Understanding Atheism

[Ethos]

I declared myself an agnostic in 1983 and stayed that way until I declared myself an atheist in 1992. The road from Christianity to atheism and back to Christianity was – with my apologies to Beatles fans – long and winding. It took many years to travel.

The decision to major in psychology was one of many factors that led to my decision to leave the church. Not many psychology departments have more atheists than the nearest philosophy department. But many come close. And the way the discipline of psychology approaches religion is likely to lead some students astray.

I recall quite well my first exposure to Freud and his ideas about the Oedipus complex. I became well-schooled in his ideas about man’s compelling psychological need to create a God in his own image – to resolve various feelings of guilt flowing from childhood trauma. I was so captivated by these ideas that I read “Moses and Monotheism,” “Totem and Taboo,” and “The Future of an Illusion” in my spare time. Each took me further away from God.

B.F. Skinner had a similar impact on my thinking. The principles of operant conditioning were not always used to explain religion away. Strict behaviorists seldom have a compelling need to “look inside the black box” or, in other words, analyze unobservable thoughts. But these principles do provide a ready explanation for those convinced that man created God, not vice versa. I was so captivated by Skinner that I read “Walden Two” and “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” in my spare time. These books pushed me further in the direction of atheism.

The notion that psychology might provide an explanation for atheism – rather than theism - never really occurred to me during my years as a psychology student (from 1983 until 1989 when I received my M.S. in psychology). But, in March of 1989, a woman named Martha Hamilton – the mother of my “second mother” Lisa Chambers – responded to my praise of B.F. Skinner and the behaviorists with the following comment: “It just sounds like a bunch of people trying to get out of serving God.”

I must confess that I thought Mrs. Hamilton was just a simple-minded fundamentalist. Now, I realize that she was right and I was wrong.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/10/29/understanding_atheism

What is interesting about this commentary is Adams's use of cognitive dissonance to explain atheism. I suppose the primary mistake is that dissonance applies to the believer and the non-believer alike. Dismissing atheism with the theory assumed the existence of god as a precursor to the discussion.

One might wonder if, instead of finding a universal understanding of atheism, perhaps Adams was simply engaging in his own cognitive dissonance, never truly embracing non-belief. Unfortunately he does far more to chronicle his fallout from faith than how he got it back, so I couldn't honestly say one way or another.

In any event, the concepts are far more intriguing than the usual atheistic criticism, and I can greatly appreciate his ending paragraph, as I would hope all of us would agree.


I often wonder why we speak of the atheists as if they are our enemies. And I wonder whether that should matter if we call ourselves Christians. I hope this column will inspire some cognitive dissonance, for the writer and the reader alike. And I hope the tension will be resolved with love, which the best cure for dissonance, or, for that matter, anything else.



Ethos

[Atticus]

I appreciate the sentiment, though both Freud and Skinner (though especially Skinner) dismiss "love" as the psychological product of processes beyond our control. In Skinner's world, does "love" exist? Does it matter? To arrive at an understanding of something like what we call love requires speculation about the interior workings of the mind (and some would say, the soul). This an area that Skinnerian psychology, which considers itself a pure science, eschews as unimportant and unknowable. So, like in our other discussions, we're back to choosing first principles rather than deriving them. Is this not so?

I agree that Christians should treat everyone with love.

[Ethos]

I appreciate the sentiment, though both Freud and Skinner (though especially Skinner) dismiss "love" as the psychological product of processes beyond our control. In Skinner's world, does "love" exist? Does it matter? To arrive at an understanding of something like what we call love requires speculation about the interior workings of the mind (and some would say, the soul). This an area that Skinnerian psychology, which considers itself a pure science, eschews as unimportant and unknowable. So, like in our other discussions, we're back to choosing first principles rather than deriving them. Is this not so?


Part of the problem is that "love" is not a singular or universal construct. It is a whole formed from numerous parts - empathy, tenderness, desire, trust. Each of these isn't necessarily a part of all love (I might love someone without necessarily trusting them), and to complicate matters we have different types of love. Love of a spouse is far different from love of a child.

Different people (and cultures) express love in different ways. Some people, never having been in a loving relationship, have difficulty demonstrating those feelings in the first place. And for many of us, "love" is truly only "lust", which has the effective chemical impact of a cocaine high.

To be honest I'm not sure it matters. Unless someone wants to make the argument that atheists are somehow less capable of feeling and expressing "love" as their theist counterparts (and perhaps some would, though hopefully a distinct minority), the concept itself should be a relatively neutrally applied principle, rather than one of contention.

Ethos

[mataj]

There's nothing to understand around Atheism. Every man is born Atheist. Religion is banged into his head later, by rod, fire, sword, peer pressure, and propaganda.


“It just sounds like a bunch of people trying to get out of serving God.”Yea, of course it figures.

God is personification of authoritarian rule: Medeival king, authoritarian regime, dictator. God, like dictator, knows no reasons for not obeying his orders; only excuses and get-outs.

[Ethos]

There's nothing to understand around Atheism. Every man is born Atheist. Religion is banged into his head later, by rod, fire, sword, peer pressure, and propaganda.


Who do you suggest did the first "banging"?

[mataj]

Who do you suggest did the first "banging"?This question about as essential as the question about who sent the 1st chain letter, but... Well, OK, what the hell. It was a certain pharaoh, who went by the name of Akhenaten. I'm sure you heard of him. His invention, monotheism, later proved to be very efficient reigning tool. As such, it was adopted by other regimes of that time as well. In the centuries that followed, it gradually evolved into the monotheistic religions we know today.

[Atticus]

Part of the problem is that "love" is not a singular or universal construct. It is a whole formed from numerous parts - empathy, tenderness, desire, trust. Each of these isn't necessarily a part of all love (I might love someone without necessarily trusting them), and to complicate matters we have different types of love. Love of a spouse is far different from love of a child.

Different people (and cultures) express love in different ways. Some people, never having been in a loving relationship, have difficulty demonstrating those feelings in the first place. And for many of us, "love" is truly only "lust", which has the effective chemical impact of a cocaine high.

To be honest I'm not sure it matters. Unless someone wants to make the argument that atheists are somehow less capable of feeling and expressing "love" as their theist counterparts (and perhaps some would, though hopefully a distinct minority), the concept itself should be a relatively neutrally applied principle, rather than one of contention.

EthosI'm not sure how what you're saying here speaks to my point. To the behaviorist, "love" is not a voluntary construct because there are no voluntary constructs. There are only fairly predictable reactions to stimuli. Worse, these reactions can be manipulated fairly easily, so everything comes down to power. For me, the question isn't whether atheists can love (clearly they can), but whether a construct that denies free will can lead to anything like love as a guiding force in the world. It isn't atheism I have a problem with--it's an atheism derived from a Skinnerian worldview.

[Ethos]

This question about as essential as the question about who sent the 1st chain letter, but... Well, OK, what the hell.

Certainly the question is essential. If we assume the origin of all religion was a single individual (not likely), and that religion has been "banged" into peoples' heads ever since, then we must accept that at least the first person was not in fact coerced into adopting his/her beliefs.

Since this is the case, it is reasonable to assume that if one person can come to religion without outside influences, others can do the same.

Supernatural belief systems revolving around god or gods pre-date the Pharaohs, not to mention some evolved simultaneously in other parts of the world. Furthermore, while I agree religion has been used as a method of control by many governments throughout history, the origins and wider usage of that faith is not so absolute.

Ethos

[Ethos]

I'm not sure how what you're saying here speaks to my point. To the behaviorist, "love" is not a voluntary construct because there are no voluntary constructs. There are only fairly predictable reactions to stimuli. Worse, these reactions can be manipulated fairly easily, so everything comes down to power. For me, the question isn't whether atheists can love (clearly they can), but whether a construct that denies free will can lead to anything like love as a guiding force in the world. It isn't atheism I have a problem with--it's an atheism derived from a Skinnerian worldview.

For my own part, I'm not sure how the definition of "love" relates to the commentary itself. Perhaps it is an extrapolation on your part, however I will need some help moving from the application of cognitive dissonance to atheism to a working definition of love. (The final paragraph I included being less a part of the debate itself than an appreciation for the authors perspectives.)

As far as the denial of free will, it wouldn't seem to relate either. As a point of debate, the concept of a "guiding force" that is love personified is hardly conducive to "free will".

Ethos

[AgentM]

I'm not sure how what you're saying here speaks to my point. To the behaviorist, "love" is not a voluntary construct because there are no voluntary constructs. There are only fairly predictable reactions to stimuli. Worse, these reactions can be manipulated fairly easily, so everything comes down to power. For me, the question isn't whether atheists can love (clearly they can), but whether a construct that denies free will can lead to anything like love as a guiding force in the world. It isn't atheism I have a problem with--it's an atheism derived from a Skinnerian worldview.

I'm an atheist, and I do not have a Skinnerian worldview. I believe that the obvious answer to the nature vs. nurture questions in general is a little of both. There are lots of biological responses mixed in with emotional responses which are our own, from our social upbringing and other factors. Lets take love. We're a lot less likely to go out with someone or marry them if we don't find them physically attractive on some level. Now that said, we still care for them on an emotional, human level (usually, assuming that you're not just dating someone out of pure lust). Biology can, shall we say, influence us to a certain degree. But we have the power to override it, as well as have feelings on a higher level than just pure animal instinct. That all is pretty obvious. Can you tell I'm a post-modernist? :)

[mataj]

Certainly the question is essential. If we assume the origin of all religion was a single individual (not likely),More likely it was individual aided by his propagandists.

and that religion has been "banged" into peoples' heads ever since, then we must accept that at least the first person was not in fact coerced into adopting his/her beliefs.The first person hadn't adopted any beliefs. Rulers don't believe things they want their underlings to believe.

[Ethos]

More likely it was individual aided by his propagandists.

The first person hadn't adopted any beliefs. Rulers don't believe things they want their underlings to believe.

Some people believe for reasons of their own, and not because of any propagandists or despotic rulers. Even the rulers themselves sometimes believe what they force on others.

Honestly I don't find your input on these sorts of topics very productive. You are right to an extent, however the absolute nature of your opinions do not lend themselves to a broader discussion.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I'm an atheist, and I do not have a Skinnerian worldview. I believe that the obvious answer to the nature vs. nurture questions in general is a little of both. There are lots of biological responses mixed in with emotional responses which are our own, from our social upbringing and other factors. Lets take love. We're a lot less likely to go out with someone or marry them if we don't find them physically attractive on some level. Now that said, we still care for them on an emotional, human level (usually, assuming that you're not just dating someone out of pure lust). Biology can, shall we say, influence us to a certain degree. But we have the power to override it, as well as have feelings on a higher level than just pure animal instinct. That all is pretty obvious. Can you tell I'm a post-modernist? :)But the portion I've bolded is key here, it seems to me, and I don't think its obvious at all. I won't speak to the question of atheism here directly, but to the notion of "feelings on a higher level." Scientists who study the brain pretty much make the assumption that at some point the nature of the mind will be understood in much the same way we understand physics. It isn't the mix of "nature vs. nurture" that matters; it's about whether something ineffable and ultimately unmeasurable plays a role. Question: if we take two people who have exactly the same genetics (nature) and provide them with identical experiences (nurture), will their personalities be identical? Will they react identically to the same stimuli? If the answer is "yes," then everything we think, say, and do is determined outside our own volition--even our idea of what volition is must be determined by that mixture of genetics and experience.

In the other thread in this forum on "atheist indoctrination," the key question was one about which science has come to pretty definite conclusions. To me, it's not the question of origins that's key--it's about the definition of our humanity and inner being. If THAT is proven to be just a very complex equation (much the same way we can measure the trajectory of a moving body, but much more complex), then atheism, it seems to be, becomes a necessity. And my faith tells me that's a conclusion we will not come to. Certainly there are many questions in neuroscience that remain mysteries. The development of language, for example, is still one about which we only speculate.

As I understand it, atheism is simply a worldview that disregards (in the sense of simply not regarding as worth much thought, rather than the sense of not caring) anything that cannot be proven through observation. To me, the mysteries that elude us about the nature of ourselves provide the basis for theism.

[mataj]

Some people believe for reasons of their own, and not because of any propagandists or despotic rulers.Yea, they do. It's called "heresy", "paganism", or simply "superstition".

Even the rulers themselves sometimes believe what they force on others.Yea, it's called "blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence))", falling victim to one's own propaganda, pysops, and blackops. Happens regularily when they are overdone, usually with disastruous consequences.

Honestly I don't find your input on these sorts of topics very productive. You are right to an extent, however the absolute nature of your opinions do not lend themselves to a broader discussion.There are no counterarguments ready in your holy books, are they?

[Ethos]

There are no counterarguments ready in your holy books, are they?

While I'm an atheist, and therefore have no "holy books" to rely on, there are indeed no counterarguments to someone whose final line of discourse happens to be premised on one conspiracy or another.

Ethos

[AgentM]

But the portion I've bolded is key here, it seems to me, and I don't think its obvious at all. I won't speak to the question of atheism here directly, but to the notion of "feelings on a higher level." Scientists who study the brain pretty much make the assumption that at some point the nature of the mind will be understood in much the same way we understand physics. It isn't the mix of "nature vs. nurture" that matters; it's about whether something ineffable and ultimately unmeasurable plays a role. Question: if we take two people who have exactly the same genetics (nature) and provide them with identical experiences (nurture), will their personalities be identical? Will they react identically to the same stimuli? If the answer is "yes," then everything we think, say, and do is determined outside our own volition--even our idea of what volition is must be determined by that mixture of genetics and experience.

Right, you're speaking of something outside mere biology. A soul if you will. I personally tend to think that souls don't exist, but that a combination of genetics, personal experiences, and brain chemistry can give us all a unique sense of self, and unique personalities. Certainly an amazing feat, and one not easily explained by current science.

In the other thread in this forum on "atheist indoctrination," the key question was one about which science has come to pretty definite conclusions. To me, it's not the question of origins that's key--it's about the definition of our humanity and inner being. If THAT is proven to be just a very complex equation (much the same way we can measure the trajectory of a moving body, but much more complex), then atheism, it seems to be, becomes a necessity. And my faith tells me that's a conclusion we will not come to. Certainly there are many questions in neuroscience that remain mysteries. The development of language, for example, is still one about which we only speculate.

I tend to agree with you that we will likely never come to a satisfactory conclusion about our humanity and inner being. I come to that not through faith, but through thinking that science will, probably, never be able to come up with all the answers. Our brains are very complex organs, so complex that I don't know if neuro-science will ever be able to fully explain them.

As I understand it, atheism is simply a worldview that disregards (in the sense of simply not regarding as worth much thought, rather than the sense of not caring) anything that cannot be proven through observation. To me, the mysteries that elude us about the nature of ourselves provide the basis for theism.

This I have to disagree with. There is no one atheist worldview. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities. That's it. There is no central atheist movement, no core philosophy that everyone believes (with the exception of not believing in God). Atheists merely have tendencies. Tendencies to be skeptics, tendencies to question the status quo of religion. But there is no set standard. Many people myself included, realize that science does not yet have all the answers, and probably will never have all of them in my lifetime. This lack of knowledge, merely does not drive us to seek satisfaction in faith through some Great Divine Presence. Myself I am not one who thinks that things that cannot be yet proven, do not have value necessarily, I merely tend to gravitate towards scientific answers that make sense. I take issue with the idea that simply because we're atheist, that we do not place value on non-scientifically proven things. Going back to the topic s above, our personalities have not been entirely explained scientifically (I don't think), but atheists still value them.

[Ethos]

Question: if we take two people who have exactly the same genetics (nature) and provide them with identical experiences (nurture), will their personalities be identical? Will they react identically to the same stimuli? If the answer is "yes," then everything we think, say, and do is determined outside our own volition--even our idea of what volition is must be determined by that mixture of genetics and experience.

The answer is always going to be "no" because we will always have an extremely wide range of options available as a response to a particular stimuli (including both rational and irrational), and there is no guarantee that two people - even if they are identical in genetic and environmental considerations - will choose the same response. Your example would make us out to be some form of desk computer, while our actual decision making process is far more complex than that.



And my faith tells me that's a conclusion we will not come to. Certainly there are many questions in neuroscience that remain mysteries. The development of language, for example, is still one about which we only speculate.

So in a way you agree with Demon of Light's premise?

I'm still not sure why being able to explain how all phenomena operate - even the human mind - takes something away from religious faith. It has been pointed out many times that the natural and supernatural are decidedly differing realms. It would seem you are taking the track that there are (or should be) supernatural influences (human thought) on natural systems (human brain). Why must this be the case?


As I understand it, atheism is simply a worldview that disregards (in the sense of simply not regarding as worth much thought, rather than the sense of not caring) anything that cannot be proven through observation. To me, the mysteries that elude us about the nature of ourselves provide the basis for theism.

It may not surprise you to know I don't agree with this understanding of atheism (though I won't deny it may apply to some). Simpy ask yourself - would I be here discussing these issues in a (hopefully) thoughtful manner, as an atheist, if your interpretation of atheism were correct?

Ethos

[Ethos]

I tend to agree with you that we will likely never come to a satisfactory conclusion about our humanity and inner being. I come to that not through faith, but through thinking that science will, probably, never be able to come up with all the answers. Our brains are very complex organs, so complex that I don't know if neuro-science will ever be able to fully explain them.


And I will have to disgaree with you in this case (I guess we atheists have a long way to go in regard to that Universal Code). I have no doubt our brains are immensely complex, and perhaps a full understanding of neuroscience is many centuries in our future. At the same time I need only look at how far we've come in the accumulation of knowledge to realize placing any limits or boundaries on what we can or cannot know is naive at best, perhaps destructive as well.

Ethos

[Demon of Light]

Well, OK, what the hell. It was a certain pharaoh, who went by the name of Akhenaten. I'm sure you heard of him. His invention, monotheism, later proved to be very efficient reigning tool. As such, it was adopted by other regimes of that time as well. In the centuries that followed, it gradually evolved into the monotheistic religions we know today.

While that's a popular theory monotheism was actually an aspect of many religions at the time and I personally think Atenism was nothing but war propaganda because we know at that time the Hapiru (Hebrews) were launching attacks with resounding success against Egyptian Canaan (this is the likely source of the story of Joshua) even recruiting a powerful leader known as Labaya who controlled much of Samaria (modern West Bank), which caused serious panic thorughout Egyptian Canaan. It didn't help that the Hittite Empire was beginning to invade Egyptian Canaan and stirring leaders in Upper Canaan (modern Lebanon) against each other. So Ahkenhaten's adoption of Atenism is probably analogous in modern times to the Soviet's empowerment of the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II.

However, look up the Hindus and Brahman or the Chinese and ShangTi and you'll find belief in a single invisible God was quite common. Some say even Egypt had some sort of monotheism with most Egyptian gods regarded merely as different manifestations of the same great god.

Even the Native Americans believed in a "Great Spirit" that saw over everything so it's not simply a political tool.

It has been pointed out many times that the natural and supernatural are decidedly differing realms.

The thing is, if everything can be explained in the natural there's no need for the supernatural to explain it.

[mataj]

While I'm an atheist, and therefore have no "holy books" to rely on, there are indeed no counterarguments to someone whose final line of discourse happens to be premised on one conspiracy or another.

Ethos"One concpiracy or another" is basically correct, but it sounds a bit too tinfoil-hattish. So, let's put it a bit more punctiliously. My premise is, that vast majority of people don't want to be governed, especially not in the authoritarian manner. Everybody would prefer to do things his way, to serve his own interests, not the interests of his ruler. So, the governed people must be coerced somehow. The entire population can not be governed at gunpoint, at least not all the time. The only alternative to this is manipulation, deception, propaganda, disinformation, etc, the stuff Plato calls "Noble lies". Deception is the foundation of every authoritarian government. No sane person in 1930s Germany voted for Hitler just like that. Germans were tricked into it by false promises, and propaganda manipulation. If you want to call that conspiracy, be my guest, but you will have to agree, that this kind of conspiracies clearly don't fall into the tin-foil-hat-alien-mind-zapping-ray-illuminati-twilight-zone category.

[Ethos]

"One concpiracy or another" is basically correct, but it sounds a bit too tinfoil-hattish. So, let's put it a bit more punctiliously. My premise is, that vast majority of people don't want to be governed, especially not in the authoritarian manner. Everybody would prefer to do things his way, to serve his own interests, not the interests of his ruler. So, the governed people must be coerced somehow. The entire population can not be governed at gunpoint, at least not all the time. The only alternative to this is manipulation, deception, propaganda, disinformation, etc, the stuff Plato calls "Noble lies". Deception is the foundation of every authoritarian government. No sane person in 1930s Germany voted for Hitler just like that. Germans were tricked into it by false promises, and propaganda manipulation. If you want to call that conspiracy, be my guest, but you will have to agree, that this kind of conspiracies can't fall into the tin-foil-hat-alien-mind-zapping-ray-illuminati-twilight-zone kind of conspiracy.

As I said, you are correct - to an extent. My problem comes in when you use a short version of this response in just about every thread I've seen your name on. Sometimes I believe your analysis is spot on and sometimes I believe the one-size-fits-all model doesn't apply. Disagreeing with you never seems to do much good, however, so I feel your contributions are more distracting than they are helpful.

Ethos

[mataj]

As I said, you are correct - to an extent. My problem comes in when you use a short version of this response in just about every thread I've seen your name on. Sometimes I believe your analysis is spot on and sometimes I believe the one-size-fits-all model doesn't apply. Disagreeing with you never seems to do much good, however, so I feel your contributions are more distracting than they are helpful.

EthosIOW it expains everything, and predicts nothing, just as every other belief. Yea, I'm aware of that.

It's just another way of saying: "Relevant facts about this matter are not available, therefore you better stop pondering about it, and consider the interests of the involved parties instead."

[Atticus]

The answer is always going to be "no" because we will always have an extremely wide range of options available as a response to a particular stimuli (including both rational and irrational), and there is no guarantee that two people - even if they are identical in genetic and environmental considerations - will choose the same response. Your example would make us out to be some form of desk computer, while our actual decision making process is far more complex than that.Complex, granted, but how complex and in what way? Some calculations are more complex than others, but they remain calculations. If they CAN be reduced to an equation (if they are in the linguistic sense "rule-governed"), they are predictable and therefore controllable. If they cannot be systematized in that way, that argues for something beyond the observable. That, to me, implies a deity (i.e., some intelligence that operates beyond rules).
So in a way you agree with Demon of Light's premise?DOL's premise is that there is a "movement" of scientists whose aim is to reduce or eliminate faith as a favor in the human condition--and that we need to be afraid of their success. I don't agree with that. I DO think that if science WERE to explain the ineffable elements of inner-being, it would go a long way to discrediting the idea of theism. Then, it would also go a long way to destroying what I consider to be the meaning of humanity.
I'm still not sure why being able to explain how all phenomena operate - even the human mind - takes something away from religious faith. It has been pointed out many times that the natural and supernatural are decidedly differing realms. It would seem you are taking the track that there are (or should be) supernatural influences (human thought) on natural systems (human brain). Why must this be the case?To me, the operation is free will is key, and the notion of free will as I understand it requires that ineffable element. Show me how the human mind works in all its complexity and you'll eliminate what I think of as the soul. I agree with DOL to the extent that if you can explain every thing via the natural, the supernatural becomes irrelavent because the connection between them is lost. It's like suggesting there is a parallel universe, but one that has no contact with our own--it might exist, but so what?
It may not surprise you to know I don't agree with this understanding of atheism (though I won't deny it may apply to some). Simpy ask yourself - would I be here discussing these issues in a (hopefully) thoughtful manner, as an atheist, if your interpretation of atheism were correct?No disrespect meant, but I'm sure I don't understand what motivates you. :flowers:

[Demon of Light]

DOL's premise is that there is a "movement" of scientists whose aim is to reduce or eliminate faith as a favor in the human condition--and that we need to be afraid of their success. I don't agree with that.

I didn't suggest we should be afraid, except to the extent that anyone trying to manipulate the public education system for the purposes of spreading or removing an ideology would make one afraid.

There is also certainly a movement to do it, which can not really be denied all that can be denied is how much influence they have or how organized they are. So, please don't misrepresent my positions.

In regards to the main topic:

I often wonder why we speak of the atheists as if they are our enemies.

I would certainly hope that no one would consider another person, let alone a broad group of people, to be enemies, but I guess it's inevitable in this world for people to do that.

[Ethos]

Complex, granted, but how complex and in what way? Some calculations are more complex than others, but they remain calculations. If they CAN be reduced to an equation (if they are in the linguistic sense "rule-governed"), they are predictable and therefore controllable. If they cannot be systematized in that way, that argues for something beyond the observable. That, to me, implies a deity (i.e., some intelligence that operates beyond rules).

Perhaps we could use world climate as an example. Do you accept that the global climate, while incredibly complex, can still be calculated to a set of equations? Weather prediction is a fairly (and increasingly) reliable process in a micro sense, but predicting weather patterns planet-wide is far more difficult. The further ahead you look, the harder that process becomes due to the sheer number of known (and unknown) variables.

There are some very exotic systems of operation out there (quantum, chaos theory, etc) as well. So while I understand where you are coming from, I don't accept your premise in this case. It seems to me one can reduce a complex system to a similarly complex set of equations without being capable of actually producing guaranteed predictable results from data input into that system.

More simply put, I believe you may be falling into the same ancient "god of the gaps" trap that so many have entered through history.



To me, the operation is free will is key, and the notion of free will as I understand it requires that ineffable element. Show me how the human mind works in all its complexity and you'll eliminate what I think of as the soul. I agree with DOL to the extent that if you can explain every thing via the natural, the supernatural becomes irrelavent because the connection between them is lost.

Is a sunset any less beautiful because you understand the exact physical reactions that produce it? Does music sound any less passionate when you know how and why we can hear it?

I'll be honest that this type of philosophy disturbs me. Why would you tie your faith to something so dangerously vulnerable as ignorance? If the day comes where we can know how the mind works, do such knowledge truly disqualify god's existence? Is the human "soul", however you choose to define it, any less wonderous when you know how it lives?



No disrespect meant, but I'm sure I don't understand what motivates you. :flowers:

None taken, I assure you, although I would hope you have some level of understanding for my motives. To this point I was only indicating that I seek an exchange of ideas, religious and otherwise, as a means of personal growth and understanding. This type of intent would seem antithetical to your assertion about atheism.

Although, as AgentM rightly states, we have very few unifying qualifications. I have always said that religion and faith are extremely personal and unique entities - no two Christians will hold the exact same doctrine, for instance. The same tends to hold true for atheists, (or any other group for that matter.)

Ethos

[AgentM]

And I will have to disgaree with you in this case (I guess we atheists have a long way to go in regard to that Universal Code). I have no doubt our brains are immensely complex, and perhaps a full understanding of neuroscience is many centuries in our future. At the same time I need only look at how far we've come in the accumulation of knowledge to realize placing any limits or boundaries on what we can or cannot know is naive at best, perhaps destructive as well.

Ethos

Yes, we do have some work to do on that Universal Code don't we ;). I don't think I'm placing limits, I myself just doubt science's ability to come up with an explanation. I'm not saying it's impossible, and if they manage to come up with a scientifically valid and proven theory for our personalities and inner humanity, that's great. I'm sure in centuries from now they'll be coming up with stuff that I can't even imagine (that is if we're lucky enough not to have blown ourselves back to the stone age by then).

[Ethos]

Yes, we do have some work to do on that Universal Code don't we ;). I don't think I'm placing limits, I myself just doubt science's ability to come up with an explanation.

I suppose the question I always have when I see these doubts is - why? And please do not tell me your reasoning is so simple as complexity. Honestly this type of explanation seems to me like taking the easy way out.


I'm sure in centuries from now they'll be coming up with stuff that I can't even imagine (that is if we're lucky enough not to have blown ourselves back to the stone age by then).

Perhaps once done we can literally re-invent the wheel. It will no doubt be a revolutionary event.

Ethos

[Atticus]

Perhaps we could use world climate as an example. Do you accept that the global climate, while incredibly complex, can still be calculated to a set of equations? Weather prediction is a fairly (and increasingly) reliable process in a micro sense, but predicting weather patterns planet-wide is far more difficult. The further ahead you look, the harder that process becomes due to the sheer number of known (and unknown) variables.

There are some very exotic systems of operation out there (quantum, chaos theory, etc) as well. So while I understand where you are coming from, I don't accept your premise in this case. It seems to me one can reduce a complex system to a similarly complex set of equations without being capable of actually producing guaranteed predictable results from data input into that system.

More simply put, I believe you may be falling into the same ancient "god of the gaps" trap that so many have entered through history. Again, it's important to me that God have some relevance to SOMETHING. No point in contemplating irrelevance.
Is a sunset any less beautiful because you understand the exact physical reactions that produce it? Does music sound any less passionate when you know how and why we can hear it? No, in both cases, but it's my appreciation of the sight and sound that matters here, not the the ways they make sense impressions. If my appreciation is just a predictable set of electric firings, then I would say that does rob me of something rather precious. And more than that, it gives others the chance to control me--not just my behavior but my being.
I'll be honest that this type of philosophy disturbs me. Why would you tie your faith to something so dangerously vulnerable as ignorance? If the day comes where we can know how the mind works, do such knowledge truly disqualify god's existence? Is the human "soul", however you choose to define it, any less wonderous when you know how it lives?If it is knowable, then how can there be transcendence?
None taken, I assure you, although I would hope you have some level of understanding for my motives. To this point I was only indicating that I seek an exchange of ideas, religious and otherwise, as a means of personal growth and understanding. This type of intent would seem antithetical to your assertion about atheism.I'm not sure why. My assertion about atheism was taken pretty much directly from your own statements about it. And while again I wouldn't care to offend you, it has been my impression that you appear much more intent on teaching (I might even use the term "schooling") than on learning in this forum. But I'll accept your assertion here, and just remark that your motives remain to me...enigmatic.

[AgentM]

I suppose the question I always have when I see these doubts is - why? And please do not tell me your reasoning is so simple as complexity. Honestly this type of explanation seems to me like taking the easy way out.

Perhaps you're right. But it just seems to me that science isn't very good at dealing with such abstract concepts such as personality. Sure it can come up with partial answers, like neuro-chemistry, and genetics, but science is better at linear thinking not the abstract. Scientists are best at things they can solve with a positive statement, i.e. x + x = y. Granted this is coming from my limited experience, but it just seems like personality and inner self is a little bit too abstract a thing to pinpoint to this sequence of brain chemistry or genetics. There's so much intertwined with it, chemistry, genetics, personal experiences, which parts of the brain fire up when. Maybe it can be done, I will just be impressed if they pull it off. It would have to be some kind of grand project of cooperation by geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, and more.

[Atticus]

I didn't suggest we should be afraid, except to the extent that anyone trying to manipulate the public education system for the purposes of spreading or removing an ideology would make one afraid.Your use of "manipulate" is ill-advised. Science teachers teach science. If you want them to be non-committal about the efficacy of science to answer the questions it answers, you're asking for something illogical. You wouldn't ask a teacher of literature to be non-committal about the value of literature, would you? Math teachers don't complete the factoring of a polynomial and then say "...or not." :confused:
There is also certainly a movement to do it, which can not really be denied all that can be denied is how much influence they have or how organized they are. So, please don't misrepresent my positions.You've proved very little about either "their" influence or their organization. I don't think I've misrepresented your positions, though I have challenged them.

[lawman]

Complex, granted, but how complex and in what way? Some calculations are more complex than others, but they remain calculations. If they CAN be reduced to an equation (if they are in the linguistic sense "rule-governed"), they are predictable and therefore controllable. If they cannot be systematized in that way, that argues for something beyond the observable. That, to me, implies a deity (i.e., some intelligence that operates beyond rules).
You've lost me here. First of all, it's been pretty clear throughout all scientific disciplines for the better part of a century that absolutely deterministic explanations don't really exist for anything -- if nothing else, quantum physics dictated that. (And chaos theory drives the point home.) "Anything" certainly includes human behavior; even today's most dedicated behaviorists won't argue that it can be reduced to completely predictable equations.

Second, inasmuch as all of this is readily encompassed within the realm of scientific theory, why and how does it imply any sort of deity?

Third, what the heck is an "intelligence that operates beyond rules," anyway? I honestly don't find the phrase to have any coherent meaning.

I agree with DOL to the extent that if you can explain every thing via the natural, the supernatural becomes irrelavent because the connection between them is lost. It's like suggesting there is a parallel universe, but one that has no contact with our own--it might exist, but so what?
No disrespect meant, but I'm sure I don't understand what motivates you. :flowers:
While I recognize that other nonbelievers may differ from me on this, I'd argue that "the supernatural" is indeed irrelevant, primarily because we have no basis upon which to believe that any identifiably "supernatural" phenomenon exists or ever has. There are actually much more persuasive arguments for the existence of parallel universes (whether reachable or not) than there are for anything supernatural.

...it's my appreciation of the sight and sound that matters here, not the the ways they make sense impressions. If my appreciation is just a predictable set of electric firings, then I would say that does rob me of something rather precious...
If it is knowable, then how can there be transcendence?
You seem to have an attachment to the mysterious and ineffable. This perplexes me. It's our ability to understand things that makes the universe so wondrous to us, not our ability to be baffled by them.

[Atticus]

You seem to have an attachment to the mysterious and ineffable. This perplexes me. It's our ability to understand things that makes the universe so wondrous to us, not our ability to be baffled by them.But we weren't talking about thinking the universe wonderous--we we talking about the viability of theism and atheism. I don't mind perplexing you, since we disagree at a very basic level.

[Demon of Light]

Your use of "manipulate" is ill-advised. Science teachers teach science. If you want them to be non-committal about the efficacy of science to answer the questions it answers, you're asking for something illogical. You wouldn't ask a teacher of literature to be non-committal about the value of literature, would you? Math teachers don't complete the factoring of a polynomial and then say "...or not."

That topic involved people who ACTUALLY SAID they were trying to use the education system to indoctrinate people against religion.

You've proved very little about either "their" influence or their organization.

Maybe you want to ignore the evidence, but it is there. They're all very influential people and there are many organizations with the clearly stated aim of getting rid of religion.

I don't think I've misrepresented your positions, though I have challenged them.

You misrepresented my position. You effectively imply it's some malevolent conspiracy, which was never my intention or position. I wasn't saying people should be afraid of them, but that it is simply wrong for people who have so much influence on the education system to use it for ideological purposes.

[Atticus]

You misrepresented my position. You effectively imply it's some malevolent conspiracy, which was never my intention or position. I wasn't saying people should be afraid of them, but that it is simply wrong for people who have so much influence on the education system to use it for ideological purposes.In order to avoid further derailing this topic I've replied on the previous thread.

[lawman]

But we weren't talking about thinking the universe wonderous--we we talking about the viability of theism and atheism. I don't mind perplexing you, since we disagree at a very basic level.
Yes, we do, but I'm attempting to understand (no irony intended) the context of the disagreement.

I don't think this point was a digression, really, since you brought up what is clearly an important motivation for you, a basis for your theism: you want to hold on to a concept of the universe where your appreciation of music (and, I inferred, your sense of wonder in other forms as well) isn't "just" a natural phenomenon, where there's room left for the mysterious and the "transcendent" -- that is to say, for things beyond our understanding.

What I don't understand is why you find things we don't understand appealing; hence my inquiry.

[Groucho]

it is simply wrong for people who have so much influence on the education system to use it for ideological purposes.

I agree completely. People who want to use the educational system to push creationism, prayer in schools, and the teaching of the Bible as literal fact are "simply wrong."

[Demon of Light]

I agree completely. People who want to use the educational system to push creationism, prayer in schools, and the teaching of the Bible as literal fact are "simply wrong."

Damn straight, not disagreeing with you.

[Ethos]

Perhaps you're right. But it just seems to me that science isn't very good at dealing with such abstract concepts such as personality. Sure it can come up with partial answers, like neuro-chemistry, and genetics, but science is better at linear thinking not the abstract. Scientists are best at things they can solve with a positive statement, i.e. x + x = y. Granted this is coming from my limited experience, but it just seems like personality and inner self is a little bit too abstract a thing to pinpoint to this sequence of brain chemistry or genetics. There's so much intertwined with it, chemistry, genetics, personal experiences, which parts of the brain fire up when. Maybe it can be done, I will just be impressed if they pull it off. It would have to be some kind of grand project of cooperation by geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, and more.

Psychology would seem to have a far greater interest in personality than pure biochemistry. While many people like to refer to psychology as an "art" as much as a science, I aggressively disagree. Consider for a moment that the science of mathematics has been ongoing for thousands of years, and yet we continue to make new discoveries and applications in that field. Modern psychiatry has existed for little more than a century.

I would suggest that giving this still developing science a few hundred more years of context would go a long way to explaining the highly abstract aspects of humanity you speak of.

Ethos

[Ethos]

No, in both cases, but it's my appreciation of the sight and sound that matters here, not the the ways they make sense impressions. If my appreciation is just a predictable set of electric firings, then I would say that does rob me of something rather precious. And more than that, it gives others the chance to control me--not just my behavior but my being.


Again it seems as if the "something rather precious" is based on little more than a lack of knowledge. I'm not even sure why this should bother me on a personal level, but I'll be honest in that it does. It seems to me your faith is at any moment only one day and one news story away from collapsing.

How is your process any different from those who would object to evolution because to accept its conclusions robs humanity of something precious?



If it is knowable, then how can there be transcendence?

The definition of transcendence is to be above the material universe. Understanding the human mind in a material sense in no way invalidates its existence in the non-material world (Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, what have you).

What science will do (I believe) is be capable of saying here is the human brain, here is its physical makeup, the methods of growth, potential differentiations. These material attributes combine to form a set of behaviors as unique as a fingerprint and as predictable as any chaotic system which, while it may follow some basic universal rules, the potential variety of responses is virtually limitless.

What science will not do is tell us what happens to the mind when electrical input ceases. It will not give us an answer to whether there is a soul, how it might reside within the body, and what happens to it after leaving. This is transcendence.

Now, if your theory is that the soul is that which gives you joy at the sight of beauty, and by explaining "joy" as a complex interaction of neurotransmitters and networks of synapses we somehow eradicate the concept of that "soul", you are placing a very risky definition on the term. What you are saying is that the soul is not above the material world, but it may in fact be a measurable part of that physical realm. To me this perspective lowers the soul from a transcendent entity to just another material object, subject to scientific scrutiny like any other.



I'm not sure why. My assertion about atheism was taken pretty much directly from your own statements about it. And while again I wouldn't care to offend you, it has been my impression that you appear much more intent on teaching (I might even use the term "schooling") than on learning in this forum. But I'll accept your assertion here, and just remark that your motives remain to me...enigmatic.

At its core, are we not all here to both teach and learn? Certainly when I see an incorrect statement, I speak against that inaccuracy. More often I value a foreign perspective and in the case of this particular forum, it is information I do not possess that I seek far more than that which I already believe I know.

Of course there are times when what I think I know is at odds with what you may believe about the same subject, and that is where debate arises. In our own discussions we have agreed, and perhaps more often disagreed (and often over a silly bit of semantics). In the process I've acquired new sets of information, all of which hold value.

It is this system of give and take that is truly important, not whether we can change each others' minds (a prospect I'm sure you will agree is fairly rare on WS). So finally (I apologize for a verbose response), it is my motivation to give (or school, if you prefer) and to take (be schooled by).

Ethos