|
Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision.
You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision?
|
On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
On April 23 2013 04:22 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision. You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision?
if there was an all-encompassing explanation, then yes, of course.
Your misunderstanding is stemming from the fact that there isn't one NOW. That's not a product of there being a lack of rational explanation, that's simply a product of science not having progressed far enough.
The most practical way to think about it in today's terms would be that the scientist could easily create a device to see and then experience it himself.
|
On April 23 2013 03:41 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:40 Tobberoth wrote:On April 23 2013 03:31 vOdToasT wrote:Some may grow up with no religion, but present day society is so heavily influenced by religious environment (what % of the populace is atheist, after all?) that it's difficult to look at an individual who is atheist living in a religiously-affected environment and say "this is what people in an atheist society would look like". Sweden. This. Only 10% of swedes think religion is important in daily life, and only 18% claimed they believe in god in a recent survey. We're not all atheist, but we're probably as close as we're going to get for a long time. Religion has no impact on politics here, and all major religions are taught in school. wait, how long has this been going on? You guys teach them everything, and 80% of the people still end up atheist?
It's been going on for quite a while I'd assume, and I think it's quite logical that more people become atheist by studying all religions. See, if a person only knows of Christianity, it doesn't seem so irrational to believe in god. If, however, a person knows of several hundred deities and realizes there's no logical reason to believe in one over any of the others...
Of course, you must realize that when I said we study all religions, I meant from a secular point of view.
|
On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
|
On April 23 2013 04:26 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
Okay, let me take your bait.
Suppose experience is not rational, and there will never ever be any rational basis for it.
How does this imply that there is a God?
|
On April 23 2013 04:26 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
Depends on what you find important. Of course, you can't explain something in such a way that the person hearing the explanation gets the actual experience, that's what makes experience something special. However, you can quite easily explain how hearing works to a deaf person, and they can understand it fully, without knowing exactly what it feels like.
|
On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:22 trias_e wrote:Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision. You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision? if there was an all-encompassing explanation, then yes, of course.
So you think, through knowledge of facts about the physical world alone, a blind man could know what it's like to see?
This is just...obviously wrong? I suppose I can't really say much else. It's as if you said 1+1=3 to me here.
|
On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form.
This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them.
At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
|
On April 23 2013 04:27 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:26 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves. Okay, let me take your bait. Suppose experience is not rational, and there will never ever be any rational basis for it. How does this imply that there is a God?
I don't think there is a God, and I don't think this implies that there is a God.
But my point is that rationality cannot account for everything in life. In particular, what it is actually like to exist, subjectively, as a human being (kind of an important thing).
|
On April 23 2013 04:30 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience. On April 23 2013 04:22 trias_e wrote:Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision. You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision? if there was an all-encompassing explanation, then yes, of course. So you think, through knowledge of facts about the physical world alone, a blind man could know what it's like to see? This is just...obviously wrong? I suppose I can't really say much else. It's as if you said 1+1=3 to me here.
Yes.
So, congratulations. We've disagreed, but what's the point?
If you're right, how does it imply that there needs to be a God?
On April 23 2013 04:33 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:26 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves. Okay, let me take your bait. Suppose experience is not rational, and there will never ever be any rational basis for it. How does this imply that there is a God? I don't think there is a God, and I don't think this implies that there is a God. But my point is that rationality cannot account for everything in life. In particular, what it is actually like to exist, subjectively, as a human being (kind of an important thing).
Your point is nothing more that there is no rational explanation NOW for what something feels like.
That's nothing more than pointing out a knowledge gap. Cool story, there are plenty of knowledge gaps. Nothing new.
|
On April 23 2013 04:31 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience. From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form. This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them. At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
Your therefore is utterly wrong.
It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
|
On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
If you cannot prove that there is no god, you have no argument which can refer to christian belief as "wrong". You can say you doubt it. You can see it seems improbable, and you'd be right. You cannot say it's wrong (unless *you* like being wrong), because you cannot disprove it.
You can hold something as a moral authority which seems internally inconsistent, by understanding that there are many voices in christianity - and even if they quibble over the details, the general spirit is roughly the same.
It's not ad hominem to call something immoral, you're right. It is Ad Hominem to say "this guy Treehead, who currently operates under christian belief has all the wrong beliefs, because 100 years ago, this other christian guy believed in slavery as part of his christian religion". It is ad hominem to say that some christian's beliefs are wrong because other christians have made immoral actions. If that's not what you're getting at, I'd like to know what the actions of people long dead in a society that was far more violent than this one (e.g. the crusades, the inquisition - which happened in much less developed worlds) have to do with how we determine what we believe in today. Is there a god or not? Is he benevolent or not? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure the investigation doesn't rely in the actions of people hundreds of years ago, or even just 50 years ago.
Christianity is not the same religion as it was in the crusades, and you know it. You bring up history so you can call people who believe in it names, and consider yourself an intellectual for doing so. On the topic of history, by the way, what did atheists believe 1000 years ago? I bet there were many who believed in slavery. I bet many of them out there today are homophobes. I bet many of them who were out there 50 years ago hated black people. I bet there are people of every belief who also are hateful of some or another for more or less no reason. Where was our biological urge towards morality then?
You'll note that this is not ad hominem, because I actually do link up the allegations (bad things people have done in the past) with your beliefs (the belief that moral standards are somehow biological, which you stated above).
Nor is it ad hominem for you use subtext to call me names for my religion - but then, I'm sure you know that. You seem pretty smart.
|
My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
|
"Your point is nothing more that there is no rational explanation NOW for what something feels like.
That's nothing more than pointing out a knowledge gap. Cool story, there are plenty of knowledge gaps. Nothing new."
No, there will never be a rational/scientific explanation for what something feels like, because experience itself is not part of that which science can study (the physical realm).
|
On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote:
My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things.
Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion.
Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion.
|
On April 23 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:31 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience. From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form. This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them. At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say. Your therefore is utterly wrong. It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
Then you didn't explain it very well. I don't reference him for any reason other than he was linked in the thread already and he specifically mentioned what you are doing. Science is not faith, I know the religious community loves to pretend it is just a different form of faith, but it really isn't. That assertion proves a fundamental misunderstanding of either concept.
You already said "I think therefore I am" isn't "enough" for you, yet you can't prove a single thing beyond that, but we are suppose to "believe" that there is more. Why this is true, I have no clue.
|
On April 23 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:31 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience. From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form. This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them. At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say. Your therefore is utterly wrong. It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
What's wrong with his conclusion about your argument?
I mean, this is a thread about atheism. What's the whole point of this discussion about experience and rational explanations if not with respect to belief/disbelief?
Stating that, just because there is no scientific explanation for something now doesn't mean there never will be is not equivalent to faith. There may very well never be a scientific explanation for something, but we don't know. I don't know whether or not science will be able to explain some currently unexplainable things.
In fact, one of the things that I like most about science is the fact that there is no fear about saying "we don't know right now." You know why? It's because science actually works toward explaining the unknown. It has a pretty good track record on that front.
With religion, the best explanation one can get is "God did it." You don't actually find out anything interesting from that. It's literally the antithesis to progress. There's nothing more to it than "God did it" whenever something we don't understand comes up.
Why does the sun rise every morning? For thousands of years, the explanation was "God did it". In fact, plenty of civilizations literally worshiped the sun, and saw eclipses as the wrath of the gods. Science can explain this natural phenomenon pretty accurately now, and it's clear that the sun doesn't actually rise. It's just an illusion.
There are plenty of questions now that are unanswered, and science uncovers more questions a lot of the time than answers. This doesn't mean that it's wrong, though, or that it will never succeed in explaining the currently unexplainable.
On April 23 2013 04:37 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. If you cannot prove that there is no god, you have no argument which can refer to christian belief as "wrong". You can say you doubt it. You can see it seems improbable, and you'd be right. You cannot say it's wrong (unless *you* like being wrong), because you cannot disprove it. You can hold something as a moral authority which seems internally inconsistent, by understanding that there are many voices in christianity - and even if they quibble over the details, the general spirit is roughly the same. It's not ad hominem to call something immoral, you're right. It is Ad Hominem to say "this guy Treehead, who currently operates under christian belief has all the wrong beliefs, because 100 years ago, this other christian guy believed in slavery as part of his christian religion". It is ad hominem to say that some christian's beliefs are wrong because other christians have made immoral actions. If that's not what you're getting at, I'd like to know what the actions of people long dead in a society that was far more violent than this one (e.g. the crusades, the inquisition - which happened in much less developed worlds) have to do with how we determine what we believe in today. Is there a god or not? Is he benevolent or not? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure the investigation doesn't rely in the actions of people hundreds of years ago, or even just 50 years ago. Christianity is not the same religion as it was in the crusades, and you know it. You bring up history so you can call people who believe in it names, and consider yourself an intellectual for doing so. On the topic of history, by the way, what did atheists believe 1000 years ago? I bet there were many who believed in slavery. I bet many of them out there today are homophobes. I bet many of them who were out there 50 years ago hated black people. I bet there are people of every belief who also are hateful of some or another for more or less no reason. Where was our biological urge towards morality then? You'll note that this is not ad hominem, because I actually do link up the allegations (bad things people have done in the past) with your beliefs (the belief that moral standards are somehow biological, which you stated above). Nor is it ad hominem for you use subtext to call me names for my religion - but then, I'm sure you know that. You seem pretty smart.
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
|
On April 23 2013 04:40 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote:
My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas. Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion.
Well, I wouldn't say that religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. That's pretty much all it has to do with.
But you are right that you can have them without it. However, where belief in god is comforting is that god is supposed to be some objective measure of right and wrong in the world. While of course we can come up with our own meanings and purposes, who is to say that we are right. Without an 'objective' source of these things, we can be left in a bit of a dilemma.
If my morality comes from my society, what if my society is simply wrong? God can't be wrong (supposedly), which is why God is so comforting.
What if I come up with my own meaning and purpose for my life, but realize I got it wrong, and feel like I wasted my life. This is a pretty common theme in this modern era (especially given by the trope of the materialistic career-man who neglects his family). This is why God may actually be a good thing in some people's lives: It is a comforting illusion that hides the actual freedom of choice (for values, meanings, purposes) in your life. But, it is one that allows us to live with a firm purpose and order that we don't second-guess. That second-guessing can lead to much existential angst.
The one place that these things will never come from is scientific progress. Science can tell you the best way to get to an end, but it can't tell you what the end should actually be. The meaning of ones life, what moral values we should hold: These things aren't part of science, but part of the existence of humanity.
|
On April 23 2013 04:45 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:40 Tobberoth wrote:On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote:
My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas. Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion. Well, I wouldn't say that religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. That's pretty much all it has to do with. But you are right that you can have them without it. However, where belief in god is comforting is that god is supposed to be some objective measure of right and wrong in the world. While of course we can come up with our own meanings and purposes, who is to say that we are right. Without an 'objective' source of these things, we can be left in a bit of a dilemma. If my morality comes from my society, what if my society is simply wrong? God can't be wrong (supposedly), which is why God is so comforting. What if I come up with my own meaning and purpose for my life, but realize I got it wrong, and feel like I wasted my life. This is a pretty common theme in this modern era (especially given by the trope of the materialistic career-man who neglects his family). This is why God may actually be a good thing in some people's lives: It is a comforting illusion that hides the actual freedom of choice (for values, meanings, purposes) in your life.
I agree with you, but then again, you could say that about any delusion. A dude might think he's actually a hen. His purpose in life is to hatch a couple of eggs he's sitting on in his mental asylum. Suddenly, he becomes clear of mind and realizes he's a dude sitting on a bunch of rotten old eggs. He would probably feel he wasted his life as well, but that doesn't mean he's better off being delusional.
EDIT: Or, I guess your point is that he's actually better off being delusional. Which I don't agree with, but it's a valid stance to take, in a way.
|
On April 23 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:31 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 04:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:20 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 04:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:
Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it? No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history. I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent. If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness. Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it. On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever. I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against. If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like. Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it. Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation. "If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like." Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example. "Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it." Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear. "Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation." I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing. You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion. What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience. From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form. This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them. At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say. Your therefore is utterly wrong. It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
He isn't wrong and he didn't have to cite. I don't even know what NDT means, for instance.
Once every argument gets debunked in the most humiliating fashion possible, people keep looking for something that is still hard to grasp and, therefore, hard to explain with absolute confidence, and it becomes their new line of defense. But it is all too similar - same way that people of the past explained thunder and disease as if they were god's punishment, they resort to explaining feelings as something supernatural. But the simple fact that our whole palette can be easily flipped upside down by taking a pill and starting a chemical reaction inside our body somehow somewhere should connect your "surreal" concept of perception to something that can be reproduced in the lab.
When someone spoke of "poking" a brain in order to reproduce a certain feeling he wasn't talking about mere pain. You can generate anxiety, fear, joy, basically anything - including most complex sensations.
A dog that is happy to meet his master is just as excited as a brother meeting his sister.
And after all that your arguments are still incredibly non-relevant for trying to explain the concept of "God", let alone a specific religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
