The ol' Is Atheism a Religion debate revisited

[Liberal]

Spiritus

I agree that a distinction should be made between the different uses of the word “faith”. I simply do not see the particular categorization that Morriston chose as a meaningful or valid one.

I guess you mean “natural” (faith that people do not occaisionally turn into turnips when you are not looking at them) and “optional” (faith that you will go to Valhalla if you die in battle) as applied to Gaudere’s summation of your point. How would you rephrase her summation, and what categorization would you find meaningful and valid?

It is by no means certain that the neurological effects which accompany religious ideations in this population also occur in the general population.

Exactly. Hence, the hedging with “seems”.

Pinqy

Your argument assumes that we know enough to have some definitions to say what is or is not logical and/or necessary beyond that which we can observe and test.

Good point. You can always count on a good laugh by looking back at the pronouncements of evangelical scientists in the past.

[David_B]

Poly said:

I think that probably Gaudere and David would be disinclined to believe even their own subjective evidence, because it does not stand up to the general rule they have established for evidence.

Well, that depends. Gaudere has already covered this somewhat, but let me add a bit.

If I were abducted by aliens who were so smart and advanced that they left NO objective evidence, and I was sure that this wasn’t a hypnogogic/hypnopompic illusion, etc., then I’d have to change my world view. But I’d also recognize that nobody else is likely to believe me, because I wouldn’t have believed me if it hadn’t happened to me, and because I would not have objective evidence.

Does this mean I’m going to start believing every UFO case that comes along now? No. It’s a hypothetical situation which very likely won’t happen. But there is a big difference between believing something that happened TO you and believing something you just heard about.

Now, if I were under the influence of psychadelic drugs and during that time thought I was abducted by glowing raccoons, I would have to take into account the possibility that the drugs had some effect. But I’m talking more about a situation in which I have examined my own subjective evidence to be sure that I was not hallucinating it.

So, from a religious standpoint, if Jesus appeared to me and said, “Thou shalt believe,” I’d have to try to figure out what had happened. If it happened just as I was drifting off to sleep or in the middle of the night when I was half-asleep and groggy, I’d most likely rack it up to eating something rich too close to bedtime. But if it were the middle of the day, I hadn’t had any alcohol, etc., I was wide awake, and it just poof happened, then I’d have to more seriously consider it, in light of whatever else was going on.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lib
I have not seen Gaudere attempt a classification. She, like I, has only given examples that seem to support th eidea that the word faith can be used with markedly different connotations. The “natural” vs “optional” classification of Morriston is simply untenable, though.

It seems poitnless to further disect teh “seems always” phrase. I trust we both understand that Ramachandran’s work has demonstrated nothing conclusive about the way that human beings experience faith.

Bob Cos
Well – to hit the most obvious example of curcularity first: why do you use the word “entity”? This, like Acquinas’ own conclusions, is the resuly of an a priori assumption about the qualities that an “ultimate mover” must possess.

Remember, unlike that bum Aquinas, I’m not discussing the nature of this entity.

But you are – simply by postualting that it is an “entity”.

I also absolutely allow that this “blank area” may be filled with something completely different should our understanding of the causality of the physical world change.

Different from what? The only things which can be “differed from” are your own preconceptions, since we have neither evidence nor a chain of reason with which to “fill in teh blank”.

why is this circular?

It is circular because what is “proved” is, in fact, only what is assumed beforehand. Acquinas’ syllogism is simply not capable of demonstrating any other result. It has no means of piercing the veil and revealing the ultimate mover. It simply points to a shadow and says, “See! God lives there.”

Other assumptions that are implicit in the argument: causality has always bound our Universe, all things travel in the same temporal “direction”, the generative act of our Universe must have carried intent, an external progenitor must possess other “extraordinary” characteristics. There are more, but those should be sufficient to demonstrate that we are not dealing with an iron-clad exercise in reason, here.

I guess that’s what I’m asserting: in the absence of some other evidence, mustn’t we assume that cause and effect holds true, that the “something else” that, perhaps, we can’t experience is unknown and therefore not subject to argument (right now, anyway),

We do not need to, but even if we do assume causality held in the first moments of creation, it tells us nothing about the “cause” of creation. We certainly cannot assume that our causality held before creation (and therefore bound the act itself). Causality is meaningless without time.

doesn’t your assertion that I don’t know enough to say what is “logical” (I’m assuming you mean none of us do) support the notion that atheism is (like everything else) an act of faith

Sure. So long as you include the qualifier “like everything else”. Everything. Atheism requires exactly the same amount of faith as the most trivial of human endeavors.

am genuinely interested in your (and the rest of the gang’s) argument against God when (for the sake of this argument) we don’t assign any particulars to Him

I have no argument egainst a “God with no particulars”. I also have no argument against anything else which is not defined. Do you have an argument for a hypothetical construct with no defined traits?

Nothing wrong with saying, “I have no idea.” But I’m going to hold fast, for the moment at least, that what I’m advancing (while not conclusive with scientific finality!) is something more than just wishful thinking. Am I all wet?

If Acquinas’ mover is the only support you have then, yes, you are in ganger of dripping on the metaphysical carpet.

[Conteacher]

We can argue this till the cows come home and still not reach a concensus. Belief in a god requires faith in what cannot be proved. Disbelief regarding a god also requires faith in what cannot be proved. Science doesn’t work on faith, and any scientist who refers to a belief in God is only trying to avoid bring ripped asunder by the orthodox
braindead masses

[Liberal]

Spiritus

I have not seen Gaudere attempt a classification.

[sigh…]

That’s because she didn’t. She said you attempted one, which I’ve quoted now repeatedly. One more time to make sure you understand this:

GAUDERE WROTE:

As Spiritus noted, there seems to be a difference between faith that (A) you will go to Valhalla if you die in battle and faith that **(B)**people do not occaisionally turn into turnips when you are not looking at them.

A corresponds exactly to Morriston’s “optional faith”, and B corresponds to Morriston’s “natural faith”.

She, like I, has only given examples that seem to support th eidea that the word faith can be used with markedly different connotations.

Yeah. That’s what Morriston was saying, too. Yeesh.

The “natural” vs “optional” classification of Morriston is simply untenable, though.

LOL! Oh is it now? Did you read the entire context of how he drew the classification, or did you just go, “Well, Lib wrote that down, so I’ll disagree with it.”

Support your assertion that his classification is “simply untenable”. Perhaps you could teach him some philosophy.

It seems poitnless to further disect teh “seems always” phrase. I trust we both understand that Ramachandran’s work has demonstrated nothing conclusive about the way that human beings experience faith.

It has conclusively demonstrated that faith shows up on a GSR kit as responses to religious icons and images, and therefore involves the limbic system. What it has not proved (yet) is that the limbic system is the source of those reactions.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lib:
I illustrated in my very first post on the subject how easily Morriston’s categorization reduces to absurdity. The fact that you were the one who introduced the topic to this discussion is not causal to my ability to see it as fallacious. Please take your martyr act on the road (to the PIT, I assume). It is misplaced here. Also misplaced are your oblique references to an argument from authority. Morriston’s status has no bearing on the soundness of his argument. If unanimity is required for a faith to be “netural” then it is trivial to demonstrate that there is no “natural” human faith. Morriston’s distinction is flawed.

As to Ramachandran’s work, it seems you are missing the significance of his pre-chosen population. He has not demonstrated that the expression of faith is alway accompanied by activity in the limbic system. He has demonstrated only that expressions of faith characteristic of this particular sub-population of epileptics is accompanied by acticity in the limbic system. At least, that is the understanding of his study that teh second-hand accounts I have read imply. I have said already that I have not read his work. If you have evidence that he has strongly tied his work to all expressions of faith in teh general population then I will suspend judgment until I have had a chance to evalluate that work.

[Liberal]

Spiritus

I illustrated in my very first post on the subject how easily Morriston’s categorization reduces to absurdity.

Yeah, I remember the post. It was the one wherein you said “No,” in response to his assertion that validating reason as an epistemology with reason as a tool begs the question. wasn’t it?

From that post:

This distinction is attractive on its face, but inherently absurd when examined closely. If the distinction between a “natural” faith and an “optional” faith is unanimity of belief, then all one must do to reduce the set of natural faiths to null is find the nearest ardent nihilist.

That would be a good rebuttal if Morriston had said anything about unanimity of belief, but he didn’t. He said “There is an important distinction between a faith (in the reliability of sense perception, for instance) that no one can help having, and a faith (a religious one, for example) that is not universally shared…”

It is a universally shared attribute that if you see a chair in front of you, you believe the chair exists. It isn’t that a poll is taken as to whether others agree with you that there is a chair there; it is the fact that everybody who sees a chair in front of him believes that the chair he sees exists — just like you do!

Please take your martyr act…

Oh, Spiritus. Be nice.

As to Ramachandran’s work, it seems you are missing the significance of his pre-chosen population.

Actually, he explains that significance:

One of the ideas — the notion that kindling has indiscriminately strengthened all connections from the temporal cortex to the amygdala — can be addressed directly by studying the patient’s galvanic skin response. Ordinarily an object is recognized by the visual areas of the temporal lobes. Its emotional salience — is it a friendly face or a fierce lion? — is signaled by the amygdala and transmitted to the limbic system so that you become emotionally aroused and start sweating. But if the kindling has strengthened all the connections within theses pathways, then everything becomes salient. No matter what you look at — a nondescript stranger, a chair or a table — it should activate the limbic system strongly and make you perspirte. So unlike you and me, who should display a heightened GSR response only for our moms, dads, spouses or lions, or even a loud thud or bang, the patient with temporal lobe epilepsy should show an increased galvanic skin response to everything under the sun

As I told you, the results surprised him.

If you and I were to undergo this exercise, we would show huge GSR responses to the scenes of violence and to the sexually explicit words and pictures, a fairly large resonse to familiar faces and usually nothing at all to other categories (unless you have a shoe fetish, in which case you’d respond to one).

What about the patients? The kindling hypothesis would predict a uniform high response to all categories. But to our amazement what we found in the two patients tested was a heightened response mainly to religious words and icons. Their responses to the other categories, including the sexual words and images, which ordinarily evoke a powerful response, was strangely diminished compared to what is seen in nrmal individuals.

He hasn’t (or hadn’t) drawn any final conclusions yet, other than the conclusion that the limbic system seems always to play a role in the apprehension of God. As I explained, he does not know yet (or at least, didn’t know at that time) whether that role is primary or ancillary.

If you have evidence that he has strongly tied his work to all expressions of faith in teh general population then I will suspend judgment until I have had a chance to evalluate that work.

He hasn’t “strongly tied” it to anything at all except what I told you. I agree that reading it before commenting would be a good idea.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

That would be a good rebuttal if Morriston had said anything about unanimity of belief, but he didn’t. He said “There is an important distinction between a faith (in the reliability of sense perception, for instance) that no one can help having, and a faith (a religious one, for example) that is not universally shared…”

Ah, I see. It is not unanimous it is universally shared. Please explain to me the fone distinction between these positions. I see none.

It is a universally shared attribute that if you see a chair in front of you, you believe the chair exists. It isn’t that a poll is taken as to whether others agree with you that there is a chair there; it is the fact that everybody who sees a chair in front of him believes that the chair he sees exists — just like you do!

Everyone except strict nihilists and practitioners of certain zen disciplines and some Bhuddists and some folk who are simply delusional. It ain’t universally shared, Lib, it just happens to fir in with Morriston’s (and many others) assumptions about the nature of the Universe. the chair example happens to accord with my own, too, but that doesn’t mean I support the hubristic assignment of it to the class “natural: universally shared (but not unanimous, ref. Libertarian)”.

Yeah, I remember the post. It was the one wherein you said “No,” in response to his assertion that validating reason as an epistemology with reason as a tool begs the question. wasn’t it?

I have no idea what you remember. What I said was, “Our faith in reason is supported by a massive accumulation of empirical evidence which convinces us that reason is the most accurate tool we have found for apprehending and predicting our environment.” I am certain that you are giving that statement a peaceful and honest interpretation. You can imagine how anxious I am to hear what it will be.

Actually, he explains that significance:

The passage you quoted offers nothing to support generalizing from the responses of these patients.

Ramachandran to our amazement what we found in the two patients tested was a heightened response mainly to religious words and icons.

Lib the limbic system seems always to play a role in the apprehension of God.

2 patients with altered neurology respponding to religious icons and imagery == every possible apprehension of God by human beings.

Not without a lot more work it doesn’t.

I agree that reading it before commenting would be a good idea.

I might say the same about comprehending, Lib. This is not the first time I have run across these results. I first heard about them in 1997, and I have read more than one summary of the findings. What I have not done is read the original research. From your comments thus far, I am confident that you have not either. I have, however, read your gross overstatements of the significance of the results and I feel quite qualified to comment upon them. This despite the fact, as I said before, that if the results prove valid I think it would support my position in this discusison quite nicely.

Oh, Spiritus. Be nice.

I was being nice, Lib. Then you decided to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty in regards to this thread. I do not accept such slurs as lightly as you apparently offer them. I find the tactic neither peaceful nor honest.

[Liberal]

Spiritus

Ah, I see. It is not unanimous it is universally shared. Please explain to me the fone distinction between these positions. I see none.

Well, the fone distinction is that unanimous speaks to consent — animus, get it?:

Main Entry: unan·i·mous
Pronunciation: yu-'na-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin unanimus, from unus one + animus mind – more at ONE, ANIMATE
Date: 1624
1 : being of one mind : AGREEING
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all

• unan·i·mous·ly adverb

As I explained, Morriston was not talking about a matter of consent, but of observation.

Everyone except strict nihilists and practitioners of certain zen disciplines and some Bhuddists and some folk who are simply delusional.

Weird.

I think it is obvious that Morriston meant that natural faith is universally shared among normal people. People who don’t see a chair that is in front of them, assuming they have the sense of sight, are exercising optional faith.

What I said was, “Our faith in reason is supported by a massive accumulation of empirical evidence which convinces us that reason is the most accurate tool we have found for apprehending and predicting our environment.”

Yeah. You begged the question. Case closed.

The passage you quoted offers nothing to support generalizing from the responses of these patients.

That’s because I didn’t offer it for that purpose.

The passage was a response to this: “As to Ramachandran’s work, it seems you are missing the significance of his pre-chosen population.”

The passage explained why his pre-chosen population was significant. (Temporal lobe epilepsy ought to show heightened GSR for everything under the sun, whereas … etc.)

2 patients with altered neurology respponding to religious icons and imagery == every possible apprehension of God by human beings.

Altered in a specific way, Spiritus. He explained in excruciating detail why temporal lobe epilepsy makes for the perfect subject for his GSR experiment. Have someone read and explain the passage to you.

Not without a lot more work it doesn’t.

“Seems”, Spiritus. Does your screen blot that word out or something?

What I have not done is read the original research. From your comments thus far, I am confident that you have not either.

What I read is what I claimed to have read, namely, his book, Phantoms in the Brain.

I have, however, read your gross overstatements of the significance of the results and I feel quite qualified to comment upon them.

Oh, that’s just you. You have an uncanny knack for misinterpreting any arbitrary thing I say into a context that you have presumed, driven by your dislike for me. I’ve learned to live with it.

I was being nice, Lib. Then you decided to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty in regards to this thread. I do not accept such slurs as lightly as you apparently offer them. I find the tactic neither peaceful nor honest.

Oh, that’s just you again. I accused you of nothing. I merely defended myself from your accusations.

In fact, this all began when I attempted to give support to an assertion Gaudere said you made by citing the agreement of a known specialist in the field, whose conclusion matched yours. But when you saw “Libertarian” by the post, you assumed the worst and started slapping at your keys.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lib:
u·nan·i·mous (y-nn-ms)
adj. Abbr. unan.

1.Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord.

For instance, the view that when we see a chair in front of us there really is a chair. Or when we see a person selecting from among common definitions in order to bias an observer then that person is fundamentally dishonest.

As I explained, Morriston was not talking about a matter of consent, but of observation.

No. The act of observation is insufficient for Morriston’s view. There must also be the act of faith that the observation represents an accurate view of reality.

I think it is obvious that Morriston meant that natural faith is universally shared among normal people. People who don’t see a chair that is in front of them, assuming they have the sense of sight, are exercising optional faith.

How convenient. “Universally shared” == “shared by all normal people” == “agrees with me”.

me: What I said was, “Our faith in reason is supported by a massive accumulation of empirical evidence which convinces us that reason is the most accurate tool we have found for apprehending and predicting our environment.”

you: Yeah. You begged the question. Case closed.

Hmm – reason is supported by long experience and pragmatic results. This begs the question only if you assume that causality, observation and pragmatism are solely tools of reason.

Or perhaps you have another point. It is difficult to guess, since your preferred method of response is to simply toss labels about with demonstrating how the labels apply.

Altered in a specific way, Spiritus. He explained in excruciating detail why temporal lobe epilepsy makes for the perfect subject for his GSR experiment. Have someone read and explain the passage to you.

Physician, heal thyself.

He explained why he thought the population would demonstrate certain observable symptoms. He also stated that his assumptions were not accurate. He at no point offered any reason to suppose the neurolgical responses of these two patients could be reasonably extrapolated to the expereince of faith among all humans.

“Seems”, Spiritus. Does your screen blot that word out or something?

“Always” Lib. Do your prejudices blind you to the implications of your own words? Ramachandran’s work, even if sound and reproducable, says nothing about how faith is “always” apprehended by the human brain.

Oh, that’s just you. You have an uncanny knack for misinterpreting any arbitrary thing I say into a context that you have presumed, driven by your dislike for me. I’ve learned to live with it.

You have an uncanny knack for denying the implications of your own statements. The context I supply is logic and consistency. It does, though, seem to be a context with which you are uncomfortable. I am glad you have learned to live with it.

I accused you of nothing. I merely defended myself from your accusations.

This is a lie. You implied that I would disagree with a position simply because it had ben authored by you. That amounts to an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, this all began when I attempted to give support to an assertion Gaudere said you made by citing the agreement of a known specialist in the field, whose conclusion matched yours.

The support you offered represented shoddy reason. Had I accepted it simply because it agreed (or seemed to) with my position would make me no better than the caricature of me you carry in your imagination.

My position on Ramachandran’s work is similar, as I have explained more than once. That you are unable to recognize the intellectual ethic required for me to find fault with a result that supports my view surprises me not at all.

when you saw “Libertarian” by the post, you assumed the worst and started slapping at your keys.

This is a lie. It is also an ad hominem attack. How delightfully ironic and yet wholly unsurprising.

[knappy]

Throwing in my 2 cents (as a theist)…

I won’t presume to try to tell anyone what they know vs. what they believe on the question of the existence of God. So if someone says that they know God doesn’t exist in the same way they know the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist or that the sun will rise tomorrow, they are perfectly justified in doing so, on the basis of freedom of religion. However, speaking strictly for myself, I don’t see how I could acquire a conviction as to the nonexistence of God without taking a leap of faith.

For the hard atheists who have stated that their conviction that God doesn’t exist has something to do with science: I understand that natural explanations given by science may liberate you from having to believe in God. For example, evolution elegantly explains why there are many species of living things, without need for a hypothesis that each species was designed separately. For other areas of science such as cosmology, where the theories & hypotheses are more controversial and less certain, you have the option of believing that the correct theory will be identified, and refined so that it is more and more certainly true. So, science gives a freedom to believe in the existence of God or not.

I can’t personally take it a step further, and conclude that science provides a presumption that there is no God, based on God being conspicuously absent from science’s content. The reason science doesn’t deal with the question of God’s existence is that it’s not a falsifiable proposition, and science deals only with falsifiable propositions. To put it another way, if a theory involves the existence of God, then it’s not a scientific theory. It’s a tautology that science doesn’t deal with questions of God’s existence, of the trivial kind, similar to saying that all rectangles have 4 sides. The definition of science precludes consideration of whether God exists. In my experience, any time I’ve felt that I’ve derived a meaningful insight based on a tautology, I generally realize later that I was begging the question.

It seems like the most I can conclude about science is that the data hasn’t yet painted us into a corner of saying that the only possible explanation is that God exists. In other words, science hasn’t proven the existence of God.

[Polycarp]

::: bows humbly at Knappy, applauds, and begins to recite the “Nunc Dimittis” :::

[pldennison]

The reason science doesn’t deal with the question of God’s existence is that it’s not a falsifiable proposition, and science deals only with falsifiable propositions.

Nonsense. God’s existence is an eminently falsifiable proposition–he either exists or he does not. The excluded middle, and all that. The fact that it isn’t falsifiable using the tools of science does not mean it isn’t falsifiable at all.

[Liberal]

Spiritus

It is also an ad hominem attack.

You too! You too!

Phil

The fact that it isn’t falsifiable using the tools of science does not mean it isn’t falsifiable at all.

Wow. Thanks for awakening in me a whole new understanding.

[pldennison]

I hope you aren’t being sarcastic, Lib. Sometimes I can’t tell with you.

[Liberal]

No, Phil, I am sincere.

While I have always comprehended that the question-begging nature of reason (and therefore science) could not prove anything exists (or not), it had never dawned on me, until now, that Absolute Truth consists entirely of axioms.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lib:

You too! You too!

A new interpretation of the phrase “regression to the means”?

[Polycarp]

Phil said:

Nonsense. God’s existence is an eminently falsifiable proposition–he either exists or he does not. The excluded middle, and all that. The fact that it isn’t falsifiable using the tools of science does not mean it isn’t falsifiable at all.

To give Knappy a break, Phil, I suspect that’s what he meant, though probably he should have specified. But tell me, if the proposition is “not falsifiable using the tools of science,” does the fault lie with the proposition or with the tools? Heinlein once commented in a letter that he refuses to debate religion because God is indefinable – everybody has their own meaning for the term. Since I believe you would admit that the question is quite important, whichever answer results, what would be the appropriate tools with which to analyze it?

Lib and S/M: Over on the Fathom board, we have a joke thread in which we develop “designer Hells” specially tailored by the Divine Weasel to be the ultimate torture for each poster. But it would appear that you two have already discovered the appropriate ones for yourselves.

[Liberal]

Oh, I greatly enjoy my repartees with Spiritus. By his kindness, he agrees with nothing I say, knowing that if he did, I would faint flat out.

[pldennison]

But tell me, if the proposition is “not falsifiable using the tools of science,” does the fault lie with the proposition or with the tools? Heinlein once commented in a letter that he refuses to debate religion because God is indefinable – everybody has their own meaning for the term. Since I believe you would admit that the question is quite important, whichever answer results, what would be the appropriate tools with which to analyze it?

I don’t have an answer for your last question, Poly, except for perhaps “personal judgement.” Either you believe it, or you don’t. I don’t. (That, of course, doesn’t falsify or fail to falsify the proposition, it merely issues a position on it.)

As for the first part, in my opinion the problem is in the proposition. Science, or reason if you prefer, is a useful enough tool for understanding the universe. “God,” however, is usually defined in a nebulous enough manner as to make reason useless in investigating the proposition (as we’ve seen debated ad nauseum).