tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post980576518444392898..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: My Magical Mind and GodMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41564983847977271512010-04-13T08:46:46.684-07:002010-04-13T08:46:46.684-07:00A new blog relevant to this topic:
The Thoughtful ...A new blog relevant to this topic:<br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/" rel="nofollow">The Thoughtful Animal</a><br /><br />Our minds are not so vastly different from those of "lower" animals than we like to imagine.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81491186322323378382010-04-08T06:10:19.753-07:002010-04-08T06:10:19.753-07:00Light = Consciousness = intelligence
Matt, you ar...Light = Consciousness = intelligence<br /><br />Matt, you are not addressing the issue very well. Looking for NCC's to prove consciousness is material is a lost cause. You need to understand that light beams are the source for consciousness and not some fleshy piece. And light beams are not material.<br /><br /><br /><br />Thus, the photons which constitute a ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: out of all possible curves they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their goal.<br /><br />Max Planck (1858 - 1947)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34481235622648126092010-04-07T21:38:35.464-07:002010-04-07T21:38:35.464-07:00Thanks Professor Sotnak. Yeah, this is a peculiar...Thanks Professor Sotnak. Yeah, this is a peculiar view. Materialism must be rejected because it can't explain qualia. And if a theory doesn't explain everything then it is inadequate. But monist, dualist, epiphenomenalist, interactionist, and supervenience or mysterian views often posit qualia as an ontological basic that cannot be explained by anything more basic. But the inability to explain them is only seen as a liability for materialism. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11543402637595050762010-04-07T20:28:47.013-07:002010-04-07T20:28:47.013-07:00The claim that qualia or consciousness can only be...The claim that qualia or consciousness can only be explained by immaterial souls is really odd, when you think abut it. After all, what are the details of that story?<br /><br />Dualist: “Qualia/consciousness cannot be explained by mere brains. So we have to look to the soul. That explains everything perfectly. By positing immaterial souls, we can easily explain how qualia/consciousness are possible.”<br /><br />Me: “Wait... Exactly HOW does a soul explain consciousness?”<br /><br />Dualist: “Easy. Consciousness is a basic property of the soul. It is the kind of thing by nature than can be conscious.”<br /><br />Me: “So you explain how consciousness is possible by saying that it is possible for souls to be conscious, and that is because that's just what souls do?”<br /><br />Dualist; “Right.”Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14841595666447671292010-04-06T19:10:41.505-07:002010-04-06T19:10:41.505-07:00You could also track (as Dawkins does, I believe) ...You could also track (as Dawkins does, I believe) the "deity's purpose" over time. What I mean by that is how the concept of god keeps shrinking. <br /><br />If you were to look far back in history almost everything we experienced was attributed to something supernatural, be it god, or some other deity. As science progressed we slowly learned that the sun was not a god, nor the moon, nor the other stars, etc.<br /><br />God "shrunk." At our current position, where we have consistent scientific explanations for a wide range of phenomenae, you have very little that is unexplained. Origins of the Big Bang perhaps, or, as show, the explanations surrounding experiences on the neural level. <br /><br />If you were to draw a triangle (facing right), with just the tip cut off, you could use that to visually show the shrinking god effect. At the beginning of human consciousness, nearly (if not) all phenomenae would be attributed to some sort of supernatural event. As time continues, the phenomenae that is "unexplained" shrinks as science grows. Now, there are things we still don't know, but a huge order of magnitude less. <br /><br />Could you not make an argument about drawing the observed effect (the shrinking) to it's logical conclusion (non-existence)?<br /><br />For Anonymous,<br />Honestly, when people try that stuff with me I always start with "which god?" and go from there. It pretty much stops them in their tracks. "Why are you right, and so-and-so wrong?"<br /><br />Also, Matt's got some great stuff on here about proving a negative. It can actually be done.Matt Howerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61676027924443212102010-04-06T11:07:02.656-07:002010-04-06T11:07:02.656-07:00Thanks Unknowable. You're right about a lot o...Thanks Unknowable. You're right about a lot of this. And I see the same moves. We should be careful about generalizing too widely when it's really one person who makes one bad move, another person who makes another mistake, and yet another person who does X. I'm prone to sweep all of these together as "Christians" too, but I try to resist it. <br /><br />Here's what's important for a lot of people who are believers but they are still reachable, as it were. They need to see and hear thoughtful, reasonable people asking hard questions about theism and Christianity. And they need to see that atheism is a reasonable position. We are so inundated with belief that lots of people out there need to see good examples of smart, reflective atheists to know that it is a viable option. Then if we just keep pressing the points, the more clear headed ones will benefit from it. <br /><br />The claims that are frequently made about God "explaining everything," are interesting, but ill founded. What the God story does is provide a lot of psychological and cognitive relief for people who feel the urge to believe. But in any real, robust account of explanation the God story actually ends up with more hanging questions, and more bizarre implications, than the open issues in science that they fixate on. It's very hard to get them to appreciate that, however. Patience you must have. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23746109419459287802010-04-06T09:26:00.949-07:002010-04-06T09:26:00.949-07:00---
No matter how much we explicate, Christians w...---<br /><br />No matter how much we explicate, Christians will always dig one layer back, and claim in defiance, "What about that??!! You haven't explained that! You can't explain that!! Ergo, God did that!" Even if they concede that something is explained sufficiently through science, they'll play the shell game and say that's just the way that God chose to do it.<br /><br />There's no way to show them that not only is God not needed to explain the world around us (as far as we can tell), but if he's not needed, there's no reason to believe in him, and it's very likely that he doesn't exist.<br /><br />Also, I've been noticing a lot of Christians trying to shift the burden of proof onto atheists. They'll claim that everything "makes sense and is explained" once one accepts there is a God. Of course this isn't true, and I know that the burden of proof is on the theist, since the natural world is ubiquitously accepted and experienced, whereas there is no general consensus or delineation of the supernatural world, but Matt, do you have any advice on how to handle this trick that the theist plays?<br /><br />Thanks.Exploring the Unknowablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267687022642518868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76224510920236705422010-04-05T14:09:47.601-07:002010-04-05T14:09:47.601-07:00Matt,
I found your post fascinating. I have been ...Matt,<br /><br />I found your post fascinating. I have been investigating <a href="http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/04/neurophysiological-explanations-of_05.html" rel="nofollow">Neurophysiological explanations</a> for visions of Jesus lately. <br /><br />BTW, I am not surprised by Moreland, Swinburne and Adams. They are simply doing what Christians always do--say <i>Goddidit </i> for whatever science is not yet able to explain.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.com