"The God Delusion" discussion thread

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I would say it very much depends on what you’d call “the mind”. It seems like in this context what you’re referring to is that part of you that you would call “I”; your self. Because I would say that while we certainly haven’t mapped the whole thing, we do have a reasonable idea of what parts do what. Mainly through lesion studies we can see that damage to some parts of the brain will relatively uniformly affect people in similar ways, and affect that thing which we would call “self”. Cut the connections between the hemispheres and you can get symptoms which seem very much like the “creation” of a second being with higher brain functions.

And hey, after all, Mr. Penny may be a smart guy, but it was five thousand years of human investigation before we knew anything about the composition of the moon. That doesn’t mean it’s made of cheese. :wink: Well, first off i’d say that lack of knowledge doesn’t imply that it’s not there to be found. If your only evidence is that we don’t know for certain it’s the case, i’m not sure how you’re so certain that you are correct in your views. I mean, i’m happy to consider the possibility of a self that’s not entirely physical; I just don’t see why I should move from possibility to agreement on it.

And I would say that study of the brain is still important, even if were just a communication device between the senses and the trancendent self. If we can replicate the signals from senses, that would show that the trancedent self can be manipulated by the physical. It would be interesting (to me, anyway) to find out just how much the self does depend on the brain, to what extent we can manipulate the self by manipulating the brain. At the very least, you should be interested in such research in case it gives evidence against brain = mind theories, as you believe it would. I agree.
[/QUOTE]

In the final analysis of the mind issue all I can say is this. I think that any attempt to completely explain the functioning of the mind as a physical system would necessarily leave something out. Suppose that a rigorous scientific study firmly proves that “disabling part A of the brain leaves the subject unable to experience feeling B”. That would certainly be a scientific fact worth knowing, but what does it tell us about the origin of what I call the higher brain functions? It might be that feeling B is generated within part A, or it might be that feeling B does come from outside the person and is somehow channeled to the brain in a process that involves part A. Either explanation is a possibility, and further poking around at part A won’t distinguish between the possibilities.

142

Only in the sense that poking around at gravity won’t disprove that invisible fairies are pushing everything down. If an understanding of the neural pathways in part A provide an explanation of experience B, and if nothing about part A seems to be picking up signals from the spirit world (and if the brain can pick up those signals, presumably we could build something that would pick them up, too; not to mention that we could [theoretically] detect any activity in the brain that isn’t caused by physical forces) . . . well, I won’t say that that would prove in an absolute mathematical sense that nothing spiritual or non-physical is going on, but I think your theory would remain viable to about the same extent as young earth creationism.

143

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
In the final analysis of the mind issue all I can say is this. I think that any attempt to completely explain the functioning of the mind as a physical system would necessarily leave something out. Suppose that a rigorous scientific study firmly proves that “disabling part A of the brain leaves the subject unable to experience feeling B”. That would certainly be a scientific fact worth knowing, but what does it tell us about the origin of what I call the higher brain functions? It might be that feeling B is generated within part A, or it might be that feeling B does come from outside the person and is somehow channeled to the brain in a process that involves part A. Either explanation is a possibility, and further poking around at part A won’t distinguish between the possibilities.
[/QUOTE]
Well, assuming we start off with the idea that the brain is at the least required for the transcendent self to interact with the physical body (since no brain = no apparent person), what this would tell us if indeed it was found is that the origins of the higher brain functions are intricately connected to the specifics of the brain. That they are either it in their entirety, or specific parts of our feelings require specific parts and formations of the brain in order to present themselves. What does this say about the origins? Well, I would say that it’s a pretty good indication that humans haven’t always had transcendent selves, if we do now. In the past when our brains were less developed (evolutionally, not age-wise), either we went all that time without an ability to fully interact with our mortal shells (which might further suggest the possibility that there’s yet undiscovered transcendentness that we don’t have the right parts to communicate to our bodies), or that these feelings evolved along with our brains, suggesting that there is some kind of biological source to them.

144

There’s no way a 7 year old understands Christian doctrine. They may be able to parakeet certain aspects of it but they have no genuine understanding of it. Most adults have difficulty expressing the reasoning behind their own theologies beyond a very superficial level. Little kids certainly have no capacity to really evaluate any complex philosophical or theological ideas within any kind of educated context about humanity, history or science. I am not impressed by a kid who connects a “resurrected” plant with Jesus. I have kids. They draw superficial, simplistic connections all the time. It is not a signifier of profound theological comprehension, believe me. Five minutes later that same kid will be comparing a rock to a Ninja Turtle.

What lies did it teach you?

145

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Well, assuming we start off with the idea that the brain is at the least required for the transcendent self to interact with the physical body (since no brain = no apparent person), what this would tell us if indeed it was found is that the origins of the higher brain functions are intricately connected to the specifics of the brain. That they are either it in their entirety, or specific parts of our feelings require specific parts and formations of the brain in order to present themselves. What does this say about the origins? Well, I would say that it’s a pretty good indication that humans haven’t always had transcendent selves, if we do now. In the past when our brains were less developed (evolutionally, not age-wise), either we went all that time without an ability to fully interact with our mortal shells (which might further suggest the possibility that there’s yet undiscovered transcendentness that we don’t have the right parts to communicate to our bodies), or that these feelings evolved along with our brains, suggesting that there is some kind of biological source to them.
[/QUOTE]

Again, all I can say is that such an analysis (if it ever came to exist) would miss key components of the higher functions of the brain. I have never seen any indication that a purely physical analysis of the brain’s response to art has lead to better art, or that a purely physical analysis of the brain’s formation of ethics has led to better ethics, or that a purely physical analysis of the mental dimensions of spirituality has led to better spirituality. If I want to get better art, I consult an artist, not a scientist. If I want better ethics, I consult somebody who specializes in ethics, not somebody who reduces it to neurotransmitters. If I want more fulfilling spiritual experience, I consult a priest or somebody else who approaches the spirit as the spirit, not someone who views it as a byproduct of evolution.

Or put another way, it’s a matter of different levels of comprehension. As a metaphor consider this statement: 125 + 264 = 389. There are many levels of which a person can comprehend this statement. For instance, one might only understand that when you add the first two numbers on a calculator, one gets the third number. Call this the level zero (which is all too common today). One might understand it as the result of the process of addition which we all learn in first grade. Call this level one. One might understand that addition is a representation of the combination of quantities. Call this level two. And there are higher levels based on understanding the position of addition within the context of larger mathematical systems. But the important point is all the levels are technically correct, but they are not equal. The higher levels are better ways of thinking about the statement 125 + 264 = 389 because they lead to more comprehension and fulfillment.

It’s like that with our debate about the mind. Understanding all human ethics, morals, aesthetics, and spirituality as a product of this neurotransmitter being released in that brain region is a low level of understanding. Understanding these functions of the mind as genuine responses to genuine things happening outside the mind is a higher level of understanding.

146

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
It’s like that with our debate about the mind. Understanding all human ethics, morals, aesthetics, and spirituality as a product of this neurotransmitter being released in that brain region is a low level of understanding. Understanding these functions of the mind as genuine responses to genuine things happening outside the mind is a higher level of understanding.
[/QUOTE]

I think everyone would agree with you there. I just think that the responses happen within the brain.

147

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Again, all I can say is that such an analysis (if it ever came to exist) would miss key components of the higher functions of the brain. I have never seen any indication that a purely physical analysis of the brain’s response to art has lead to better art, or that a purely physical analysis of the brain’s formation of ethics has led to better ethics, or that a purely physical analysis of the mental dimensions of spirituality has led to better spirituality. If I want to get better art, I consult an artist, not a scientist. If I want better ethics, I consult somebody who specializes in ethics, not somebody who reduces it to neurotransmitters. If I want more fulfilling spiritual experience, I consult a priest or somebody else who approaches the spirit as the spirit, not someone who views it as a byproduct of evolution.
[/QUOTE]

It is my belief that chemicals are composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons, neutrons and protons, the latter two of which are composed of quarks. Quarks and electrons are probably composed of something else, but to my knowledge we do not know what. Yet, if you want to know about some complex chemical reaction, you would consult a chemist, not a particle physicist. Does this mean that there is “something else” involved in chemistry that is beyond the scope of particle physics?

I absolutely believe that there are different levels of comprehension, but there is nothing about it that requires “something more” to be added to reach the next level. In fact, since you brought up mathematics, the higher levels of understanding are often a result of abstraction: the process of removing specifics from consideration. As I recall from the other thread, C. S. Lewis had some rather negative things to say about this process, but that is how a theory of mind will come about.

All of these things are available in a physicalist and atheist world.

148

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There’s no way a 7 year old understands Christian doctrine.
[/QUOTE]
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.”
-Jesus

:smiley:

149

[QUOTE=Sitnam]
He addresses this several times with examples like the teapot specialists and the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It would be like me saying to you, ‘Since you have not read the scripture of our Lord Spaghetti Monster you therefore are not qualified to comment on his existence’.
[/QUOTE]

I skipped over that argument from Dawkins at the start of the thread because I presumed no one on this board takes it serious anymore. But to rehash earlier threads on the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, analogies like that are not valid because nobody actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and only a small number occasionally pretend to believe in it.

Firstly, that’s not the only instance in which Bernie demonstrated his understanding of what Jesus was all about, and Bernie is not the only kid who’s done so in my experience. But in response to your main point, your standard is different than mine. I don’t demand that any person (child or adult) be able to “evaluate complex theological or philosophical ideas within any kind of educated context about humanity, history, or science”. I’m willing to acknowledge their choices and respect their ability to make those choices, provided that they understand the big ideas. (The big ideas underlying Christianity, in this case.) The fact that many that many of the supposedly intellectual elite in our society don’t grasp those same ideas makes it more impressive, but doesn’t affect the basic argument about the children. Also, as you may have guessed from some earlier posts and threads, I disagree with some of our society’s general definition of what constitutes intelligence. I would not hesitate to say that I’ve met high-school dropouts who are smarter than some of my college professors.

150

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What lies did it teach you?
[/QUOTE]

Many, the main onces being that there is no God, that humans are merely animals, that there is no overriding purpose beyond personal happiness, that the correct goal in life is to pursue wealth and prestige, that I should ignore most of my heritage, and that I must obey certain people and organization who were not actually worthy of my respect.

(And let me preempt two possible objections. Objection one is that no one actually taught me exactly these things in so many words. That’s true in some cases, but these things are what I picked up in total during my education and my secular educators certainly leaned in these directions. Objection two, already made by enterprise, is that I’ve unfairly blamed atheism for the mistakes in my upbringing. In fact, I never blamed atheism. I do blame secular thinking, which arises from a mixture of atheists, agnostics, and lukewarm religious believers. But the important point, and the whole reason I brought this topic up, is that I do not want to force anyone to adopt my viewpoint on child-rearing.)

151

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I skipped over that argument from Dawkins at the start of the thread because I presumed no one on this board takes it serious anymore. But to rehash earlier threads on the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, analogies like that are not valid because nobody actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and only a small number occasionally pretend to believe in it.
[/QUOTE]

That fact that no one believes in it is the reason it’s brought up. It’s an illustration of how Atheists view religion and an attempt to get the faithful to understand what you sound like to us. The bottom line is I have as much proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists as you have for any supreme being.

Unless of course you’re willing to take the position that Gods existence is dependent on how many believers he has, in which case what was he doing before people believed in him?

152

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I skipped over that argument from Dawkins at the start of the thread because I presumed no one on this board takes it serious anymore. But to rehash earlier threads on the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, analogies like that are not valid because nobody actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and only a small number occasionally pretend to believe in it.
[/quote]
What about fairies? I’ve met people who (claimed to) sincerely believe in fairies–little magical people with beating wings and hearts. Meeting such a person was a major step towards (or back to) atheism, since despite much study I was unable to distinguish my belief from hers, and I found hers laughable.

Do you think I was unqualified to dismiss the existence of fairies without first doing a thorough study of A. C. Doyle’s writings on the subject? Is the existence of fairies within the purview of science? What about the existence of Bigfoot? Dragons? Ivory-billed woodpeckers? Why or why not?

153

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Many, the main onces being that there is no God, that humans are merely animals, that there is no overriding purpose beyond personal happiness, that the correct goal in life is to pursue wealth and prestige, that I should ignore most of my heritage, and that I must obey certain people and organization who were not actually worthy of my respect.

(And let me preempt two possible objections. Objection one is that no one actually taught me exactly these things in so many words. That’s true in some cases, but these things are what I picked up in total during my education and my secular educators certainly leaned in these directions. Objection two, already made by enterprise, is that I’ve unfairly blamed atheism for the mistakes in my upbringing. In fact, I never blamed atheism. I do blame secular thinking, which arises from a mixture of atheists, agnostics, and lukewarm religious believers. But the important point, and the whole reason I brought this topic up, is that I do not want to force anyone to adopt my viewpoint on child-rearing.)
[/QUOTE]

ITR Champion, it seems rather strange to claim that any of the above can be called “lies”. A lie, by most counts, would be stating something that you know to be false. I don’t know that it’s false to say God doesn’t exist, therefore I can’t really lie about that particular topic. Nor, I would say, could any atheist really. Nor could you – for in all fairness you would have to say that you believe in God’s existence, but cannot prove Her; therefore, there are no facts to contradict, and no lies to be told.

What you perceived as lies are attitudes that are not best blamed on secular thinking – remember Max Weber’s thesis that it was precisely religious thoughts that led to capitalism. You needn’t buy into Weber’s thesis, however, to argue that it’s religious organizations as well as secular ones that rack in the money at every opportunity.

Whether you personally believe that humans are animals (I don’t see on what basis they are not, but YMDV, obviously), whether you want to ignore, dwell on or cherrypick your heritage, and whether you obey people who you consider unworthy, has no direct relation to atheism, secularism, or half-religiosity, unless you can show cause and effect. I don’t doubt that you believe that these are responsible, but I’d love to know how…

154

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I skipped over that argument from Dawkins at the start of the thread because I presumed no one on this board takes it serious anymore. But to rehash earlier threads on the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, analogies like that are not valid because nobody actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and only a small number occasionally pretend to believe in it.
[/quote]

The fact that no one believes it is the point. It’s not supposed to be believable, it’s supposed to be absurd. The challenge to theists is to explain why their own beliefs are any less absurd or any more believable that the FSM or the IPU, it’s not an attempt to argue that the analogies are plausible, it’s an effort to get theists to distinguish their own beliefs from any other random, far-fetched scenario that anyone can dream up. Saying that traditional god beliefs are different from the FSM simply because people believe the former and not the latter is begging the question and missing the point. The question is WHY do people believe the former and not the latter?

Well, the example you gave does not constitute a demonstration of "what Jesus was all about, only a partial retention of story and character. Christian doctrine is not just about a guy who came back from the dead and retention of a plot point does not equal theological comprehension.

The kid you’re talking about didn’t make a choice. He was just parroting back what was told to him, and a 7-year-old cannot begin to grasp the “big ideas” behind Christianity. They can’t understand concepts like “sin” or “redemption,” or really even “God,” and they do not have the ability to evaluate the credibility of theological claims through any application of science, history, logical method or comparison to contrary claims.

Education and intelligence are two different things, for sure, but with 7 year olds, we aren’t just talking about lack of education but lack of complete brain development. They simply do not have the physiological brain capacity to grasp the implications, the reasoning or the depth of the concepts which are taught to them. Being able to follow simple story outlines is about the best they’re going to be able to do, aside from maybe parakeeting back the occasional pious platitude.

Another objection you didn’t mention is that some of what you listed cannot be fairly categorized as “lies.” Assuming anyone in the course of your secular education told you “there is no God,” (something I don’t find believable), what is your proof that it’s a lie?

Human beings ARE animals, are they not? How is that a lie? What else are they? Prove it.

I have no idea what you mean about being told to “ignore your heritage.” What is your heritage and who told you to ignore it?

As to all that jazz about pursuit of wealth and happiness and personal status above all else, as well as respecting unworthy authoruty – none of that is the product of secularism. That’s good old fashioned conservatism. Secularists are the ones who object to that stuff and get called commies for it.

155

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Many, the main onces being that … that humans are merely animals …
[/QUOTE]

Question: what is the difference between humans being animals (as the atheists have said) and humans being “merely” animals?

156

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Again, all I can say is that such an analysis (if it ever came to exist) would miss key components of the higher functions of the brain. I have never seen any indication that a purely physical analysis of the brain’s response to art has lead to better art, or that a purely physical analysis of the brain’s formation of ethics has led to better ethics, or that a purely physical analysis of the mental dimensions of spirituality has led to better spirituality. If I want to get better art, I consult an artist, not a scientist. If I want better ethics, I consult somebody who specializes in ethics, not somebody who reduces it to neurotransmitters. If I want more fulfilling spiritual experience, I consult a priest or somebody else who approaches the spirit as the spirit, not someone who views it as a byproduct of evolution.
[/quote]
Possibly because we can’t fully do those things yet. What if we understood the brain to the extent that we could “induce” a spiritual experience? I’m not saying “Ha, it’s fake, look, we can make it ourselves” - you could equally say that we’re merely better able to understand the spiritual nature of the world. If we could induce a spiritual experience in the brain, I expect it would be highly popular. If we could understand how art affects the brain, I believe we could make “better” (or at least, more affecting) art.

As far as ethics goes; you probably don’t want that alone. But you would want that as well.

But your designation of the physical understanding of the brain is an opinion, and one I don’t agree with. And I would point out that without level zero, you wouldn’t have level one or two, so i’m not entirely sure this is the best example for you, unless you’re suggesting one cannot understand spirituality without first understanding the physical effects of it..

I would say that relies on both opinion and that there are such things being true, your evidence for which seemingly being “We don’t understand it, therefore we will never understand it, it is beyond science”.

157

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Many, the main onces being that there is no God, that humans are merely animals, that there is no overriding purpose beyond personal happiness, that the correct goal in life is to pursue wealth and prestige, that I should ignore most of my heritage, and that I must obey certain people and organization who were not actually worthy of my respect.
[/QUOTE]
While I personally do not feel that any other than the first two are particularly atheist ideas (at the very least I certainly don’t believe them), and I wouldn’t call humans “merely” animals, since we’re very much above them intellectually if not spiritually - these things would only be lies if the person telling you this was lying. Is it your belief that the atheists in your upbringing did not truly believe what they taught you?

158

[QUOTE=Enterprise]
ITR Champion, it seems rather strange to claim that any of the above can be called “lies”. A lie, by most counts, would be stating something that you know to be false. I don’t know that it’s false to say God doesn’t exist, therefore I can’t really lie about that particular topic. Nor, I would say, could any atheist really. Nor could you – for in all fairness you would have to say that you believe in God’s existence, but cannot prove Her; therefore, there are no facts to contradict, and no lies to be told.
[/QUOTE]

The word “lie” means different things when applied to an individual versus when applied to attitudes coming from society as a whole. In the former case, it means what you say. In the latter case, calling a statement a lie means that it’s a false statement which has been absorbed by so many people that it’s become the norm, and is no longer questioned as it should be. That, at least, is how I see the word used. If I read Lies My TeacherTold Me by James Loewen, I would not expect a literal indictment of Lowen’s teacher, but rather an analysis of incorrect beliefs that have managed to take over.

159

So ITR champion, in the nature of debate and honest discourse are you going to answer Dio and I’s question?

160

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
The word “lie” means different things when applied to an individual versus when applied to attitudes coming from society as a whole. In the former case, it means what you say. In the latter case, calling a statement a lie means that it’s a false statement which has been absorbed by so many people that it’s become the norm, and is no longer questioned as it should be. That, at least, is how I see the word used. If I read Lies My TeacherTold Me by James Loewen, I would not expect a literal indictment of Lowen’s teacher, but rather an analysis of incorrect beliefs that have managed to take over.
[/QUOTE]

I appreciate that you’re sticking to this thread even though you seem to get no backup, so I hesitate to say it this bluntly, but you’ve completely not answered the point. In either the “former” or the “latter” case, a lie is a false statement. Saying that God doesn’t exist isn’t a false statement. Saying that God exists isn’t a false statement. They are both opinions, one, in my humble opinion, much more likely than the other. But no possible, accepted definition of “lie” will ever cover these two statements (unless God reveals itself to us).

Loewen’s book is a strawman, in this case. There are actual false statements that he shows in his books, not opinions that cannot be proved one way or the other.