Materialism and Faith

[Liberal]

SentientMeat wrote:

Having said that, there a altogether different orders of magnitude when it comes to what one believes or not. I put it to you that it is beyond reasonable doubt that there was a time when human sentience did not exist. I offer that it is not mysterious in any way to believe that “nonsentience before birth” is not fundamentally different to “nonsentience after death”.

And I disagree. I offer that it is equivocal to speak of human sentience as both an awareness of the sentience and the sentience itself. I offer that it is Ockhamly unnecessary to introduce biological life (whatever it might be) as the agent of sentience. And I offer that differentiation of nonexistence of sentience from nonsentience is amphibolous.

The materialist believes that his sentience came from nonexistence and will return there, citing biological life as its agency, and believes that his belief is eminently reasonable. And yet when I say the same thing about the universe, citing God as its agency, I am in his eyes a voodooist and a stranger to reason and rational thought. He might not see the double standard, but I do.

[hawthorne]

Libertarian
Clearly, RexDart revealed an abiding faith in his future nonexistence. And I would so much more respect any materialist who admitted that he holds his belief on faith.

Well, I’m not with RexDart on that. I don’t see that the distinction between “I believe that X is true” and “I haven’t found sufficient justification for believing that !X is true” is otiose. Sure, one of them will turn out to be true. And sure, in practice lacking a belief in life after death means that I behave as if I believe that there is no life after death - but this doesn’t mean the two are the same, it means I have not found a decision procedure to deal with things I don’t know about. My lack of faith in any position, combined with the necessity of making decisions, is what gnaws at what may or may not be my soul.

[TVAA]

What’s the difference between “material” and “immaterial” things?

Does RexDart exist? If he’s a strict materialist in the sense in which the term is meant philosophically, obviously the answer is ‘no’.

[SentientMeat]

I am in his eyes a voodooist and a stranger to reason and rational thought.

Again, you do me a disservice - you have my utmost respect, as do followers of Haitian folklore. Keep getting them to admit it’s all faith, Lib!

[robertliguori]

The materialist believes that his sentience came from nonexistence and will return there, citing biological life as its agency, and believes that his belief is eminently reasonable. And yet when I say the same thing about the universe, citing God as its agency, I am in his eyes a voodooist and a stranger to reason and rational thought. He might not see the double standard, but I do.

Well, Lib, we both agree that A.) Biological life exists, and B.), the state or condition of being alive affects one’s ability to make it known to the universe that you are sentient. (I hope). Even if you don’t agree that our brains are the ultimate seat of our consciousness, you agree that we can do funky things to what we percieve as our consciousness by screwing with our brains.
In short, brains exist, and there is an apparent, demonstratable correlation between them and us.

Can you demonstrate a similar correlation between God and the universe? Can we dissect God in a labratory, and find out what makes Him tick?

If no, then there is less similarity between brains/us and God/universe then you posit.

[Captain_Amazing]

Accustom yourself to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil lie in sensation, whereas death is the absence of sensation. Hence a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding infinite time, but by ridding us of the desire for immortality. For there is nothing fearful in living for one who genuinely grasps that there is nothing fearful in not living. Therefore he speaks idly who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when present but because it is painful in anticipation. For if something causes no distress when present, it is fruitless to be pained by the expectation of it. Therefore that most frightful of evils, death, is nothing to us, seeing that when we exist death is not present, and when death is present we do not exist. Thus it is nothing to either the living or the dead, seeing that the former do not have it and the latter no longer exist. -Epicurus

The concept of non-existence itself is comprehensible to me. I can understand a statement like “Only 10 copies of the book were ever made, and they were all destroyed in a fire. No surviving copies of the book exist.” Imagining some time when I will cease to exist is harder, of course, because (and how’s this for a tautology?) I’ve only experienced my own existence. However, I can fairly easily deal with the idea that there was a time I didn’t exist. I don’t remember the 1700’s at all.

That being said, my memories extend back to when I was 3 or 4, so I don’t remember my first 3 years at all either. I’m willing to believe I existed then, though, because my parents and other people who knew me then and who don’t have any reason to lie to me have told me I did.

If I existed before I was born, I don’t know where I would have been. Well, I would have been in the womb for seven months, but before that, there doesn’t seem to have been any “me”…just an egg cell of my mother’s and a sperm cell of my father’s. Likewise, I don’t see how I could exist after death, putting aside stories of vampires and zombies…I would decay and there would be no more “me” there.

[Iamthat]

** robertliguori**

wrote:

Even if you don’t agree that our brains are the ultimate seat of our consciousness, you agree that we can do funky things to what we percieve as our consciousness by screwing with our brains.
In short, brains exist, and there is an apparent, demonstratable correlation between them and us.

You’re confusing content with awareness. Consciousness isn’t affected by manipulating the brain, it’s only the mental images that appear to be modified.

We also don’t perceive our consciousness. What would we perceive it with?

If [all] experience comes about through a subject—object relation we never encounter the subject.

We can’t put consciousness in a laboratory anymore then we can put god there.

[js_africanus]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**If nonexistence is incomprehensible, cannot be pictured, and completely lacks any epistemological foundation (cannot be known), how is it that materialists can ponder its nature, apprehend its approach, and believe with conviction that it is in their future, and that they will cease to exist? **

If those assumptions are correct, then the one can’t. But that doesn’t imply that non-existence doesn’t exist. A good materialist doesn’t “believe”, she looks at evidence. Since there is no evidence backing up non-non-existence after one’s death, and since we’ve taken your assumptions to be true, the good materialist shrugs and says, “I don’t know what will happen after I die.”

Of course, I see no reason to grant your assumptions. But that’s for another thread.

[RexDart]

I return now to find the question “Does RexDart exist?” being postulated in a response…but it makes me reconsider things in light of my previoius point…have I really returned to this keyboard, or did that person’s existence expire?

For all I know, my body and sentience both sprang into existence a merely 5 minutes ago, or the whole world for that matter. Along with the rest of the observable universe, I could have been created through artifice mere moments ago, complete with preformed memories, just like those advanced replicants in Blade Runner. The surprising thing about contemplating that scenario? I find that it doesn’t affect my existence! Not one bit. Whether all my memories represent things that actually occured, or whether it’s all a deception and I’ve only existed for the last 5 minutes, that has absolutely no effect on my existence. The “me” that we would ordinarily suppose has been in existence for years and the “me” under the supplied-memories scenario are precisely identical.

My conclusion? Nonexistence is irrelevant to my existence. I can only be aware of my own existence now, and I can quite assuredly conclude that I exist now, so past or future nonexistence has no effect on that awareness. It would be futile to even discuss existence-through-time, because no such thing occurs. My existence is neither infinite nor finite, it’s just there when I look for it. It has no temporal dimension at all.

So I’d like to bid you all a fond farewell, on behalf of myself and any other RexDarts who may have contributed to composing this post. Please treat the new RexDarts who follow me with kindness

[TVAA]

Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**
My conclusion? Nonexistence is irrelevant to my existence. I can only be aware of my own existence now, and I can quite assuredly conclude that I exist now, so past or future nonexistence has no effect on that awareness. It would be futile to even discuss existence-through-time, because no such thing occurs. My existence is neither infinite nor finite, it’s just there when I look for it. It has no temporal dimension at all.

So I’d like to bid you all a fond farewell, on behalf of myself and any other RexDarts who may have contributed to composing this post. Please treat the new RexDarts who follow me with kindness **

I could not prove the Years had feet -
Yet confident they run
Am I, from symptons that are past
And Series that are done -

I find my feet have further Goals -
I smile upon the Aims
That felt so simple - Yesterday -
Today’s - have vaster claims -

I do not doubt the self I was
Was competent to me -
But something awkward in the fit -
Proves that - outgrown - I see -

• – Emily Dickinson*

[Liberal]

Hawthorne wrote:

Well, I’m not with RexDart on that. I don’t see that the distinction between “I believe that X is true” and “I haven’t found sufficient justification for believing that !X is true” is otiose. Sure, one of them will turn out to be true. And sure, in practice lacking a belief in life after death means that I behave as if I believe that there is no life after death - but this doesn’t mean the two are the same, it means I have not found a decision procedure to deal with things I don’t know about. My lack of faith in any position, combined with the necessity of making decisions, is what gnaws at what may or may not be my soul.

The Doxastic Axiom states ~Bp -> B~Bp; that is, lack of belief that p is true implies belief in a lack of belief that p is true. You at least believe that you lack belief. Applying the preservation principle of neutral epistemologies, your belief in your lack of belief in p preserves your lack of belief in p. That’s why you behave as though ~p were true, since p -> Bp and therefore ~Bp -> ~p by modus tollens — lack of belief in p implies that p is false.

Js_africanus wrote:

A good materialist doesn’t “believe”, she looks at evidence.

Does she “believe” the evidence she sees?

[SentientMeat]

Altogether now: Nothing is known absolutely, nothing is certain. Everything requires some iota of faith.

Scenario: Brain in a jar being fed hilarious systems such as logic and mathematics which are, really, utter bunkum. Those outside the jar laugh at the poor brain’s inability to grasp that nothing exists and everything exists simultaneously.

Altogether now: This scenario is *not falsifiable *. This scenario is *not impossible *. We all have faith that this scenario is not the case, that our lives are “real”.

Ahhh …and rest.

Now then, what probability shall we all ascribe to this scenario being the case? >50%?
Does any of us actually believe it? Don’t bother trying to answer if so, the straps on those jackets are pretty strong.
About 1%? I’d say you’re still a nutter, but fair play to you.
I think we can all agree, vanishingly small, but still very definitely NOT zero.

Unfortunately, the nonimpossibility if this scenario means that the words know, categorically, deny, falsify, certain, sure, definite, evident etc. must, I’m afraid, fall from the dictionary, never again to be used by intelligent speakers of English.

But wait. Could we use them as though, afterwards, we were muttering under our breath “assuming I’m not a jar dweller programmed with balderdash”? When I say “I know I exist”, can my whispered addendum render the word useable again in conversation with my peers? Hurrah! Flee, pedants, and let us reclaim our language!

Now, let us go further, having taken on faith that the universe exists. Is it possible that all this talk of billions of years passing before my existence is mere rumour, that the universe came into existence simultaneously with me and I am the victim of some elaborate hoax? Of course it is possible, like the nonsense-fed jar. However, again, for me to ascribe to this scenario any more than the tiniest glimmer of a chance would, I hope, cause some concern amongst my friends and family with regards to my health and happiness.

All of these possibilities are of an entirely different order of magnitude to, say, whether or not the defendant is lying or whether or not Liverpool FC will win the Premiership. These are reasonable beliefs. (Well, alright, the Reds are stuffed). Might I redefine the word “know” to mean “believe that which is beyond reasonable doubt”?

With most people, probably. With philosophy fans? Some chance.

[Ludovic]

Sentient of course, in everyday life, when you talk about “Existence”, a 99.9999999[repeat]% chance that you are “real” is good enough, but not when ontology is concerned.

[SentientMeat]

Lib, having read through the above post again I see it might imply that I place your belief that you existed as part of God before your birth (does this description misprepresent you? Apologies if so, but I tried not to imply you favour anything like “souls waiting to be born”) in the “unreasonable” realm. I don’t. If I am honest I must admit it’s not far off IMHO, but please understand that would never wish to appear to disparage or belittle you in any way.

Ludovic - then whither ontology?

[js_africanus]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Does [the materialist] “believe” the evidence she sees? **

With in reason, I suppose, and depending on how you’re using believe. Humans are good at fooling themselves, so that’s where logic, math, and science, inter alia come into play. So to take what one “sees” without scrutiny is probably questionable; myriad psychics, faith healers, and mediums rely on just that mistake.

I would also note that believe seems to have de facto subtleties (sp?) that need to be noted. Some people belive that John Edwards can really talk to the dead because he seems to know things that one can’t hit on by chance. I believe that, ceteris paribus, seatbelts save lives because of the physics behind a car crash. I would consider those to be two distinct uses of the same word.

To put it another way, I feel that our perceptions are generally accurate, although our interpretations may need scrutiny. It seems hard to believe (ha!) that a creature with perceptions that don’t correspond to the world is evolutionarily viable. However, we do make mistakes, search for patterns, and use hueristics that can fool us.

That’s a lot of prattle for such a simple question. Sorry about that.

[Liberal]

Sentient wrote:

Lib, having read through the above post again I see it might imply that I place your belief that you existed as part of God before your birth (does this description misprepresent you? Apologies if so, but I tried not to imply you favour anything like “souls waiting to be born”) in the “unreasonable” realm. I don’t. If I am honest I must admit it’s not far off IMHO, but please understand that would never wish to appear to disparage or belittle you in any way.

Thanks. It seems logical to me that my relation with God is ablative, and therefore my eternality is contingent whereas His is absolute. So, yes, my own spirit is eternal but had no selfness until the ablation. When that “occured”, I can’t say, since eternity is not constricted by a time-arrow. In fact, “when” doesn’t really matter. It has already occured, is occuring, and has not yet occured.

Js_africanus wrote:

That’s a lot of prattle for such a simple question. Sorry about that.

No problem. Materialists seem to take comfort in differentiating the nature of their belief from the belief of the nonmaterialists. “Mine is reasonable; yours is not,” is the mantra.

Many routinely cite logic, math, and science as though they were the only valid epistemologies. And yet logic is built upon one of its own fallacies (petitio principii); math is based on a deductive system that cannot be both complete and consistent; and the foundation of science (falsifiability) is not falsifiable.

[js_africanus]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
No problem. Materialists seem to take comfort in differentiating the nature of their belief from the belief of the nonmaterialists. “Mine is reasonable; yours is not,” is the mantra.

Acknowledging that a word has subtleties in order to avoid sophomoric semantic games is not equivalent to a double standard of proof. Grow up.

**Many routinely cite logic, math, and science as though they were the only valid epistemologies. And yet logic is built upon one of its own fallacies (petitio principii); math is based on a deductive system that cannot be both complete and consistent; and the foundation of science (falsifiability) is not falsifiable. **

What, are you a post modernist now? Science, math, & logic aren’t perfect=>any belief is valid. Good one.

[Liberal]

Js_africanus wrote:

Acknowledging that a word has subtleties in order to avoid sophomoric semantic games is not equivalent to a double standard of proof. Grow up.

Physician,

What, are you a post modernist now? Science, math, & logic aren’t perfect=>any belief is valid. Good one.

heal thyself.

[Ludovic]

Sentient, meaning, that a stricter standard of “being” may be applied when talking about formal ontology than in casual conversation. IMO, at least, your metaphysical view may be different.