip on reality who can show him the difference, the delusional person is lost within himself. In the film “A Beautiful Mind,” the main character realizes that the little girl in his hallucinations never ages, he’d known her for decades I believe. It took getting help for him to begin to understand how to distinguish between hallucinations and reality. To him, as with many mental patients, his reality was the only one. It was the rest of the world that had gone mad.

Because the human mind is inherently broken as a result of being part of a broken existence, we need help to understand what truth is. We cannot possess knowledge unless it is revealed to us by God. If God were to reveal Himself to humanity, then we could know Him and trust Him. The Bible shows that this has happened and, as I’m not a cessationalist, that this continues to happen. Because God reveals SOME knowledge, we can make reliable, logical conclusions and trust our senses within reason. This is impossible without first knowing God, since the mind is incapable of reason without first being restored, and because one cannot claim certain knowledge without first knowing everything (omniscience). At best, any truth claims you make fail on circularity (assuming that which must be proven).

So, STRICTLY SPEAKING, do I practice a formal philosophical discipline? No, because doing so would require that I take nothing on faith. Philosophy is predominantly man-made and depends on human logic, which I’ve already demonstrated as flawed (without divine revelation). The only way I can maintain a consistent worldview is if some truths are already revealed to me and that my mind to some degree is renewed. Without God, no philosophy can possibly make sense.

To suggest that humans are not a divine creation is pure nonsense. That is revealed in the Bible to be false. Where are you getting your information? How do you know your information is reliable? Without God, there is no reality at all, much less an absolute one. If there is no absolute reality, then you are incapable of making any truth claims at all. That means reality is whatever we want it to be, which in another sense isn’t a bad idea, but in the sense we’re talking here it just doesn’t happen. People don’t literally get away with murder without consequences on some level. You cannot make a relativist claim and remain consistent because you’ll ultimately fall back on some absolute truth. You can say “it’s all relative” until I slap you in the face. If you say “that’s not fair!” then you’ve asserted an absolute, objective truth.

And that brings us to a topic that is marginally relevant: Objective truth and reality. Objectivism is the secular philosophy that what is real is only what is objectively real. It’s inherently atheistic same as empiricism is inherently atheistic. The only assumption it makes is itself. Ayn Rand’s formulation involved first accepting objective reality as self-evident and THEN drawing logical conclusions about humanity and the world. If you want to know more, I recommend checking out the Atlas Society website. ARI is informative, too, but Atlas IMO is easier to understand. Once you read more of Ayn Rand’s work, you’ll start to see that her view of God was biased from her view of “mystics” (religious people, but particularly targeting Christians) who are scamming people through altruism or wishful thinking. I believe it was largely this bias that prevented her from viewing God as objective. She failed to recognize her own views rely on faith, and she failed to question anything about the capabilities of the human mind with regard to epistemology.

Where she deserves praise is in her optimistic view of humanity and demanding people think for themselves. I share a largely negative view of the Christian religion in that, yes, it either devalues human worth or encourages a genie-in-a-bottle mentality in relation to God. I believe that sacrifice of God’s Son demonstrates what mankind is worth to our Creator, and this if we possess high value, we should treat ourselves as valuable. The greatest good individuals can do for themselves is to benefit each other in corporate solidarity. You can’t love your neighbor if you don’t first love yourself. But if you DO love yourself, you want the benefit of having others in your life. To do that, you’re going to do good things for them and acknowledge their value. You can see that the evil one does affects us all, and it is in the best interest of all to do good and hate evil. Therefore, do unto others, etc. etc. Ayn Rand KNEW this, which makes her atheism problematic. But given the teachings of the church and how the Bible has been twisted to demand self-sacrifice (was Jesus not enough?), you can hardly blame Ayn Rand for how she felt about it. The idea of “carrying your cross” and following Jesus to the grave is neither desirable nor logical. However, I don’t believe Jesus’ path ended at the tomb. For me, I’m not carrying my cross to defeat, but rather to victory. If Jesus paid my sin debt on the cross, what debt do I owe for salvation? Catholics, however, believe salvation can be lost. They are obligated to keep their Jesus hanging on the cross, eternally suffering for our sake, and must acknowledge their own miserable state every time they attend mass. This is completely at odds with a world in which people are not miserable, or where misery is a choice. As a Christian, I do owe a figurative debt to Ayn Rand in clarifying a lot of things that for me were at one point only intuition but am now seeing as objective. I am a special, valuable, worthy individual. Humanity as a whole is special, valuable, and worthy. And that’s not merely my opinion, but rather an inference from objective reality. For Ayn Rand, it is an attribute of all that is living. For me, there’s only one more step to questioning “from whence life?”

For Ayn Rand, intelligent life and objective reality are self-evident and axiomatic, no God required? Things like logic and truth are entirely presupposed. If true, what’s the difference between assuming logic, objective reality, etc., and assuming God? Ayn Rand sought the best in everyone. Well, so did Jesus. Ayn Rand was encouraging and optimistic. So was Jesus. Ayn Rand took a lot of cues from Plato. Many Christians do the same, even if they’re unaware of it. So what exactly is the problem if not simply a misunderstanding of what Christian faith really is or, at least, what it was originally intended to be? Ayn Rand doesn’t adequately explore the limitations of the human mind nor acknowledge where truth ultimately comes from (how do we know our reality is objective? Problems include omniscience, mental capacity). For all the good she has done, she didn’t go far enough into establishing WHERE objective truth ultimately comes from.

Pepe, I think you’re a cool polecat. You’re not the type who shows outright animosity towards those who disagree with you. As far as how you see humanity, I’d say objectivism (regardless of theistic views) has a much more optimistic take on it. One can draw optimistic conclusions regarding humanity’s uniqueness from objective reality (no God required, though ignoring the problems inherent with ignoring God), so I think it might do you some good to look into Objectivism. My personal view is atheistic objectivism is entirely too limiting, so I’ll just leave that up to you to discover on your own.

My time here has long run out. I’m going through the week from HELL at work, and without constant reminding myself of the OBJECTIVE value of others, my faith (in ANYTHING) is being tested to the point I can clearly see what mustard seed-size faith looks like. I know the metaphorical mountain is going to move. But sometimes summoning the courage to simply demand it move is more difficult than shoving a real mountain out of the way, whether with words or physical force. I doubt we’re going to say anything new beyond this point, so for now I’m taking a break and possibly abandoning the thread altogether since another wall of text isn’t going to make anything more clear. However, if you’re seriously considering becoming a Christian, and by that I mean anything more than the purely nominal sense, I’ll answer questions as best I can, and I might even be summoned via PM. Otherwise, take good care of yourself!