• 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.

A Defense of Religion [W:331 & 426]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Visbek said:
Here we go


Is it?

It's funny, because if you damage something material, like a bunch of brain cells? You will lose consciousness. So, there's that.

Another issue is that we know, for a fact, that neurons and axons and neurotransmitters change in reaction to stimulus. E.g. if I am looking at a dog, there will be groups of neurons firing in the back of my head, representing that sensory information to my brain.

The thing is, we also know that an immaterial consciousness interacting with neurons is, well, a violation of the laws of physics. Interactive dualism -- the idea that you have a non-material consciousness that interacts with the physical parts of the brain -- contradicts pretty much everything we know about physics.

Kinda seems like your "self-evident truth" is not evident at all.

On a side note, merely asserting the existence of immaterial consciousness doesn't lead us to "religion." E.g. Plato also posited an immaterial consciousness, within the confines of philosophy, but outside the confines of the religious beliefs of his day. Hmmmm.



I'm with Tim the Plumber on this one. This line, at least as written, is gibberish.
Click to expand...

This debunking of dualism is out there and it is easily found and understood. I wanted to see if Angel was honest enough to admit the weakness of his argument and confess that it is something that he believes without any evidence. My respect for that position would have been a million fold more than the pseudo crap we have endured over three separate threads of spam so far.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
Your physicalist assumptions have led to a dead end in science.
I recommend the article quoted above, written by a neuroscientist, which details the materialist failure to account for consciousness. The simplistic picture provided in your post misses all of what David Chalmers calls "the hard problems" of consciousness.

If like Tim you find my axioms "gibberish," you're merely admitting you don't understand them. About that which you don't understand, you have very strong opinions. Look to it.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate that the immaterial exists.

You have asserted that it does but, you haven't demonstrated it.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
We leave these questions of embodiment to neuroscience. No one denies that in some respect consciousness is embodied.


Science is not even close to accounting for the Hard Problems. And given its strictly materialist assumption, it will never solve them. The Outward Gaze, intentionality, the appearance of objects -- these all require causal paths in a direction that strict materialism cannot account for.
What you express here is your faith in science, and that's fine. If you claim anything more, it starts sounding like scientism.




I'm duly impressed.




I named Chalmers merely to attribute and introduce the term "Hard Problem."
I don't need Chalmers to make my argument.




What we call reality is a representation of consciousness. A phenomenon. Not the thing-in-itself. Since you're well read in Western philosophy, I refer you to Kant.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate that the immaterial exists.

You have asserted that it does but, you haven't demonstrated it.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Visbek said:
OK then, I guess you're just ignoring the problems then. Good to know. Let's review some of the issues, shall we?

[bullet points deleted in order to meet post length limitation.]

Neither can interactive dualism.

For example, we're pretty far from really understanding Alzheimer's. Is the difficulty of solving that issue a justification for declaring that Alzheimer's is not a physical disease, but a spiritual ailment? Has anyone prayed their way out of dementia?
Good luck getting funding for that study.

Property dualism has major challenges as well. For example, some variants espouse epiphenomena, or the idea that qualia is a by-product of brain processes, with no causal role at all. Obviously, this explains qualia, but doesn't solve any causal issues.

(Do you even know what qualia is? Without looking it up?)

By the way, "outward gaze" and intentionality are not really issues; focusing on an external problem is just a cognitive act. I guess someone hasn't actually read Chalmers, or the relevant literature.

The Hard Problem is: How is qualia generated? The answer of why is quite simple -- e.g. it's probably a way for the brain to distribute sensory information to the rest of the brain.



lol

You don't have to agree with Chalmers. However, you can't name-check him and expect it to work, when you don't know what he actually espouses.

More specifically: You cannot claim that property dualism solves the Hard Problem, and then use that to justify interactive dualism. That is completely unjustifiable, in no small part because property dualism was explicitly designed as a rejection of interactive dualism.

So tell me, in your own words: What is property dualism? And how does it differ from interactive dualism?



If you're referring to Kant, then you really ought to be clearer about your position, and in particular use Kantian terminology

Anyway... While Kant was certainly religious, his ontology does not entail a religious perspective. It is easy, from a secular perspective, to claim that humans cannot usually understand objects on their own terms, and impose their own concepts and standards and cognitive models on those objects, in a purely secular context.

Nor is this a serious problem, because all we have to do is understand those objects well enough to integrate them into our conceptual schemas. E.g. I don't know what a spoon, bowl, cereal and milk are, as objects in themselves. That has never stopped me from successfully eating a bowl of cereal.
Click to expand...
First I'll LOL as you frequently do. Laughter is good for the soul. And as nothing of any consequence really rides on our exchanges here, it is a good way to relax and not take ourselves too seriously, yes.

Second, all those questions you rehearse about the relation between mind and brain are very good questions. You have done some reading in the subject.

Third, your references to "property dualism" and "interactive dualism" are also very interesting and attest to your reading in the subject, but your attribution of either position to me is a straw man. I have taken no such position in this thread. You merely assign this position to me and then criticize me for its shortcomings or expect me to defend it.

Fourth, I referred to Kant only to help you understand what you read as "gibberish." I am not relying on Kant in my argument, and so have no obligation to expound on the Kantian system.

Fifth, yes I know what qualia are, not is.

Sixth, I mentioned Chalmers only in reference to the term "Hard Problems" and for the purpose of attribution. Another straw man in your post.

Seventh, neither correlation nor causation is identity. Whatever their relationship. the brain is not the mind.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

soylentgreen said:
Your lack of accuracy diminishes the importance of the difference between religion and spirituality.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?


soylentgreen said:
There is no such thing as a religious impulse. However there is such a thing as spirital impulse. The etemology is correct. Religion is to bind or as your later post suggests, to bind fast and in particular by use of a god. That is the purpose of it. And why it was a necessary creation for the existence of civilisation.


Actually it is a far more credible explenation of why we have spirituality than the easily defeated arguments of religion about god.


No, that only works if we take your erronous view of spirituality being around for 20,000 years. But instead the truth is it has been a constant since intelligence first appeared among humans. Where as religion an obviously man made constuct of which the evidence suggests has only existed for 12,000 years.

Nothing tells us that religion has anything to do with spirituality apart from the fact that religion only works because we have spirituality. That makes religion an association of spirituality not a cause or a similarity. Religion as the word suggests is merely a means of binding common beliefs together. It has nothing to do with the fact that most humans do have an ability for a spiritual nature. Except of course that con men will use prey upon the spiritual nature by creating religions that give them power over others.
Click to expand...
Our differences appear to be merely a matter of semantics. I could readily adopt your conceptual scheme and terminology and make my case for religion. You have an analytical bent I find most congenial. Except that business about the 20,000 years is a bit dodgy.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
Here, this may help you to understand the insurmountable difficulties faced by materialist science in accounting for consciousness.
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves - The New Atlantis
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Which is why nobody with any intelligence would claim that we do understand all such stuff. That we will is possible one day and that it will be possible to create conciousness one day is also probably true.

Still taking gibberish.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
And I always say to evangelical secularists, even if you proved the theory of evolution it does not mean Creationism is wrong. The parallel to your mistaken notions is obvious.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
You have a choice, that of wanting to have all that wonder and the alternative of understanding some of it.

The understanding of the world will lead to much more wonder and more depth of experience of this fasinating wonderous world but will often involve disrupting and dispelling ideas you want to believe in. Unlucky.

That you choose the state of arrogant belief in gibberish is your look out but don't expect congratualations for it.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Why can't we have both, wonder and understanding, and then meaning to boot?
The arrogance here is all on your side, Tim, dismissing what you do not understand.
Click to expand...

My post has actual meaning. Not the same as your endless drivel. Please take the time to read it.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
...Still taking gibberish.
Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:
My post has actual meaning. Not the same as your endless drivel...
Click to expand...
Do you get a thrill out of calling an opposing point of view "gibberish" or "drivel"?
I think you think these denigrations are arguments. You certainly think them put-downs. Therein lies the thrill for you.
In fact, they are admissions of nescience. Nothing to be proud of. Certainly nothing to get haughty about.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Originally Posted by Angel View Post
And I always say to evangelical secularists, even if you proved the theory of evolution it does not mean Creationism is wrong. The parallel to your mistaken notions is obvious.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
No it doesn't.

(Glad we settled that!)
Click to expand...

Given that we know that the history of life on earth involves the process of evolution due to all the evidence of it and that same evidence shows that the silly story on the bible or any other of the miriad creation myths are all wrong it certianly does prove beyond any doubt what so ever that the creationists are wrong.

You know this.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
Do you get a thrill out of calling an opposing point of view "gibberish" or "drivel"?
I think you think these denigrations are arguments. You certainly think them put-downs. Therein lies the thrill for you.
In fact, they are admissions of nescience. Nothing to be proud of. Certainly nothing to get haughty about.
Click to expand...

Do you get a thrill out of spouting meaningless drivel?

Why post such nonsense at all?

Your OP is meaningless. Your replies are evaisive and generally meaningless.

You then use this as a basis for telling others that you are in some way superior. You are extremely arrogant and ignorant.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
Given that we know that the history of life on earth involves the process of evolution due to all the evidence of it and that same evidence shows that the silly story on the bible or any other of the miriad creation myths are all wrong it certianly does prove beyond any doubt what so ever that the creationists are wrong.

You know this.
Click to expand...
What I know, and you should know, is that the evidence for evolution supports a scientific theory.
What I know, and you don't know, is that if creationism is true, it is true independent of any creation story.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
Do you get a thrill out of spouting meaningless drivel?

Why post such nonsense at all?

Your OP is meaningless. Your replies are evaisive and generally meaningless.

You then use this as a basis for telling others that you are in some way superior. You are extremely arrogant and ignorant.
Click to expand...
If the OP is meaningless, as you say, and if you've asserted as much, which you have, and if my replies are meaningless, as you say, and if you've asserted as much, which you have, then there's nothing more for you to say, is there? Our conversation is over. Peace out, pilgrim.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
Which is why nobody with any intelligence would claim that we do understand all such stuff. That we will is possible one day and that it will be possible to create conciousness one day is also probably true. ...
Click to expand...
This is an article of faith. Faith in the face of 400 years of failure.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
Are you kidding me?



Our differences appear to be merely a matter of semantics. I could readily adopt your conceptual scheme and terminology and make my case for religion. You have an analytical bent I find most congenial. Except that business about the 20,000 years is a bit dodgy.
Click to expand...

No, i pointed out that it is not a matter of semantics. From the first signs we have of where humans became tool users we also see indicators that they had spiriuality. Where as the first signs we have of religion is at the same time we have the begining of civilisation.
The evolution from hominid to man is biological. The evolution of spirituality to religion is social. Your attempt to dilute this by saying it happened 20,000 years ago is an attempt to ignore this distinction.

Your insistence on it just being semantics is an attempt to say there is no difference betwen spirituality and religion. But the evidence dictates otherwise. One is a a natural evolution while the other is a man made construct.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
What I know, and you should know, is that the evidence for evolution supports a scientific theory.
What I know, and you don't know, is that if creationism is true, it is true independent of any creation story.
Click to expand...

So you do know that the evidence says that evolution and a billions year old earth is the case but you prefer to not say you believe the thing you know.

That is geherally called lying.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
This is an article of faith. Faith in the face of 400 years of failure.
Click to expand...


What???

Since when have we been attempting to simulate or create an artifical conciousness? Just starting with the basics of that i think.

That we have been looking at how the mind and brain works using reason for 400 years and have got as far as we have is not failure it is spectacular progress. Especially considering that most of that progress has happened in the last 40 years. The 40,000 years of faith before that did us no good.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

soylentgreen said:
No, i pointed out that it is not a matter of semantics. From the first signs we have of where humans became tool users we also see indicators that they had spiriuality. Where as the first signs we have of religion is at the same time we have the begining of civilisation.
The evolution from hominid to man is biological. The evolution of spirituality to religion is social. Your attempt to dilute this by saying it happened 20,000 years ago is an attempt to ignore this distinction.

Your insistence on it just being semantics is an attempt to say there is no difference betwen spirituality and religion. But the evidence dictates otherwise. One is a a natural evolution while the other is a man made construct.
Click to expand...

Yes, although there may be little difference between man made construct and evolution, or at least a very difficult line to draw.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
So you do know that the evidence says that evolution and a billions year old earth is the case but you prefer to not say you believe the thing you know.

That is geherally called lying.
Click to expand...
You apparently don't understand the word lie any better than you understand the word theory.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
What???

Since when have we been attempting to simulate or create an artifical conciousness? Just starting with the basics of that i think.

That we have been looking at how the mind and brain works using reason for 400 years and have got as far as we have is not failure it is spectacular progress. Especially considering that most of that progress has happened in the last 40 years. The 40,000 years of faith before that did us no good.
Click to expand...

The best way to research this stuff and come up with something that does anything is to write a nice poem or paint a pretty picture to get in touch with our spirit substance.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Tim the plumber said:
Yes, although there may be little difference between man made construct and evolution, or at least a very difficult line to draw.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that he is hiding behind time. The evolution of spiriuality took hundreds of thousands of years where as religion evolved in a mere ten of thoudsand of years.

The other difference is made quite clear when we see what is emphasised prior to the creation of religion.
The distinct change can be seen in cave drawings. They depict animals in greater detail than they do man. Most cave paintings show beasts drawn in 3 dimensional representation a feat that requires some skill. While again most cave paintings have drawn man as one dimensional stick figures. The emphasis is on the animals the meaning is that early man considered himself to be no more than just another spirit among thousands of animal and plant spirits.

The we come to the first signs of religion and the noted difference is that man now becomes the central figure in the sculptures while animals are relegated secondary positions.
Before religion the intent was that man was just one among many. But with religion came the idea that man has been given dominon over all creation.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

OcbBRrwl.png

THE FIRST ARGUMENT​

1. Acquaintance with the material world comes through experience.
2. Experience comes through consciousness.
3. Therefore, acquaintance with the material world comes through consciousness.

4. Acquaintance with the material world comes through consciousness.
5. Consciousness is immaterial (non-material) awareness
6. Therefore, acquaintance with the material world comes through immaterial awareness.

7. Acquaintance with the material world comes through immaterial awareness.
8. Immaterial awareness is in the form of spirit.
9. Therefore, acquaintance with the material world comes in the form of spirit.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Angel said:
You apparently don't understand the word lie any better than you understand the word theory.
Click to expand...

Scientific theory; An idea that has withstood all attempts to show it to be wrong and has very strong supporting evidence to such a degree that it is absolutely unanimoiusly agreed as right by all scientists. Such as gravity or evolution.

A lie; a statement which is know to be false by the person saying it. Such as saying that creationism is not false even though the evidence is 100% supportive of a completely different natural history. The bit where you say that the evidence supports evolution means that you do know it to be false.
 
re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

William Rea said:
The best way to research this stuff and come up with something that does anything is to write a nice poem or paint a pretty picture to get in touch with our spirit substance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, why think at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom