Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(12-07-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Compelling examples? Look at my shiny new negative reputation from Vosur. Zero justification given. It would be emotionally unpleasant for him to articulate what he does not like about me. He avoids the pain by vagueness and blames me, not even saying what for.

Non-answer. Again.

Worse, actually. It's self-serving holier-than-thou armchair psychoanalysis straight from the loony bin.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(12-07-2014 08:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Non-answer. Again.

Worse, actually. It's self-serving holier-than-thou armchair psychoanalysis straight from the loony bin.

Well, yeah, there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(12-07-2014 08:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Non-answer. Again.

Worse, actually. It's self-serving holier-than-thou armchair psychoanalysis straight from the loony bin.

That is an apt description of every post of his for the last couple months.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 01:20 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 01:53 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
This Post Has Been Heavily Edited for Clarity Please Reload to See Final Edit

Ok let me take another tact. I am not asking why Atheist do not believe in God. This would be silly. I myself do not believe in God. To believe in God usually means to accept the Christian or Jewish concept of a God person and all that comes with that view. At the very least to say I believe in God entails belief based on faith in contrast to reasoning.

If there is any reasoning that leads the believer to belief in God the reasoning itself is suspect because of the inherent Confirmation Bias of having faith to begin with before attempting to reason things out. And finally to say that you believe in God may not automatically identify what religion you belong to it is usually meant to be taken as acceptance of some form of Monotheism.

Unfortunately the idea of a soul suffers the same problem. And this is because we let religion define our Metaphysical ideas. To most Atheist this is not perceived as a problem because many Atheist reject Metaphysics and philosophy in general in favor of the using scientific method and look at scientific evidence.

But that is the choice that certain Atheist have decided to follow.

I myself am very focused on what constitutes the Scientific Method and Scientific Evidence.

In fact as a Philosopher I have a deep and vested interest in the Philosophy of Science.

Quote:Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. There is no consensus on many central problems in philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all.

In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences such as biology or physics. Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy.

While the relevant history of philosophy dates back at least to Aristotle, philosophy of science emerged as a distinct discipline only in the middle of the 20th century in the wake of logical positivism, a movement that aimed to formulate criteria to ensure all philosophical statements' meaningfulness and objectively assess them.
Philosophy of science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I am getting at is something similar to what Sam Harris was getting at in his talk at the Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007

Quote:Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism.

We've all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn't exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn't" have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I've got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it.

So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason? It’s true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason.

In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It’s not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.

Now since I am not really into supporting left or right politics I am only marginally interested in some of his main points. Although I am pretty Liberal in my views and I definitely oppose the Religious Right and all they stand for I don't necessarily align myself with all the ideologies of the Democratic Party.

So why bring up his talk? Because I think there was a particular point in his talk when he made clear that we should not let religion define our position and the bridge from that to his idea on looking into Spirituality. And that was when he said...

"Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it."

This was the main idea that inspired my original post.

And I think it is clear that in this talk Sam Harris wants to distance himself a little from the "New Atheist" or the myth of the "militant atheist" (There is no such thing) and declare himself in more sympathy with Spiritual Atheist.

Quote:As you know, traditional Theists believe in a literal "God" who supposedly created and rules the universe; while traditional Atheists reject the idea of "God" altogether.

Generally, Spiritual Atheists are people who do not believe in a literal "God" (thus the term "Atheist"), but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) "Spiritual" people.

There is no consensus among Spiritual Atheists regarding the literal existence of one's own "spirit" or a collective "spirit"; however, there is consensus that if any "spirit" does exist, it is not external to the universe and it is not "supernatural".

Spiritual Atheists believe that nothing that exists or happens violates the nature of the universe; they believe that all such things only further define the nature of the universe
The Center for Spiritual Atheism

And Sam Harris addresses the problem I was trying to address in the second part of his talk.

Quote:The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature.

Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this. While I always use terms like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.

Sam Harris makes it clear that he is still an Atheist and still rejects religion but that he does not want this to define him and what types of thought he can legitimately support or pursue. And he goes on to say that being both spiritual and atheist is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.

Russell Blackford points out that it is a Myth that Atheist are certain that there is no God in Myth 4 of his book 50 great Myths About Atheism.

In this chapter he goes on to say although some Atheist do make the stronger claim that no God exist and that this conclusion is sufficiently supported by argument and evidence to count as knowledge ..that even that is not the same as a claim to certainty.

So if we as Atheist do not claim absolute certainty that a Monotheistic God exists then why jump to the conclusion that there is no reality whatsoever behind the idea of a awareness to the Universe that Pantheist see as God?

I am not asking why most Atheist are not Pantheist or even interested in Pantheism. I am asking the more fundamental question on why some atheist admit that even though Monotheism which paints God as a person is seen as a myth ...Atheist like Russell Blackford has no problem admitting that this knowledge is not a certainty.

Yet when most Atheist are asked about other Metaphysical ideas of God such as Pantheism they are certain that this is too vague a concept of God to even be considered. Yet ironically this is precisely the claim that Theologians make about Pantheism!

This is what happen when Atheist let theologians define concepts for them. My argument is that the best way to for Atheist to show the incoherent and erroneous nature of Theology is for Atheist to support real Philosophy and let Philosophy define Metaphysics instead of Theology.

I am trying to defend Philosophy from Theology by pointing out that Theology is not a branch of Philosophy. I even got in a debate with some Christians in my forum on why Theology has no basis to argue for or against Free Will. I point out to them that Theological arguments for Free Will are irrelevant to the Metaphysical question of Free Will because they almost always use Moral Arguments or Arguments from Necessity. But unfortunately these Christians never get the point of my argument enough to be persuaded that I even have a point.

Why?

Because most Atheist that argue with them accept their ideas in Metaphysics and reject all of Philosophy in the process. This legitimizes them by making Theology a Branch of Philosophy by default. Was Bertrand Russell and Atheist Philosopher? Yes and he accepted Philosophy as a legitimate discipline and Metaphysics as a real discipline. Is Daniel Dennet a real Philosopher ?

Maybe but if you will notice for an Atheist Philosopher to be taken seriously they now have to have mastered a scientific discipline and defend science. Like Thomas Kuhn I see this as a potential conflict of interest because this will lead to the high probability of defending what ever the current Paradigm is.

Sam Harris is Neurobiologist and Dennett is an independent Scholar like me when it comes to the Scientific Disciplines. And I am not suggesting that Science is irrelevant.

Far from it.

But I am only suggesting that Metaphysics is a legitimate discipline.

And in the pursuit of knowledge and that when it comes to certain Metaphysical questions the relevancy of Metaphysics and Philosophy to such Metaphysical questions... is impossible to avoid using purely scientific principles... as Dennett found out when trying to explain away the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

When Dennet makes a the argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us he is alluding back to the Metaphysical questions of Descartes. And he admits this in his book Consciousness Explained.

This is a very good book and brings up some good questions but the Hard Problems of Consciousness are far from resolved.

When Atheist make the claim that we have no Free Will and definitely no soul they are making Metaphysical assertions.

If we are too accept these assertions based on the facts of Determinism in Neurobiology,then we can not assume that if Quantum Indeterminism is found to have effects on the brain and therefore consciousness ...

...that not only is this irrelevant to Metaphysical questions of both Free Will and the soul but it is because that Quantum Indeterminism also proves that there is no Free Will or the soul.

But let's get back to Sam Harris on whether Atheist should accept the label of Atheist and let religion define the word Atheist as someone opposed to all Spiritual Seeking.

Quote:In this context, certain people have traditionally wondered whether a deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains. Is there a form of happiness that is not dependent upon having one’s favorite food always available to be placed on one’s tongue or having all one’s friends and loved ones within arm’s reach, or having good books to read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend?

Is it possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before one’s desires get gratified, in spite of life’s inevitable difficulties, in the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death?

This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone’s consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answer to it—and many of us are living as though the answer is “no.” No, there is nothing more profound that repeating one’s pleasures and avoiding one’s pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual. Many of us seem think that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out of road.

But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

As you can see in his talk he ask us as Atheist if we want to let religion define what we are and what we can seek because we accept the lable of "Atheist" .

My answer is that there is a new movement for Atheist who reject religion but still want to pursue spiritual questions called Spiritual Atheist and I am happy to call myself one.

As for my question on whether Atheists should reject all Metaphysical questions by automatically accepting the religious definitions of certain terms I can only give the same answer Sam Harris gave in relation to the accepting the Atheist label in general.

As a Philosopher who is proud of it I do accept Metaphysics as a legitimate pursuit of knowledge and I reject all religious definitions of Metaphysical ideas like God or Soul or even Free Will.

I do not agree that the Metaphysical questions of Free Will can be answered with the Moral Arguments of Theology.

And I want to make clear that rejecting Metaphysical Concepts in order to reject the accepted definitions by Theology for these concepts is a form of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And if you are going to throw out the baby with the bath water I would suggest you not only make sure that the bath water is dirty but also that you make sure that the baby is dead first.

(For those who didn't get my analogy I am saying that Philosophy isn't dead just because Theology is. And the bath water is dirty and represents Theological Definitions for Metaphysical Terms where as the baby represents the Metaphysical Concepts themselves. )

I dispute that Metaphysical questions like Free Will can be answered using Moral Arguments on principle. So I have to reject even Sam Harris's Argument on Determinism because it is based on the old arguments of behaviorism supported by Neurobiology. But worse than that in his book "Free Will" he makes it clear that he has a Bias by making a Moral Argument for Determinism. This is the very reason that I reject Theology as a branch of Philosophy. Because they make Moral Arguments for the Metaphysical nature of Free Will. To me this is where Sam Harris again fell into the "Theologian's Trap".

So by all means let us not fall into the religious trap of making us define ourselves by only the term Atheism.

Let us be clear on what type of Atheist we are and what other views we hold. Let us do this by embracing Philosophy as a legitimate Discipline.

Let us take Philosophy back from Theologians by refusing to accept their definitions on Metaphysical terms just as we do in Science by rejecting their pseudo scientific terms like Irreducible Complexity!

Let us do this by accepting Sam Harris's challenge of not only not letting religious people define our Atheism for us but by rejecting their Metaphysical definitions as well. In this way we can better achieve the goal of rejecting Theology as a legitimate branch of Philosophy all together just as we reject Intelligent Design as a legitimate field in science.

As you yourselves said by pointing out that there are Atheist Philosophers like Dennet and Bertrand Russell there are legitimate arguments that Atheist can make in Philosophy. So we certainly shouldn't let Theologians define any Metaphysical terms when Theology isn't a true Branch of Philosophy because it has nothing relevant to say about Metaphysics.

And so I am going to conclude my argument with the same quote I used before by Sam Harris only I want you to try and apply what he said to Philosophy and Metaphysical Concepts and therefore Metaphysical Arguments in Philosophy.

Quote:Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Okay. First of all, it's atheists. It's not a proper noun. And it's plural.

Second...

(12-07-2014 01:20 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  To most Atheist...
... certain Atheist...
... some Atheist...
... most Atheist...
... some atheist...
...most Atheist...
... most Atheist...
... Atheist make the claim...

[Image: d12b29a084c245ff9f1b3b41f5c53512355cce6d...09f5e9.jpg]

And finally, we had a useful conversation here until Luminon showed up. Much like this thread, actually.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(12-07-2014 01:20 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  This Post Has Been Heavily Edited for Clarity Please Reload to See Final Edit

Ok let me take another tact. I am not asking why Atheist do not believe in God.

Tack. The phrase is "take another tack".

Quote:This would be silly. I myself do not believe in God. To believe in God usually means to accept the Christian or Jewish concept of a God person and all that comes with that view. At the very least to say I believe in God entails belief based on faith in contrast to reasoning.

Only a third of the world's people profess to be Christian or Jewish. So, no, not 'usually', there are many other religions and supposed gods ot there.

Quote: If there is any reasoning that leads the believer to belief in God the reasoning itself is suspect because of the inherent Confirmation Bias of having faith to begin with before attempting to reason things out. And finally to say that you believe in God may not automatically identify what religion you belong to it is usually meant to be taken as acceptance of some form of Monotheism.

Unfortunately the idea of a soul suffers the same problem. And this is because we let religion define our Metaphysical ideas. To most Atheist this is not perceived as a problem because many Atheist reject Metaphysics and philosophy in general in favor of the using scientific method and look at scientific evidence.

Can you define what you mean be 'metaphysical ideas'? If you just mean gods and afterlife and all that, then, yes, I don't need to define any of that.

And, no, atheists don't reject philosophy - what a silly generalization.

Quote:But that is the choice that certain Atheist have decided to follow.

I myself am very focused on what constitutes the Scientific Method and Scientific Evidence.

In fact as a Philosopher I have a deep and vested interest in the Philosophy of Science.

Good. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Who is Atheist ?
Did I mess something ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 04:25 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(12-07-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  What determines good philosophy or bad philosophy?

Philosophers are not responsible for the state of the world.
Of course they are! Who do you think occupies the place of thinking authorities? Humans do things. But humans never do things for no reason. The reason business is the philosopher business, it has to do with knowing good reasons from bad reasons, especially defining good and bad.
If philosophers can sell something to humanity as bad, that thing has to change. Moral argument is extremely compelling, if someone accepts it. Morality is the technology of humanity, it allows to build complex societies and not blow ourselves up with good technology.
Philosophers and intellectuals in general are highly prized by bullshitters and bullies to justify their status quo. Of course there is no logical way in the universe to rationally justify bullshit and bullying, but vast majority of humanity is not good at philosophy and can be bullied or bullshitted or bribed into compliance. The very bad deciding factor is, everyone claims they are good at philosophy, truth and morality, even they have not studied it at all and avoided this area of study. See further. Culture is mistaken for truth and knowledge of culture is propagated as truth.

We get born with some rudimentary moral abilities, like cats can jump and land on a table. But this ability compared to moral philosophy is like a cat's Newtonian jump compared to relativistic space navigation. Doesn't mean that morality is unreal, only that it is a highly advanced human "technology".

You think you go about your daily business for your own sovereign reasons, but beneath that is a six thousand times faster processor of the subconscious, filled with a weird mix of pride, prejudice, Protestantism and prehistoric precedents. And unresolved childhood trauma, of course. As long as children are treated as children (slaves, toys, comfort objects, Pokemons) and not as sovereign adults in training, there will be statistically almost universal trauma. Parenting is programming the most advanced computers on Earth. Do you think people can do a good job without training? Do you think there were any good doctors in medieval ages? I don't know how about yours, but my parents learned nothing and no surprise, they did a shit job. Or rather, they learned a lot, but they used all their knowledge to cover up for their shitty parenting.

So remember this: if people study and work on something, they become better at it and they can say so. If people don't study and work on something, they don't and they shouldn't. Fair enough?
Our society is based on people who don't study and don't work on stuff and yet they claim they are competent. However, it is done only in social and moral area, the human technology, because this is the only area where bullshitters can get away with it. The non-human technology has tendency to blow up in people's faces immediately, if they try to bullshit it. Moral technology usually blows up much later (generational time scale, not minutes) and we call it crime, wars and revolutions and pretend we don't know where it's coming from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2014, 05:11 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2014, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2014 08:12 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Edited For Clarity.
Please Reload for Latest Version


Quote:Only a third of the world's people profess to be Christian or Jewish. So, no, not 'usually', there are many other religions and supposed gods out there.
When I say the Metaphysical God I am saying that what I mean by God is in no way related to what a Theist means by God.

1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I am not talking about a deity or supreme being.

Both would have to be a "person".

A person with a personality,memories and emotions and the ability to reason. Then that "person" is given qualities that we do not have like invisibility...

Or the ability to design or create Universes ...like we would design or create a house.


Quote:Can you define what you mean be 'metaphysical ideas'? If you just mean gods and afterlife and all that, then, yes, I don't need to define any of that.

No I do not mean anything supernatural if that is what you are asking. I already made clear that I do not believe in "gods" or supernatural beings (persons)

As for afterlife if you are referring to magic supernatural places like heaven and hell then no that is not what I mean.

I am talking about real things like Consciousness and Reality and Awareness and Free Will.

I admit freely that Atheist can explain away Consciousness as just a process in the brain.

But I do not have to agree with this explanation in order to be Scientific.

The reason I can say this is ...that I do not disagree because I think that Consciousness is Supernatural.

I never made that claim and I never will.

Atheist can claim that science has proven complete Determinism of will and I have to disagree again.

And again my explanation on why there is no conclusive evidence for Determinism in relation to conscious will is not related to any belief in the Supernatural.

Quote:And, no, atheists don't reject philosophy - what a silly generalization.

I was not saying that Atheist reject Philosophy. If I did I apologize.

What I was getting at is that a lot of the New Atheist reject Philosophy because they think that Science by itself has all the answers.

And that most questions that are Metaphysical like the proper orientation of the relationship between consciousness and existence ...

(Does existence hold primacy over consciousness or does consciousness hold primacy over existence?)

...have already been answered by science and we are just working out the details.

This is not true.

Many Atheists say that consciousness is all there is to a human being...

They say this because they believe that consciousness is just a process of the brain. So there is no need to discuss what the mind is or if there is a Soul because we already know what the brain is and that is all we need to know.

There is no need for Philosophy because Science answers everything we could possibly ask.

Quote:Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1]

It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.

(Wikipedia on Scientism)

I for one do believe that the sciences are one of the most important disciplines to have some knowledge in order to seek further knowledge. So I agree that doing Philosophy with no knowledge of the Sciences is dangerous or at the very least useless.

But so is making assumptions about the Sciences that have no basis in fact in order to avoid uncomfortable paradigm shifts.

Einstein was disgusted with Quantum Physics Metaphysical Implications .

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one." (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')

Yet here we are an QM is accepted as the closest we have come to discovering the Ultimate nature of Reality.

God not only plays dice but apparently runs a whole casino.

And even though everything seems random on the subatomic level this does not seem to effect Causality very much on the Newtonian level.

Apparently even if our Universe is a Casino based what on appears to be random chance as usual the odds favor the house.

"Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space and time; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance . Probably never before has a theory been evolved which has given a key to the interpretation and calculation of such a heterogeneous group of phenomena of experience as has quantum theory.

In spite of this, however, I believe that the theory is apt to beguile us into error in our search for a uniform basis for physics, because, in my belief, it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws." (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1954)

This is proof that there are Metaphysical implications of Quantum Physics plain and simple and has nothing to do with the Supernatural.

Einstein is essentially saying that our understanding of the nature of Reality is incomplete. This itself is a Metaphysical statement as is any statement that comments on the nature of reality.

Most Atheist do not like Quantum Physics applied to systems like the brain because it opens the possibility to a mind that is not dependent on matter as a materialist understands it.

This is because this can be seen as opening up the Metaphysical question of a soul.

But Quantum Physics repudiates our original materialistic views on Reality. Matter still exist but matter is not what it appears to be. At least not on every level of Reality.

Again I am not implying anything Supernatural here. I am only talking about what we know about Quantum Physics.

But many of the New Atheist reject out of hand that there are any Metaphysical Implication precisely because they think that Metaphysics means Supernatural.

This is demonstrated by Atheist like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet saying essentially the same thing on the subject.

Which is even if Quantum Indeterminism does directly effect consciousness this in no way would substantiate the Metaphysical concepts of either Free Will or a Soul.

Why would the most prominent Atheist say out of one side of their mouth that there are no Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics on Consciousness and out of the other side of their mouth address exactly what those implications are?

You can not say that Metaphysics is irrelevant and at the same time explain your Metaphysical view.

You can not divorce Quantum Physics from consciousness and at the same time show what the consequences would be between the two.

As Sam Harris pointed out if Determinism is true in the Brain we have no Free Will and according to him if Indeterminism is true then we have no Free Will.

At least Einstein admitted he did not like the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics. He did not deny that there were any.

So who am I going to listen to when it comes to Metaphysics? Einstein who practically invented Quantum Physics or people like Harris and Dennett?

When Einstein talked about God ...he made it clear that he was not talking about Theism!

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

So you might assume that Einstein was a complete Atheist.

You might assume that Einstein just made clear that there is only one view of God (That he rejects) and that is the theist or religious idea of God.

You may then conclude that Einstein would not take someone seriously like me who claimed that even without any Theist assumptions or supernatural beliefs that there is still room for a Metaphysical God.

The final conclusion would be that Einstein like you would equate all Metaphysical Concepts to being equal or identical to Theist concepts of God.

And yet here is what Einstein had to say about Atheists and Atheism.

Einstein rejected the label atheist.

Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.

You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

So here is the one of the first Spiritual Atheist!

He does not believe in a Theist God yet does not deny the Metaphysical concept of God.

Einstein did not want to accept the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics but he did not say that there were none.

I am not using Einstein as an Authority to prove Pantheism or that God is a Metaphysical question.

I am just trying to give an example of a real scientist that rejects the Supernatural explanations of religion...

... and yet still with one of the greatest Scientific minds in our history as well as the most complete understanding about the nature of reality of his time

... Einstein can be seen as an example of a real scientist that did support that Quantum Physics had Metaphysical Implications and that God was a real possibility as part of Reality.

I also want to emphasize that Einstein with all his knowledge of Reality and Physics rejected the Biases of Religion and still managed to understand the idea of God without accepting the Supernatural.

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[15] He expanded on this in written answers he gave to a Japanese scholar on his views on science and religion, which appeared as a limited edition publication, on the occasion of Einstein's 50th birthday:

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic"

None of this proves anything about me being right about any of my thoughts or beliefs or ideas on the nature of reality.

But it does prove that you can not draw the conclusion that because Science and Theism are incompatible that therefor Science and Metaphysics are also incompatible.

And you can not draw the conclusion because all Theistic ideas or concepts of God or the Soul are Supernatural and therefore unscientific...

... then all Metaphysical ideas of God or the Soul must be impossible on any level
(In the Ultimate Nature of Reality) and are therefore unscientific.

I am saying that Being is part Consciousness and part Awareness.

I am also saying that Consciousness is made of the ability to perceive reality and create and process thoughts in relation to these perceptions.

And Awareness creates balances and imbalances in these perceptions that we perceive as emotions.

When Emotions and Thoughts create a loop from imbalances this forms the Ego or self.

To create balance in this self you have to let go of identifying who or what you are as identical with this self.

You drive a car but you are not a car. You have a body but you are not your body.

Your body is (part of) you the same way your car is part of you.

You are in your car when driving so anything that happens to your car happens to you. If you crash your car the damage to your car can damage you to the point of death. If your body is hit by a car while you are walking then your body can be damaged and this can affect you in the same ways.

Again you do not have to accept anything I say to get the point that nothing I am saying demands a supernatural explanation.

Even if no religion was ever invented and you and I had no concept of religion what I have said could be discussed and debated.

This is proof that Metaphysics is not Identical or even necessarily related to Theism in anyway.

I am not trying to define what the answers are in Metaphysics. I am simply trying to take the power away from Theist and Theologians in defining the questions by being able to define the terms being used.

If you are only willing to debate with Philosophers ...and you are willing to reject Theologians right to practice Philosophy or define Metaphysical terms
...then you will only be debating people like me and other Atheist.

Then Theist will lose by default.

If the Materialist Atheist are right and Philosophers like me are wrong then we will admit defeat and Metaphysics will disappear as well as it should.
If on the other hand Philosophers like me are right about anything then we will be helping you to advance the Sciences.

Either way Religion and Theology will die because nothing can exist in a Vacuum.

In my dream it is like the parents telling a young child that they can not enter certain discussions until they grow up.
If Metaphysics and Science get married and it doesn't work out then we can get a divorce.

But the children (religion) should have no say in the matter.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: