• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Study: Atheists Thought Immoral Even by Fellow Atheists

The Argument​


1. Science and religion begin with the same evidence -- the world as we experience it.

2. Science offers a physical explanation of the world.

3. Religion offers a spiritual explanation of the world.

4. Science cannot explain the Three Big Conundrums that haunt the world:
the origin of the universe
the origin of life on earth
the origin and nature of consciousness​

5. Religion focuses on consciousness, the immaterial ground of all experience of the world, which is literally super(beyond)natural

6. Reality is conscious reality.

7. Religion infers from self-consciousness to will, to agency, and to thought at work in reality.

8. This religious inference from Man's super(beyond)natural consciousness to reality's super(beyond)natural consciousness is a rational inference based on the empirical evidence gathered through introspection and observation of the physical world.

8. Reality is supernatural.

9. Supernatural reality (reality infused with will, agency, thought) accounts for the Three Big Cunundrums haunting the world:
the origin of the universe
the origin of life on earth
the origin and nature of consciousness​

10. Belief in supernatural will, agency, and thought is a rational belief.

QED
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
My claim is not "demonstrably false," or let us say only "demonstrably false" if one accepts your axiom or false assumption that all of reality is physical.
Click to expand...
I demonstrated they are false, therefore they are demonstrably false.

Again:
Reality exists: Reality being that which exists (all of it, the real, all that exists)
Consciousness is: This is how we observe/perceive Reality, by being conscious
A is A: as it relates to reality, a thing is itself, and not something else

These are self-evidently true, you either accept them, or you are literally being unreasonable. And I would not be so foolish as to attempt to reason with you if you admit you are not reasonable. Keeping in mind the humility that while I understood some of this as most normally do, I was taught the more strict/reduced forms too.

Indeed, one might plausibly take as an axiom that all of reality is mind-dependent -- that is, reality is conscious reality.
Click to expand...
"reality is conscious reality"
That is contradictory. Reality is Reality, and not "conscious reality"

I don't need that for my argument at this stage. All I need is the fact that consciousness eludes natural explanation,
Click to expand...
Consciousness is self-evidently true. See above. It is axiomatic to any and all consciousness acts (!)

Another way to write this is that you consciously are explaining, that consciousness eludes explanation. What a jumble! Clearly something about consciouss has been explained, namely that it "is", and that it appears we cannot deny it, since to deny it is to simultaneously be accepting it as true!
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
My claim is not "demonstrably false," or let us say only "demonstrably false" if one accepts your axiom or false assumption that all of reality is physical. Consciousness is itself the counter-example to your axiom. Indeed, one might plausibly take as an axiom that all of reality is mind-dependent -- that is, reality is conscious reality. I don't need that for my argument at this stage. All I need is the fact that consciousness eludes natural explanation, i.e., physical explanation, and is therefore super(beyond)natural in some sense yet to be argued.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Things that elude, to some degree, natural explanation, do not magically become supernatural. They become unexplained natural phenomena.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
The Argument​


1. Science and religion begin with the same evidence -- the world as we experience it.

2. Science offers a physical explanation of the world.

3. Religion offers a spiritual explanation of the world.

4. Science cannot explain the Three Big Conundrums that haunt the world:
the origin of the universe
the origin of life on earth
the origin and nature of consciousness​

5. Religion focuses on consciousness, the immaterial ground of all experience of the world, which is literally super(beyond)natural

6. Reality is conscious reality.

7. Religion infers from self-consciousness to will, to agency, and to thought at work in reality.

8. This religious inference from Man's super(beyond)natural consciousness to reality's super(beyond)natural consciousness is a rational inference based on the empirical evidence gathered through introspection and observation of the physical world.

8. Reality is supernatural.

9. Supernatural reality (reality infused with will, agency, thought) accounts for the Three Big Cunundrums haunting the world:
the origin of the universe
the origin of life on earth
the origin and nature of consciousness​

10. Belief in supernatural will, agency, and thought is a rational belief.

QED
Click to expand...

Rational belief is an oxymoron.
 
devildavid said:
You are wrong. Things that elude , to some degree, natural explanation, do not magically become supernatural. They become unexplained natural phenomena.
Click to expand...
Generally that's the just of it, I agree.

Why is it quirky like that? It's a loop.
GEB, and I am a Strange Loop, touched on specifically consciousness is self-referencing, hence the peculiarities surrounding it.
GEB points out in a long-winded fanciful way, that the concept, while strange, is literally all around us, and expressed oddly, in many otherwise unrelated fields (music, art, programming, and of course, in animals).

It's like when you use a camera to film the camera image itself, it's wild! Yes, simple in construction, explainable, and at the same time, hard to wrap our minds around it intuitively.
Hofstadter's law, which specifies that "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law"[6] is an example of a self-referencing adage.

View attachment 67221269
 
devildavid said:
You are wrong. Things that elude, to some degree, natural explanation, do not magically become supernatural. They become unexplained natural phenomena.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, David. If natural explanation = physical explanation, then what cannot be explained physically is beyond natural explanation, and what is beyond natural explanation is, yes, supernatural.
 
Mach said:
I demonstrated they are false, therefore they are demonstrably false.

Again:
Reality exists: Reality being that which exists (all of it, the real, all that exists)
Consciousness is: This is how we observe/perceive Reality, by being conscious
A is A: as it relates to reality, a thing is itself, and not something else

These are self-evidently true, you either accept them, or you are literally being unreasonable. And I would not be so foolish as to attempt to reason with you if you admit you are not reasonable. Keeping in mind the humility that while I understood some of this as most normally do, I was taught the more strict/reduced forms too.


"reality is conscious reality"
That is contradictory. Reality is Reality, and not "conscious reality"


Consciousness is self-evidently true. See above. It is axiomatic to any and all consciousness acts (!)

Another way to write this is that you consciously are explaining, that consciousness eludes explanation. What a jumble! Clearly something about consciouss has been explained, namely that it "is", and that it appears we cannot deny it, since to deny it is to simultaneously be accepting it as true!
Click to expand...
Truth is a value of a proposition, Mach. It is not a property of phenomena.
A = A, to be sure, but your use of the identity statement is strained and strange. You seem here and there to be talking in tongues.
You seem to be making a point about self-reflexivity but it is not clear what that point is.
All of reality is conscious reality, whether we like it or not. There's no getting around that, I'm afraid. Your assertion of a reality devoid of consciousness -- that, my friend, is undemonstrable. Indeed, it is unimaginable.
 
devildavid said:
Rational belief is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Then natural science is oxymoronic at its core as it is based on a rational belief in the principle of induction and the continuity of the natural world.
 
Angel said:
I'm sorry, David. If natural explanation = physical explanation, then what cannot be explained physically is beyond natural explanation, and what is beyond natural explanation is, yes, supernatural.
Click to expand...

No, your logic is faulty. What cannot be fully explained at the moment does not magically become a made up thing you call supernatural. It doesn't work that way in the real world. It may be unknown at the moment, but that doesn't magically change its very nature. The physical remains the physical whether or not we have a full and complete explanation of it. Without your physical existence, you would have no basis for your wild speculation about the supernatural. Without functioning physical brains we would be incapable of even having this discussion. I personally would not like to try living without my brain as it would prove fatal and I would no longer be able to philosophize. If you are interested in discussing this solely with our supernatural minds kindly send a message to my mind and we can continue offline.
 
Angel said:
Then natural science is oxymoronic at its core as it is based on a rational belief in the principle of induction and the continuity of the natural world.
Click to expand...

Science is not based on belief of any kind.
 
Angel said:
Truth is a value of a proposition, Mach. It is not a property of phenomena.
A = A, to be sure, but your use of the identity statement is strained and strange.
Click to expand...
I wrote a longer post, lost it (time out), and I apparently left out too much in the rewrite. I'll elaborate.
Logic uses A is A formally, in an abstract. We use the laws of logic necessarily, I hope those are not in quesiton.

Since we are discussing reality, not the abstract, we use the analogous identity as it applies to reality.
Specifically, things that exist, we refer to them as whatever that thing is.

A thing is what it is, and not something else <- self-evidently true, and we're referring to reality...not an abstract system.
It just felt cleaner to type A = A "as it relates to reality", but that could look strange I agree.

All of reality is conscious reality, whether we like it or not. There's no getting around that, I'm afraid. Your assertion of a reality devoid of consciousness -- that, my friend, is undemonstrable. Indeed, it is unimaginable.
Click to expand...
You're restating your claim. I've already refuted your claim, you need to show my error, or you're left being unreasonable in response..
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
No, your logic is faulty. What cannot be fully explained at the moment does not magically become a made up thing you call supernatural. It doesn't work that way in the real world. It may be unknown at the moment, but that doesn't magically change its very nature. The physical remains the physical whether or not we have a full and complete explanation of it. Without your physical existence, you would have no basis for your wild speculation about the supernatural. Without functioning physical brains we would be incapable of even having this discussion. I personally would not like to try living without my brain as it would prove fatal and I would no longer be able to philosophize. If you are interested in discussing this solely with our supernatural minds kindly send a message to my mind and we can continue offline.
Click to expand...
The limit of physical explanation is reached at consciousness. Please read the following essay on this topic. It should open the eyes of any materialist who is not averse to the examination of the materialist view.

Materialism by its very nature fails to explain, and will always fail to explain, the Outward Gaze, Intentionality, and the appearance of material objects. Please read the article.
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves

What neuroscience does not do, however, is provide a satisfactory account of the conditions that are sufficient for behavior and awareness. Its descriptions of what these phenomena are and of how they arise are incomplete in several crucial respects, as we will see. The pervasive yet mistaken idea that neuroscience does fully account for awareness and behavior is neuroscientism, an exercise in science-based faith. While to live a human life requires having a brain in some kind of working order, it does not follow from this fact that to live a human life is to be a brain in some kind of working order. This confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions lies behind the encroachment of “neuroscientistic” discourse on academic work in the humanities, and the present epidemic of such neuro-prefixed pseudo-disciplines as neuroaesthetics, neuroeconomics, neurosociology, neuropolitics, neurotheology, neurophilosophy, and so on.

No, the aim of this essay is to give principled reasons, based on examining the nature of human consciousness, for asserting that we are not now and never will be able to account for the mind in terms of neural activity. It will focus on human consciousness — so as to avoid the futility of arguments about where we draw the line between sentient and insentient creatures, because there are more negative consequences to misrepresenting human consciousness than animal, and because it is human consciousness that underlines the difficulty of fitting consciousness into the natural world as understood through strictly materialist science.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
The limit of physical explanation is reached at consciousness. Please read the following essay on this topic. It should open the eyes of any materialist who is not averse to the examination of the materialist view.

Materialism by its very nature fails to explain, and will always fail to explain, the Outward Gaze, Intentionality, and the appearance of material objects. Please read the article.
Click to expand...

You are simply asserting this with no justification, as usual. Likewise, I will reject it on the same basis.

You are evidently wrong.
 
William Rea said:
You are simply asserting this with no justification, as usual. Likewise, I will reject it on the same basis.

You are evidently wrong.
Click to expand...
Read the article. There you'll find a detailed account, by a neuroscientist, of the limitations of neuroscience. If you don't want to read it, that's your business, but then your complaint about justification falls on its face.
 
Mach said:
I wrote a longer post, lost it (time out), and I apparently left out too much in the rewrite. I'll elaborate.
Logic uses A is A formally, in an abstract. We use the laws of logic necessarily, I hope those are not in quesiton.
Click to expand...
The laws of thought are not in question.
Mach said:
Since we are discussing reality, not the abstract, we use the analogous identity as it applies to reality.
Specifically, things that exist, we refer to them as whatever that thing is.

A thing is what it is, and not something else <- self-evidently true, and we're referring to reality...not an abstract system.
It just felt cleaner to type A = A "as it relates to reality", but that could look strange I agree.
Click to expand...
So far, so good.
Mach said:
You're restating your claim. I've already refuted your claim, you need to show my error, or you're left being unreasonable in response..
Click to expand...
My claim, that reality is conscious reality, is irrefutable, Mach. Consciousness inheres in any and all statements about reality. There's no escaping consciousness.
I'll look back at your refutation, but as I said, I had trouble understanding one of your posts. If your refutation is in that troublesome post, would you kindly restate it for me. I'd be much obliged to you.
 
Are you referring to this post as your refutation, Mach?

Mach said:
That's demonstrably false.
You are literally claiming that as a consciousness entity, you are not real...and yet we're here discussing it in reality.

Reality is presupposed in any claim we make, it's self-evidently true. To deny it, is to prove it.
Consciousness is presupposed in any claim we make, it's self-evidently true.

I expect you to update your information based on this.
Click to expand...

I replied here:

Angel said:
My claim is not "demonstrably false," or let us say only "demonstrably false" if one accepts your axiom or false assumption that all of reality is physical. Consciousness is itself the counter-example to your axiom. Indeed, one might plausibly take as an axiom that all of reality is mind-dependent -- that is, reality is conscious reality. I don't need that for my argument at this stage. All I need is the fact that consciousness eludes natural explanation, i.e., physical explanation, and is therefore super(beyond)natural in some sense yet to be argued.
Click to expand...

I agree with the body of your post, but the opening statement, in which you attribute a view, or the consequences of a view, to me does not look like anything I have claimed. That I am, as a conscious entity, unreal? Where did you get that?
 
Angel said:
My claim, that reality is conscious reality, is irrefutable, Mach. Consciousness inheres in any and all statements about reality. There's no escaping consciousness.
I'll look back at your refutation, but as I said, I had trouble understanding one of your posts. If your refutation is in that troublesome post, would you kindly restate it for me. I'd be much obliged to you.
Click to expand...
1. Reality is.
2. Consciousness is.
3. A thing that exists is what it is, not something else (analogous to A=A)

Your claim: reality is conscious reality, violates #3. Reality is. It cannot also be "conscious reality".
Consciousness depends on reality, not vice-versa.
Consciousness is perception of reality/existence.

They are shown to be axiomatic because they cannot be "proven" outside the system, they are necessarily implied by virtue of being able to discuss (anything). This is a feature, not a flaw, see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

These terms are kept as simple as possible to avoid extra work, more semantic quibbling, etc. Obviously "to perceive reality" is broad, not "I can see reality with 100% accuracy at a quantum scale", etc.
 
Mach said:
1. Reality is.
2. Consciousness is.
3. A thing that exists is what it is, not something else (analogous to A=A)

Your claim: reality is conscious reality, violates #3. Reality is. It cannot also be "conscious reality".
Consciousness depends on reality, not vice-versa.
Consciousness is perception of reality/existence.

They are shown to be axiomatic because they cannot be "proven" outside the system, they are necessarily implied by virtue of being able to discuss (anything). This is a feature, not a flaw, see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

These terms are kept as simple as possible to avoid extra work, more semantic quibbling, etc. Obviously "to perceive reality" is broad, not "I can see reality with 100% accuracy at a quantum scale", etc.
Click to expand...
Ah! I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification.
How does your understanding of the law of identity treat the following cases?

5 = 2+3

Hesperus = Phosphorus

Mark Twain = Samuel Clemens

water = H2O
 
Angel said:
How does your understanding of the law of identity treat the following cases?
5 = 2+3
Hesperus = Phosphorus
Mark Twain = Samuel Clemens
water = H2O
Click to expand...
I don't think it handles them, as those don't look to be statements about reality.
The first is clearly a math question, see mathematics.
Since you didn't define anything, there is no context to really comment on it either way with the rest. "=" is typically used in an abstract systems like mathematics or say, a programming language (which likely also has mathematics fundamentals). If you mean the string water = the string H20, that's false, but generally that's in the context of programming for example.

Identity is about claims of reality: A thing is what it is, and not something else. The unique human that is you, that occupies that position in space/time, is not my daughter, who is a different unique individual that occupies some position in space/time. For example.
 
Angel said:
Read the article. There you'll find a detailed account, by a neuroscientist, of the limitations of neuroscience. If you don't want to read it, that's your business, but then your complaint about justification falls on its face.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you again, this is not a library Angel, state your case within the forum.

I will not read your links unless you start doing this.

I am not arguing with your 'authorities' I am arguing with you, in here.

As far as I am concerned, you might as well not bother with the links and cut and pastes so, make your point or respond properly to the myriad points raised.
 
William Rea said:
I'll tell you again, this is not a library Angel, state your case within the forum.

I will not read your links unless you start doing this.

I am not arguing with your 'authorities' I am arguing with you, in here.

As far as I am concerned, you might as well not bother with the links and cut and pastes so, make your point or respond properly to the myriad points raised.
Click to expand...
I've stated my case. Suit yourself about reading links. Your complaint about justification is therefore your usual bull****. From now on I shall ignore your persistent meta-posts. Enjoy your solipsism.
 
Mach said:
I don't think it handles them, as those don't look to be statements about reality.
The first is clearly a math question, see mathematics.
Since you didn't define anything, there is no context to really comment on it either way with the rest. "=" is typically used in an abstract systems like mathematics or say, a programming language (which likely also has mathematics fundamentals). If you mean the string water = the string H20, that's false, but generally that's in the context of programming for example.

Identity is about claims of reality: A thing is what it is, and not something else. The unique human that is you, that occupies that position in space/time, is not my daughter, who is a different unique individual that occupies some position in space/time. For example.
Click to expand...
How does your understanding of the law of identity treat the following cases then:

Hesperus is Phosphorus.

Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

water is H2O.
 
Angel said:
I've stated my case. Suit yourself about reading links. Your complaint about justification is therefore your usual bull****. From now on I shall ignore your persistent meta-posts. Enjoy your solipsism.
Click to expand...
Ignore away, I won't run away from the discussion.
 
Angel said:
The limit of physical explanation is reached at consciousness. Please read the following essay on this topic. It should open the eyes of any materialist who is not averse to the examination of the materialist view.

Materialism by its very nature fails to explain, and will always fail to explain, the Outward Gaze, Intentionality, and the appearance of material objects. Please read the article.
Click to expand...

Early in the article he states this. So his complaint is not really with neuroscience, but with those he accuses of neuroscientism.

What neuroscience does not do, however, is provide a satisfactory account of the conditions that are sufficient for behavior and awareness. Its descriptions of what these phenomena are and of how they arise are incomplete in several crucial respects, as we will see. The pervasive yet mistaken idea that neuroscience does fully account for awareness and behavior is neuroscientism, an exercise in science-based faith. While to live a human life requires having a brain in some kind of working order, it does not follow from this fact that to live a human life is to be a brain in some kind of working order. This confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions lies behind the encroachment of “neuroscientistic” discourse on academic work in the humanities, and the present epidemic of such neuro-prefixed pseudo-disciplines as neuroaesthetics, neuroeconomics, neurosociology, neuropolitics, neurotheology, neurophilosophy, and so on.
Click to expand...

Toward the end he states this:

The first and most obvious question is: Why, if the brain is not the basis of consciousness, is it so intimately bound up with it? Even those of us who object to the reduction of persons to brains have to explain why, of all the objects in the world, the brain is so relevant to our lives as persons. Nor can we overlook the extraordinary advances that have come from neuroscience in our ability to understand and treat diseases that damage voluntary action, consciousness, and mood — something that has been central to my entire professional career as a clinical neuroscientist. If consciousness, mind, volition, and so forth are not deeply connected with brain activity, then what are we to make of the genuine advances that neuroscience has contributed to our management of conditions that affect these central underpinnings of ordinary life?
Click to expand...

Nowhere does he posit the supernatural as an answer. Nowhere does he say we have no answers at all to consciousness. He doesn't share your position nor does he destroy mine.
 
Angel said:
How does your understanding of the law of identity treat the following cases then:
Hesperus is Phosphorus.
Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.
water is H2O.
Click to expand...
mach said:
Since you didn't define anything
Click to expand...
You still haven't defined anything. Also, why is the left/right side different? Were you expecting a fundamental axiom of identity to evaluate a proposition as true or false? That would be absurd.
If I define them as real things:
H is H. P is P
Twain is twain. Samuel is Samuel.
Water is Water. H20 is H20
(A is A)

So again, I ask a simple question.

Do you accept that I am me, and you are you?
and similarly that I am NOT you, and you are NOT me?

If you accept that, you accept identity. But regardless, it will be true if you accept it or not. If you think I am you, then we can't really proceed reasonably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom