|
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?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Europe_belief_in_god.svg
percentage is the belief in God.
Europe on the whole is probably >50% nonbeliever.
|
On April 23 2013 03:43 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:41 Kalingingsong wrote: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? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Europe_belief_in_god.svgpercentage is the belief in God. Europe on the whole is probably >50% nonbeliever.
yes but do all these countries each all religions? or something else?
|
On April 23 2013 03:44 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:43 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 03:41 Kalingingsong wrote: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? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Europe_belief_in_god.svgpercentage is the belief in God. Europe on the whole is probably >50% nonbeliever. yes but do all these countries each all religions? or something else?
I don't know.
It's not like you are taught religion in secular schools. I wasn't "taught" any religion in American high school. We had the option to take religious studies classes, and there are certainly plenty of Catholic/Christian charter schools and the like, but I don't understand your question.
|
On April 23 2013 03:32 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. You're misunderstanding what I am saying, and since I don't buy into the cult of NDT, you'll have to excuse my refusal to acknowledge a youtube video on vulgar scientism attacking vulgar Christianity. No amount of knowledge will change how language works, nor will it somehow superimpose language based truth over top "actual" truth. If you are going to appeal to authority, then allow me the same; read Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, specifically Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Both describe why science can never truly be objective and why "rationality" is bounded by agential observation and direction. It is precisely why economic's obsession with "rational agents" is proving so troublesome; optimization over a given set of constraints is made infinitely more difficult when supposedly "rational agents" act irrationally every day. As to you doing exactly what I predicted, that being hackneyed semi-scientific explanations for phenomena that are far more complex, please watch this Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.htmlWhat so few people realize is that the man who sits entranced by the depths of space and possibility a la NDT and the man who prays in church for the health of his family are actually doing the same thing. So, would you consider yourself an agnostic in that matter?
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
|
On April 23 2013 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat. That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality. This is not true. Some hitters may not be able to explain how they do it, but plenty will be able to. Also, simply because someone cannot explain something does not mean it cannot rationally be explained. Being a great hitter is also not beyond rationality. You can train to be a great hitter. You can work out, you can practice, you can spend time. In fact, that's how most people become great hitters! Obviously being born with certain natural talents can help, but it's not magic. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
"Being itself is pre-rational" This sentence is meaningless. "The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation." This one is meaningless too. "The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more." This just sounds like bullshit. Simply because you are not capable of explaining experience, does not mean it is irrational. In fact, even if science cannot explain certain things now, it does not mean that they will forever be inexplicable. 200 years ago science was not able to explain why people got sick, but that did not mean that the plague was caused by God hating us for our sins. The germ theory of disease nicely and rationally explains many of our ailments. edit: your entire post reeks of this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceJust because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
Is this some sort of metajoke? Your criticism of his statements revolves around "I don't get it" and "this sounds like bullshit", and then you end it all with "just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.". Your entire discrediting of his post revolves around an argument from ignorance.......
|
On April 23 2013 03:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat. That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality. This is not true. Some hitters may not be able to explain how they do it, but plenty will be able to. Also, simply because someone cannot explain something does not mean it cannot rationally be explained. Being a great hitter is also not beyond rationality. You can train to be a great hitter. You can work out, you can practice, you can spend time. In fact, that's how most people become great hitters! Obviously being born with certain natural talents can help, but it's not magic. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
"Being itself is pre-rational" This sentence is meaningless. "The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation." This one is meaningless too. "The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more." This just sounds like bullshit. Simply because you are not capable of explaining experience, does not mean it is irrational. In fact, even if science cannot explain certain things now, it does not mean that they will forever be inexplicable. 200 years ago science was not able to explain why people got sick, but that did not mean that the plague was caused by God hating us for our sins. The germ theory of disease nicely and rationally explains many of our ailments. edit: your entire post reeks of this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceJust because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained. Is this some sort of metajoke? Your criticism of his statements revolves around "I don't get it" and "this sounds like bullshit", and then you end it all with "just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.". Your entire discrediting of his post revolves around an argument from ignorance.......
What?
I clearly explained how there IS a rational basis to literally everything he tried to say cannot be explained rationally.
His post is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. He makes the assertion that there are things that cannot be explained rationally simply...because. That's it! He doesn't explain why, nor does he give any evidence for his assertions. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. It does not suffice to simply say that something cannot be explained rationally because it cannot be explained. That's just circular.
|
On April 23 2013 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat. That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality. This is not true. Some hitters may not be able to explain how they do it, but plenty will be able to. Also, simply because someone cannot explain something does not mean it cannot rationally be explained. Being a great hitter is also not beyond rationality. You can train to be a great hitter. You can work out, you can practice, you can spend time. In fact, that's how most people become great hitters! Obviously being born with certain natural talents can help, but it's not magic. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
"Being itself is pre-rational" This sentence is meaningless. "The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation." This one is meaningless too. "The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more." This just sounds like bullshit. Simply because you are not capable of explaining experience, does not mean it is irrational. In fact, even if science cannot explain certain things now, it does not mean that they will forever be inexplicable. 200 years ago science was not able to explain why people got sick, but that did not mean that the plague was caused by God hating us for our sins. The germ theory of disease nicely and rationally explains many of our ailments. edit: your entire post reeks of this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceJust because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
You are entirely misunderstanding me.
Of course I am capable of explaining experience. All of us are. If you are conscious, you know what experience is like. It is the one thing we are NOT ignorant of. Science is not capable of explaining experience, because experience is entirely subjective. Imagine going out on an extremely cold day. Science can tell you why you feel cold, and why feeling the cold is painful or unpleasant, but it can't tell you what being in the cold actually FEELS like. The experience of being cold isn't scientifically explainable, and it never will be: It is entirely subjective.
This is how our existence works. There is a foundation to our experience which is irreducible. It is what it is actually like to experience things, and this is something we all have knowledge of. This is why being itself is pre-rational. The way something smells, the emotion brought about by a certain bit of music, the jolt of fear that runs through the body when encountering a dangerous animal walking through the woods. These things are pre-rational. We may make rational decisions after experiencing these things. The actual experience of these things isn't born of some rational thought process in the mind, but is prior to that. Now, we can explain why we may feel this way through rationality. But we can't explain what it's LIKE to feel that way through rationality.
"That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally."
No. The experience that someone hitting a baseball has will never be able to explained scientifically or rationally. You can rationally explain how someone got good at baseball. You can rationally explain what their body is doing. But you can't rationally explain what it is like to be a great baseball player. You can explain how the player perceives the ball through their eyes, how neurons fire and how their muscles twitch, but this has nothing to do with what it's actually like to be a great baseball hitter.
|
On April 23 2013 03:56 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:52 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat. That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality. This is not true. Some hitters may not be able to explain how they do it, but plenty will be able to. Also, simply because someone cannot explain something does not mean it cannot rationally be explained. Being a great hitter is also not beyond rationality. You can train to be a great hitter. You can work out, you can practice, you can spend time. In fact, that's how most people become great hitters! Obviously being born with certain natural talents can help, but it's not magic. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
"Being itself is pre-rational" This sentence is meaningless. "The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation." This one is meaningless too. "The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more." This just sounds like bullshit. Simply because you are not capable of explaining experience, does not mean it is irrational. In fact, even if science cannot explain certain things now, it does not mean that they will forever be inexplicable. 200 years ago science was not able to explain why people got sick, but that did not mean that the plague was caused by God hating us for our sins. The germ theory of disease nicely and rationally explains many of our ailments. edit: your entire post reeks of this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceJust because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained. Is this some sort of metajoke? Your criticism of his statements revolves around "I don't get it" and "this sounds like bullshit", and then you end it all with "just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.". Your entire discrediting of his post revolves around an argument from ignorance....... What? I clearly explained how there IS a rational basis to literally everything he tried to say cannot be explained rationally. His post is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. He makes the assertion that there are things that cannot be explained rationally simply...because. That's it! He doesn't explain why, nor does he give any evidence for his assertions. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. It does not suffice to simply say that something cannot be explained rationally because it cannot be explained. That's just circular.
Well, the question ends up being, do you take Descartes' Cogito to be irreducibly true and self-evident? Is "I think, therefore I am" enough for you? For some, like myself and presumably the poster above, there is more to the mind-body predicament than that.
|
On April 23 2013 03:58 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat. That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality. This is not true. Some hitters may not be able to explain how they do it, but plenty will be able to. Also, simply because someone cannot explain something does not mean it cannot rationally be explained. Being a great hitter is also not beyond rationality. You can train to be a great hitter. You can work out, you can practice, you can spend time. In fact, that's how most people become great hitters! Obviously being born with certain natural talents can help, but it's not magic. On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote:
Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
"Being itself is pre-rational" This sentence is meaningless. "The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation." This one is meaningless too. "The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more." This just sounds like bullshit. Simply because you are not capable of explaining experience, does not mean it is irrational. In fact, even if science cannot explain certain things now, it does not mean that they will forever be inexplicable. 200 years ago science was not able to explain why people got sick, but that did not mean that the plague was caused by God hating us for our sins. The germ theory of disease nicely and rationally explains many of our ailments. edit: your entire post reeks of this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceJust because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained. You are entirely misunderstanding me. Of course I am capable of explaining experience. All of us are. If you are conscious, you know what experience is like. It is the one thing we are NOT ignorant of. Science is not capable of explaining experience, because experience is entirely subjective. Imagine going out on an extremely cold day. Science can tell you why you feel cold, and why feeling the cold is painful or unpleasant, but it can't tell you what being in the cold actually FEELS like. The experience of being cold isn't scientifically explainable, and it never will be: It is entirely subjective. This is how our existence works. There is a foundation to our experience which is irreducible. It is what it is actually like to experience things, and this is something we all have knowledge of. This is why being itself is pre-rational. The way something smells, the emotion brought about by a certain bit of music, the jolt of fear that runs through the body when encountering a dangerous animal walking through the woods. These things are pre-rational. We may make rational decisions after experiencing these things. The actual experience of these things isn't born of some rational thought process in the mind, but is prior to that.
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."
|
On April 23 2013 03:20 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:
Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:40 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 01:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 00:34 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.  100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves. If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history. Authority is required to enforce morality but I do not believe it is required to define it. The Golden Rule, for example, requires no authority for definition. Morality is generally defined within the confines of a society, both geographically and temporally. However there are some things that transcend even societal bounds. For example, I think almost every society would think of the murder of a fellow citizen of that same society as morally reprehensible. This has been true for thousands of years, and is honestly probably inherent in our very biology. You don't see animals of the same species wantonly killing each other. Self-preservation is a strong motivating factor in that regard. On April 23 2013 01:04 Treehead wrote:On April 23 2013 00:18 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. So do you believe slavery is morally acceptable, then? The banning of slavery in most countries certainly wasn't a religiously motivated event. In fact, many people in the United States in particular used religion to defend slavery. That's not all that surprising, given what is actually contained in the Bible. Human history shows that your assertion is just straight up wrong. Morality is based a lot on human knowledge and understanding both of the past and the current. I do not believe that people, even religious people, actually look toward religion for moral guidance. I think statements like "if it weren't for religion I'd probably be out there murdering people" are pretty fallacious because it doesn't hold up in reality. All one needs to do to affirm this is to look at actual human history. Let's take some examples from American and European history, since we can probably relate to or exemplify some of these things. Think about these things: The numerous inquisitions throughout the middle ages. Let's focus on the Spanish Inquisition, since it's probably the most famous. The Spanish Inquisition was essentially intended to force Muslims and Jews to convert, or leave/die. The enforcement of Catholicism in Spain consisted of censorship, persecution, oppression, suppression, and torture of offenders: the nature of the punishable offenses could range from the verbal (blasphemy) to sexual (sodomy) to supernatural (witchcraft) among many many others. Thousands of people were affected over many years, many dying in the process. Do you consider this a good example of religious morals? In the colonial period, did religion stop the American colonists from trampling over the natives, killing them, eradicating their peoples and their lands, and subjugating them? No. In fact, in many cases, religious leaders encouraged many practices we would consider today to be completely immoral. Many many people died in the interests of conversion and absolution/purification. At the time, it was considered absolutely the morally right thing to do: these people were being "saved" from an eternity in hell. And of course, if they didn't listen, the converters were doing a favor for everyone by killing the heathen unbelieving savages. Sounds pretty ridiculous, no? Again, during the colonial period: do you recall the numerous witch trials and the results of Puritanism in New England? I can guarantee you that today, burning a teenage girl at the stake over mere religious hysteria would be outrageous. No one would stand for that. There are many more examples from human history that I can find and display for you, some of which are happening right now. The simple fact is that religion is not and never has been a good moral compass. It's honestly actually one of the worst things you can use as a guide, given its track record. No other human societal institution has demonstrated as much propensity to subvert, oppress, control and hurt both the individual and the masses. As to the subject of this blog, I don't actually remember when I became atheist. I was born in a Muslim family and grew up half-practicing, even reading the Koran till I was around 12 or 13. However I do know for a fact I never really believed in God or any sort of higher power. I started questioning why others believed probably in elementary school and I was pretty taken aback at the beliefs in Santa, God, the tooth fairy, and all sorts of other things at a very young age. By the time I was a freshman in high school I had spent lots of time on the internet reading about almost everything, and a lot of the time it was about logic and religion; two things I found in utter contradiction of each other. How on earth did you get from my post to "So you think slavery is okay, do you?" Why is it that whenever people talk about religion, we can't talk like rational adults? Can't I believe in god but not believe in the "holiness" of the crusades? Can't I believe in God without believing in everything anyone has done in his name? If some guy out in the wilderness says "the only people who are really atheists are people who murder rampantly for no real reason" - does that mean that all atheists think this way? And regarding your comment about human history, I'm fairly certain that religion has had a relatively large influence both in current events and past ones, too - both good and bad. So your notion that just because slavery wasn't abolished single-handedly by Jesus Christ that christianity had no part in it is pretty outrageous. In the end, though, it's hard for me to respond to anyone on the topic of religion, because at some point it all becomes rhetoric. It's unfortunate that for whatever reason it has to be that way, instead of each of us saying to the other "I believe/don't believe in this God or that God." - and there is actually no real evidence why I do or why you should. Hopefully, the example I set is sufficient argument that my way is better - and if it isn't, I hope you find your way well through life anyway. Your argument was that morality is defined under religion. So, how exactly is Christianity morally acceptable when in 1800 years it condoned slavery? Every major facet of Christianity supported slavery for literally 90% of the time it has existed. You're fairly certain that Christianity has had a large part in current and past events, and yet a perfect Jesus Christ did not abolish slavery. A perfect God did nothing, and in fact, slavery is condoned in the Bible. If you're going to resort to a no True Scotsman fallacy, and you don't subscribe to the Bible, one can easily turn it around on you: how are you Christian? You can't both believe in the moral authority of God and then turn around and say that God's acceptance, nay, encouragement of slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and genocide are not directly contradictory. My argument is that morality is necessary - and most people get their morality from religion. How is this statement not a direct contradiction of the standards you yourself requested from the OP? It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you are not even internally consistent. Also, this is a logical fallacy: nothing more than an argument from popularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumSimply because many people believe in religion it does not mean societal morality stems from it. That's pretty patently true when you look at how many things in modern society outright defy generations of religious teachings. It's also pretty obvious given how many civil and social rights movements have been hindered by, that's right, religion. Religion has been little more than a hindrance to progress throughout history. Its benefits have been few and far between, and the negatives have far outweighed the positives. In fact, simply thinking of the positive benefits of religion is hard. From a natural selection standpoint there may have been a biological advantage for religion bringing together humans a long long time ago, but it's foolish to argue for religion/God as a moral authority, given how inconsistent most monotheistic religions have been throughout human history. Even now you can see how they stray so far from the moral truths we accept in modern society. For example, look at interracial marriage. It was seen as a sin by most white Christians in America merely 50 years ago. Now, the very thought of such bigotry is reprehensible in the majority of the country. The same is happening right now for homosexuals, and I can guarantee you that in 100 years people will look back upon yet another failing of religion on a moral front. How can you say that Christianity is a model for morality when a vast majority of its adherents and leaders in the U.S. view homosexual marriage as a sin? Christianity denies civil rights in front of your very eyes and yet you have the gall to suggest that it is some sort of moral authority to look up to.
Do you read the wiki pages you're posting? Or do you honestly not see the difference between Argumentum ad populum and what I did there?
"It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct.
...
Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one, for reasons related to network effects."
I never assert that people believing through religion is correct (though I believe it is, I can't prove it). I merely state that's what they do - not to try to sway a person to be religious, but to say that religion does add value to present day society. The OP, on the other hand, states that he "just knows" right from wrong. He could be (is) wrong in this belief. But in order to appear correct, he may employ argumentum ad populum to legitimize his belief system (which is, apparently, egoistic by design). No one should employ argumentum ad populum in order to sway readers, so I pointed him away from it.
If you're "having trouble taking me seriously", then by all means don't. At this point, any alternative to two sentences of poorly thought out observations about what I've written, followed by three paragraphs about why all christians are cruel homophobes who like slavery and molest children is probably preferable.
While we're looking up wiki logic articles, try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Clearly, any beliefs I have as a christian must be wrong or malformed. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who were christian. 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?
|
On April 23 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:32 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8 You're misunderstanding what I am saying, and since I don't buy into the cult of NDT, you'll have to excuse my refusal to acknowledge a youtube video on vulgar scientism attacking vulgar Christianity. No amount of knowledge will change how language works, nor will it somehow superimpose language based truth over top "actual" truth. If you are going to appeal to authority, then allow me the same; read Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, specifically Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Both describe why science can never truly be objective and why "rationality" is bounded by agential observation and direction. It is precisely why economic's obsession with "rational agents" is proving so troublesome; optimization over a given set of constraints is made infinitely more difficult when supposedly "rational agents" act irrationally every day. As to you doing exactly what I predicted, that being hackneyed semi-scientific explanations for phenomena that are far more complex, please watch this Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.htmlWhat so few people realize is that the man who sits entranced by the depths of space and possibility a la NDT and the man who prays in church for the health of his family are actually doing the same thing. So, would you consider yourself an agnostic in that matter? Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though. These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
meh, while i agree on the "everything is (to some degree) irrational" part and i can somehow understand your idea behind your choice for religion than, it still offers no explanation for chosing to be Christian, other than you grew up with it.
And imo, picking your religion based on the randomness that is socialization is more than a little irrational.
But than again, I shouldnt criticize the personal belief of other people.
|
On April 23 2013 04:07 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 03:32 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8 You're misunderstanding what I am saying, and since I don't buy into the cult of NDT, you'll have to excuse my refusal to acknowledge a youtube video on vulgar scientism attacking vulgar Christianity. No amount of knowledge will change how language works, nor will it somehow superimpose language based truth over top "actual" truth. If you are going to appeal to authority, then allow me the same; read Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, specifically Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Both describe why science can never truly be objective and why "rationality" is bounded by agential observation and direction. It is precisely why economic's obsession with "rational agents" is proving so troublesome; optimization over a given set of constraints is made infinitely more difficult when supposedly "rational agents" act irrationally every day. As to you doing exactly what I predicted, that being hackneyed semi-scientific explanations for phenomena that are far more complex, please watch this Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.htmlWhat so few people realize is that the man who sits entranced by the depths of space and possibility a la NDT and the man who prays in church for the health of his family are actually doing the same thing. So, would you consider yourself an agnostic in that matter? Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though. These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress. meh, while i agree on the "everything is (to some degree) irrational" part and i can somehow understand your idea behind your choice for religion than, it still offers no explanation for chosing to be Christian, other than you grew up with it. And imo, picking your religion based on the randomness that is socialization is more than a little irrational. But than again, I shouldnt criticize the personal belief of other people.
Well, I'm not really "picking" Christianity; I've already made it clear that I take huge issue with the fundamental tenant of Christianity, that being an acceptance of Christ as the son of God. I simply call myself a "Christian" because the Christian church is the thing I know and feel comfortable with in terms of doctrinal criticism and the like. Whether I like it or not, I have lived a life in which Christianity has played a large role, and it seems pragmatic for me to approach the issue from a place of experience.
|
I thought about a big man in the sky.
I laughed.
I carried on living my life as a cuntbag with no belief of said man.
(I have no qualms with race / religion, just to clarify, i fully respect others beliefs :D)
|
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 what it is like to experience things can't be explained through science. The act or process of experience itself. You could have a perfect scientific understanding of the brain and brain states, but you still wouldn't know what the experience they relate to is like, because the experience they relate to is an entirely private domain.
|
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:Show nested quote +
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.
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.
Same arguments can be applied to almost anything you're coming up with right now. Human experience is nothing more than biological functions in the brain. Just because they cannot be completely explained now it does not mean that will forever hold true.
|
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.
Actually, the constraints of "ad hominem" in this case would revolve around each parties estimation of possible judgement. If he or others do not think one can look at history and excise bits and pieces for criticism, than your statement that "Christianity is morally reprehensible" operates as an ad hominem. This is also true if one believes Christianity sufficiently stratified; you seem to think that one can point at this thing called "Christianity" and level a true accusation towards everyone and everything that calls itself a Christian. This is actually a pretty monumental task, as there are a great many people who call themselves Christians who struggle with rationally-inspired doubt every day and yet live good lives and help people.
|
On April 23 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:07 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 03:32 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On April 23 2013 02:50 rei wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:15 rei wrote:On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote:
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized. an example of not all knowledge is rational please. "This song really lifts my spirits." "I can't wait to see my brother." "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." "Why?" One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends. Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it. Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful. Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it. "this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it. "I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother. "Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8 You're misunderstanding what I am saying, and since I don't buy into the cult of NDT, you'll have to excuse my refusal to acknowledge a youtube video on vulgar scientism attacking vulgar Christianity. No amount of knowledge will change how language works, nor will it somehow superimpose language based truth over top "actual" truth. If you are going to appeal to authority, then allow me the same; read Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, specifically Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Both describe why science can never truly be objective and why "rationality" is bounded by agential observation and direction. It is precisely why economic's obsession with "rational agents" is proving so troublesome; optimization over a given set of constraints is made infinitely more difficult when supposedly "rational agents" act irrationally every day. As to you doing exactly what I predicted, that being hackneyed semi-scientific explanations for phenomena that are far more complex, please watch this Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.htmlWhat so few people realize is that the man who sits entranced by the depths of space and possibility a la NDT and the man who prays in church for the health of his family are actually doing the same thing. So, would you consider yourself an agnostic in that matter? Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though. These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress. meh, while i agree on the "everything is (to some degree) irrational" part and i can somehow understand your idea behind your choice for religion than, it still offers no explanation for chosing to be Christian, other than you grew up with it. And imo, picking your religion based on the randomness that is socialization is more than a little irrational. But than again, I shouldnt criticize the personal belief of other people. Well, I'm not really "picking" Christianity; I've already made it clear that I take huge issue with the fundamental tenant of Christianity, that being an acceptance of Christ as the son of God. I simply call myself a "Christian" because the Christian church is the thing I know and feel comfortable with in terms of doctrinal criticism and the like. Whether I like it or not, I have lived a life in which Christianity has played a large role, and it seems pragmatic for me to approach the issue from a place of experience.
It is pragmatic to choose this approach, but I dont like to be pragmatic in this matter.
Other than that, i probably agree with you.
|
On April 23 2013 04:17 farvacola 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. Actually, the constraints of "ad hominem" in this case would revolve around each parties estimation of possible judgement. If he or others do not think one can look at history and excise bits and pieces for criticism, than your statement that "Christianity is morally reprehensible" operates as an ad hominem. This is also true if one believes Christianity sufficiently stratified; you seem to think that one can point at this thing called "Christianity" and level a true accusation towards everyone and everything that calls itself a Christian. This is actually a pretty monumental task, as there are a great many people who call themselves Christians who struggle with rationally-inspired doubt every day and yet live good lives and help people.
Wrong again, because I'm calling the institution morally reprehensible, not necessarily Christians in particular.
Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 22 2013 23:29 TOCHMY wrote:
To answer how I became an atheist:
When I was old enough to make the logical decision that God isn't real was the day I became an atheist.
Amen brother. Born and raised catholic, then discovered science! Religion is there to give people a purpose, and to explain what they cannot understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
153
EPT
