Back to basics: Give me an argument as to why a god exists

[FaerieStories]

Hi, I'm new here and I see a lot of active topics on specific concepts where users are already heavily engaged in debate, making it a little hard for me to join in. So to test the waters a little (and to help me decide whether or not to stick around here), let's go back to basics and have a debate about the most fundamental question at hand here: does a god exist?

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god. So, if a Theist would like to get the ball rolling by giving me a reason why god exists, that would be great.

(PS: unrelated question: what is the general breakdown of belief/non-belief on these forums? Is it an even mix of believers and non-believers, or is there- as tends to happen on the internet- a larger proportion of atheists to Theists?).

[kayky]

Clearly you want to be more than just synapses firing. I can sympathize but I can't agree that anything like a soul exists.

I have never chosen contrary to my will because afaik every choice was my will. At no point did I ever float above myself and think, "That's what I would will normally but I'm going to will something else."

I'm going to write the next word that comes into my head - flapjack. Why did I think flapjack? Where did it come from? Obviously I made a choice on the word but why that word? If I don't even know why I willed the word flapjack was I free (to) will a different word? I don't think so. Clearly, free will is an illusion.

I do agree that we choose from among options: we don't choose against our will. As for the rest, all you are saying is that you agree with Sam. That's fine. I simply disagree with his conclusion, which goes beyond what the evidence can say.

[scourge99]

Where did Peter or the science Peter mentioned claim that?

Peter sent me to Sam. I was responding to that YouTube video.

Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

You made the (false) accusation, now back it up.

It seems the real problem here is that science conflicts with your religious beliefs and intuition. So you cherry pick that bit of science (or it seems you deeply misunderstand it) and reject it. That puts you in the same crowd as young earth creationists, flat earthers, Adam and Eve'ists, etc.

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm sure that Sam is right about what goes on in the human brain when we make decisions. My only objection is that this proves there is no such thing as free will. That's what I mean by reductionism. Sam sees something happening in the brain and that's the end of it. Free will is an illusion. I don't buy it.

You are grossly in error if you think Sam's reasoning is that he "sees something happening in the brain and that's the end of it. Freewill is an illusion."

Try reading not just what sam says but WHY. He cites objective experiments and data. It isn't philosophy, its science.

I dont believe anyone has done this. It's a strawman or perhaps an intentional exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

Listen to Sam, and tell me if you still think its a strawman.

I have. I have read many of his books and watched his videos. And he doesn't argue anything like "humans are nothing more than an animal having knee-jerk reactions to stimuli in my environment." Quite the opposite.

Asking for proof of the soul is like asking for proof of God.

And asking for proof of magic is asking for proof of wizards. So what?

I would like to point out, therefore, that I have never asked you for proof of magic or wizards. [/quote]
But if i did you would expect me to back it with something substantive. That's the point. I doubt you'd find it reasonable if i say "i have personal experiences of magic and i have encountered wizards." Yet, when it comes to claims of gods you rattle on about your "experiences" and expect readers to treat it categorically different?

No wonder you argue so vehemently against brain science. You seem as confused about it as a creationist is confused about evolution.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not against any kind of science. I'm all for it. What I'm arguing against is Sam's conclusion that neurophysiology (big word for one so confused) has proven that human free will is an illusion.

That's fine that you disagree. But you don't understand why they came to the conclusions they did. You misunderstand and invent strawman. You aren't addressing their actual arguments.

E.G., even if you have no freewill, it doesn't mean you are nothing more than an animal with knee jerk reactions to stimuli in environment. Whether or not freewill exists we still make choices, we still experience love, joy, and happiness. We still have goals and desires and find meaning in our lives. None of that disappears or is cheapend by a lack freewill.

I beg to differ. It reduces humanity to a factoid. Not much dignity there.

You are wrong. Like i said, you misunderstand what's being said like a YEC misunderstands evolution. Continue battling your strawman if you must.

Likewise, when we finally understood the physics of color and light, we didn't throw all our artwork and paintings in the trash. In fact, science often increases our appreciation of artwork and our ability to make it.

The nihilistic fear of brain science is misguided.

Like I said, I love science. I have absolutely no fear of it. But I do see reductionism as nihilistic.

More empty arguments and buzzwords. Its clear you are unwilling or unable to address what has actually been claimed by brain scientists. Instead you have erected strawman after strawman.

Just like debating Young Earth Creationists, its a waste of time.

[kayky]

Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

You made the (false) accusation, now back it up.

Where on this thread did I claim Sam said that? This is the false claim that needs to be backed up!

You are grossly in error if you think Sam's reasoning is that he "sees something happening in the brain and that's the end of it. Freewill is an illusion."

Try reading not just what sam says but WHY. He cites objective experiments and data. It isn't philosophy, its science.

That's exactly the objection I have with Sam's conclusion. When he claims that his findings prove that human free will is an illusion, he leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of philosophy.

I have. I have read many of his books and watched his videos. And he doesn't argue anything like "humans are nothing more than an animal having knee-jerk reactions to stimuli in my environment." Quite the opposite.

How so?

But if i did you would expect me to back it with something substantive. That's the point. I doubt you'd find it reasonable if i say "i have personal experiences of magic and i have encountered wizards." Yet, when it comes to claims of gods you rattle on about your "experiences" and expect readers to treat it categorically different?

I have no expectations at all. This is the same old tired argument that only that which is subject to empirical evidence has any reality. As I've told you before, I don't live in that box.

That's fine that you disagree. But you don't understand why they came to the conclusions they did. You misunderstand and invent strawman. You aren't addressing their actual arguments.

Then by all means explain to me how I'm getting it wrong. Peter sure seemed to think that my main problem was that I wanted to be more than firing synapses. Perhaps you need to explain it to Peter as well.

You are wrong. Like i said, you misunderstand what's being said like a YEC misunderstands evolution. Continue battling your strawman if you must.

"You are wrong" doesn't tell me much. I await your wisdom.

More empty arguments and buzzwords. Its clear you are unwilling or unable to address what has actually been claimed by brain scientists. Instead you have erected strawman after strawman.

And so far your best argument is that I'm wrong--that I don't understand. You say it's a strawman, but you offer no evidence as to why this is the case.

Just like debating Young Earth Creationists, its a waste of time.

Another veiled insult. Grow up, Scourge.

[dusk]

True free will doesn't exist imo. Even as a concept it is a paradox and no matter the magic it is always either deterministic or indeterministic (random).
It should be abolished as a possible concept in objective reality.

This is the most absurd thing I have ever read. I have chosen to respond to your post. I could just as easily have chosen otherwise. That is free will. I would go so far as to say that human free will is now an influential force on the process of evolution itself.
Natural law becomes inadequate at that point. I can see why, however, the reductionist view would wish to banish human free will. Very problematic that.

You do know the concept of true free will? You are free to choose what you want if there are choices you have free choice. You cannot choose what you want. (True free will) You want it because of indoctrination, inborn traits, previous experiences, drugs, ...

The problem with dualistic ideas (mind is somehow seperate and independent) is where it connects. There need to be some kind of place where it communicates. Otherwise it doesn't matter if the spiritual mind in another world does anything because it cannot effect the other one.

I find this totally unintelligable. Why would the mind exist in another world? It is my thinking, however, that in its physical incarnation the mind (or soul)
must use the brain in order to function.

In another plane if you will. What would be the non physical incarnation of the mind to you, if the physical uses the brain?

Thus I think the dualistic idea is actually the one ....
If there is no identicality (meaning just different POVs but everything is always physical and only terminology is used to describe different abstraction levels) than where does the spiritual soul clink in. Where does it rule?

It's like I said in my earlier post. It is quite possible to reduce a whole into even its most infinitesimal parts. When the process is reversed, we come upon what I see as insurmountable problems. At what point does nonliving matter become alive? At what point does a living thing become conscious?

This negelects the idea of true free will. If I can reduce everything to conditions that forced that will into either being not free or entirely random that animation problem is not really the primary problem. The entire dualistic idea of non identicality depends on there being something not there if you reduce too much.

Whether science can explain the totality of human experience really depends on what explaining means. Cognition science definitely has the plan to explain how it works. Sure it can no more explain how it looks than how physics can explain the experience of the Infrared color. It can only describe how it works and how it should appear to us would we be able see it.

I recently read the following in a book called Reinventing the Sacred by Stuart Kauffman. Kauffman, by the way, is a professor at the University of Calgary and is no theist:

Einstein or Shakespeare...but not both in the same room. This split is a fracture down the middle of our integrated humanity.

There was a time when it was understood that certain aspects of human experience could only be expressed through poetry, art, music--even religion. Now on many campuses, the humanities are regarded as "second-class knowledge." It seems to me that many are intent to sacrifice what is most important important about being human on the altar of science.

I get what you mean but that is exactly what I mean with what do you want explained. What poetry or music can do is stir up emotion in people. It is never the same experience it is not explaining it.
I can explain why Kayaking is awesome and that going through a splash of water being forced under by the sheer force just feels incredible. My mother is a risk averse person she says one must be mental to enjoy that and would never even try. When you stand the first time in front of the entrance of a canyon with a huge noisy countercurrent with the intention of paddling through. You look down like 5 mins and think you must be crazy.
But once you are through. Well you must have tried it. It nothing you can explain. The neuroscientist tells you it is because of adrenaline and what not. The Psychologist says it is because you have been scared and mastered it and that gives you the thrills. Until you did it you don't really get it.
You cannot explain everything in any language. You cannot explain German grammar in binary code. No freakin way anybody will understand anything.

I don't think scientism really exists.

LOL. You are evidence to the contrary, my friend.

Why? I only see you completely misunderstanding the lot of it. Touching every subject with the most primitive interpretations you can get a hold of.
It seems to be you that doesn't understand the purpose and meaning of languages and abstractions.

It is reductionist scientism that I find so disconcerting. I think it has as much potential for damaging human society as religious fundamentalism.

kayky I would recommend A strange loop from Douglas Hofstadter. It touches the subject and the precursor was Gdel Escher Bach which some said was the scientist bible. That is spiritual world view of a naturalist.

Perhaps you could save me the time and provide a brief summary. I find it curious that you choose to use the word spiritual.[/quote][/quote]
I suppose it might answer your problem with reductionism. Basically reductionism is nothing to be afraid of and it also doesn't have to be something that "takes all the magic our of everything" which is usually the problem for religious people. It is important to understand that we have different levels of abstractions and certain things on one level can only be properly explained by a language that lives and works on the same level of abstraction. Hofstadter effectively spends his book trying to explain an idea that he thinks wasn't properly understood in his first book. The strange loop is a symbol an abstraction for the human us, our soul, our 1st person. Effectively what you would describe as a soul. The strange loop also offers some interesting answers to time travel paradoxes. Namely that the you of before isn't exactly the you of now.
It builds on Gdel's Incompleteness Theorem and along with references to music (Bach) and various interesting paradoxes and logic puzzles he tries to make the reader see the beauty of this pattern the strange loop and other higher abstraction patterns.
In a way it is a theory of a materialistic soul. Greatly influenced by information science, mathematics, artificial intelligence and the whole cognition science where he come from.
It is aimed at rational scientist people that need a sound model for anything.
Maybe this helps -> http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview
It is not the religion of materialist but it is one that is more appealing to such rational scientist people especially those close to Math in any way.
It gives a currently for many satisfiable solution to qualia.

[color=#99999]BTW In my experience people that don't have a Math mind of sorts that many of his fans in CS, AI, Math, Physic, IS have, often don't really get it or can grab the ideas. I don't think any "religion" is for anyone.
And the stuff about Qualia is a philosophy which I could never explain to my grand ma in any satisfiable way. It isn't a religion but it can be a part of a world view and I would say a religion is sort of a world view.
This incompatibility is one reason why I think monotheistic religions are false simply for the claim to be right? If they are, god is an idiot and there is no way around it because the Bible/Qu'ran/Upanishads/.. don't work for anyone (as has been demonstrated). And not even the same way for those inside. He must have been wrong about the exclusivity or an incompetent communicator, or not exist. It is all the same god (ours) doesn't work either because the different basic concepts are so different they are pretty much nothing alike.[/color]

[scourge99]

Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

You made the (false) accusation, now back it up.

Where on this thread did I claim Sam said that? This is the false claim that needs to be backed up!

Kayky: Believing that science will eventually explain everything about the human experience is scientism.
scourge99: Where did Peter or the science Peter mentioned claim that?
Kayky: Peter sent me to Sam. I was responding to that YouTube video.
scourge99: Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

If you stopped trimming previous dialogue out of your responses you'd better follow the things YOU claim. Its especially odd considering that it takes extra effort to trim them out.

You are grossly in error if you think Sam's reasoning is that he "sees something happening in the brain and that's the end of it. Freewill is an illusion."

Try reading not just what sam says but WHY. He cites objective experiments and data. It isn't philosophy, its science.

That's exactly the objection I have with Sam's conclusion. When he claims that his findings prove that human free will is an illusion, he leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of philosophy.

Freewill makes testable claims. In those areas where we can test it it has been found lacking or the evidence contradicts what we would expect. If you would have actually read up on the studies and experiments Harris cites you would have noticed that but you seem too poo-poo anything before honestly considering it.


Just look at all the rhetoric you have employed one after the other:

1) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are engaging in scientism.
2) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are engaging in reductionism.
3) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are wrong because they are in the realm of philosophy and not science.


Whats the next whacky argument going to be? This debate is EXACTLY like a debate with a Young Earth Creationist in every way shape and form.

What next? Scientists are involved in a conspiracy to suppress the truth? Or Fmri doesn't work?

I have. I have read many of his books and watched his videos. And he doesn't argue anything like "humans are nothing more than an animal having knee-jerk reactions to stimuli in my environment." Quite the opposite.

How so?

Already explained. But you dismissed that out of hand as well making yet another bald faced assertion when you replied: It reduces humanity to a factoid.

Its clear you aren't interested in correcting your misunderstanding just as young earth creationists aren't interested in learning about what evolution actually says.

But if i did you would expect me to back it with something substantive. That's the point. I doubt you'd find it reasonable if i say "i have personal experiences of magic and i have encountered wizards." Yet, when it comes to claims of gods you rattle on about your "experiences" and expect readers to treat it categorically different?

I have no expectations at all. This is the same old tired argument that only that which is subject to empirical evidence has any reality. As I've told you before, I don't live in that box.

Another strawman and dismissive handwaving.

That's fine that you disagree. But you don't understand why they came to the conclusions they did. You misunderstand and invent strawman. You aren't addressing their actual arguments.

Then by all means explain to me how I'm getting it wrong.

I did. And you hand waved it away as a "factoid".

You can only lead a horse to water. And I did. Now stop blaming me that you are thirsty.

Peter sure seemed to think that my main problem was that I wanted to be more than firing synapses. Perhaps you need to explain it to Peter as well.

I find nothing wrong with what Peter has said so far. Its right on track with what I have claimed.

You are wrong. Like i said, you misunderstand what's being said like a YEC misunderstands evolution. Continue battling your strawman if you must.

"You are wrong" doesn't tell me much. I await your wisdom.

Already explained. Go review what I said and instead of dismissing it out of hand. Try to actually think about it and consider it honestly.

Just like debating Young Earth Creationists, its a waste of time.

Another veiled insult. Grow up, Scourge.

The glove fits. And there certainly isn't anything intrinsically insulting by having your arguments compared to a YEC. Unless you actually take science seriously its a non-issue. Its clear you do not based on your hand waving of the evidence and random cries of "scientism!" and "reductionism!!!" .

[kayky]

Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

You made the (false) accusation, now back it up.

Where on this thread did I claim Sam said that? This is the false claim that needs to be backed up!

Kayky: Believing that science will eventually explain everything about the human experience is scientism.
scourge99: Where did Peter or the science Peter mentioned claim that?
Kayky: Peter sent me to Sam. I was responding to that YouTube video.
scourge99: Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

If you stopped trimming previous dialogue out of your responses you'd better follow the things YOU claim. Its especially odd considering that it takes extra effort to trim them out.

I don't recall doing any trimming. I do care about the appearance of my posts. But I think this particular issue is simply a misunderstanding on both our parts:

Scourge:
It seems every time science conflicts with your beliefs you have a knee-jerk reaction and blurt out "reductionism" or "scientism". Are you ever going to backup these bald faced assertions? Is the theory of gravitation "reductionistic" and "scientism"? How about evolution?

Kayky:
Believing that science will eventually explain everything about the human experience is scientism. Believing that studying the brain can explain everything about what it means to be human is reductionism. Believing that the Bible is the literal word of God
is fundamentalism. I simply call it as I see it no matter what side of the fence it's on.

So these statements were made to YOU, not Peter nor Sam. When you snipped out that first sentence, I thought you simply misunderstood whose argument I had been responding to in an earlier post. But what you snipped had nothing to do with either Peter or Sam. It was in response to your accusations.

Freewill makes testable claims. In those areas where we can test it it has been found lacking or the evidence contradicts what we would expect. If you would have actually read up on the studies and experiments Harris cites you would have noticed that but you seem too poo-poo anything before honestly considering it.


Just look at all the rhetoric you have employed one after the other:

1) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are engaging in scientism.

.

I never said that. The statement doesn't even make sense.

2) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are engaging in reductionism.

Absolutely.

3) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are wrong because they are in the realm of philosophy and not science.

Yes. It is one thing to say we know what is going on in the brain when a person makes decisions. To go on to say that this proves human free will is an illusion is an attempt to make a philosophical statement.

Whats the next whacky argument going to be? This debate is EXACTLY like a debate with a Young Earth Creationist in every way shape and form.

That's your best argument to counter my claims? I'm just whacky?

What next? Scientists are involved in a conspiracy to suppress the truth? Or Fmri doesn't work?

This came out of your head, not mine.

Scourge:

I have. I have read many of his books and watched his videos. And he doesn't argue anything like "humans are nothing more than an animal having knee-jerk reactions to stimuli in my environment." Quite the opposite.

Kayky:

How so?

Already explained. But you dismissed that out of hand as well making yet another bald faced assertion when you replied: It reduces humanity to a factoid.

You can't be serious. The only "explanation" you have offered is that I am wrong and I just don't understand. Oh yeah. The new one: I'm whacky.

Its clear you aren't interested in correcting your misunderstanding just as young earth creationists aren't interested in learning about what evolution actually says.

This is hardly a new argument: Kayky just doesn't understand. Throw in an insult. I'm not familiar with this debate tactic.

Scourge:
But if i did you would expect me to back it with something substantive. That's the point. I doubt you'd find it reasonable if i say "i have personal experiences of magic and i have encountered wizards." Yet, when it comes to claims of gods you rattle on about your "experiences" and expect readers to treat it categorically different?

Kayky:

I have no expectations at all. This is the same old tired argument that only that which is subject to empirical evidence has any reality. As I've told you before, I don't live in that box.

Scourge:
Another strawman and dismissive handwaving.

Hardly a strawman. It goes to the very heart of the matter as to why we reach different conclusions about Sam's work.

Kayky:

Then by all means explain to me how I'm getting it wrong.

I did. And you hand waved it away as a "factoid".

Will you please direct me to that explanation? I must have missed it. All you did was say Sam's conclusions do not demean humanity, to which I disagreed. That is hardly an explanation.

You can only lead a horse to water. And I did. Now stop blaming me that you are thirsty.

What water? I listened to Sam and disagreed with his conclusion. Your response is that I'm wrong and whacky.

I find nothing wrong with what Peter has said so far. Its right on track with what I have claimed.

All you are saying here is that you have no problem with scientific reductionism. I already know that.

Already explained. Go review what I said and instead of dismissing it out of hand. Try to actually think about it and consider it honestly.

All you did was give your opinion about how the study reflects on humanity. There was no argument to dismiss.

The glove fits. And there certainly isn't anything intrinsically insulting by having your arguments compared to a YEC. Unless you actually take science seriously its a non-issue. Its clear you do not based on your hand waving of the evidence and random cries of "scientism!" and "reductionism!!!" .

Sorry, Scourge. You can't insult your way out of a debate. Scientism and reductionism are real phenomena that you can't simply "hand wave" away.

[kayky]

This negelects the idea of true free will. If I can reduce everything to conditions that forced that will into either being not free or entirely random that animation problem is not really the primary problem. The entire dualistic idea of non identicality depends on there being something not there if you reduce too much.

I've read it three times, and I still don't know what you mean.

I can explain why Kayaking is awesome and that going through a splash of water being forced under by the sheer force just feels incredible. My mother is a risk averse person she says one must be mental to enjoy that and would never even try. When you stand the first time in front of the entrance of a canyon with a huge noisy countercurrent with the intention of paddling through. You look down like 5 mins and think you must be crazy.
But once you are through. Well you must have tried it. It nothing you can explain. The neuroscientist tells you it is because of adrenaline and what not. The Psychologist says it is because you have been scared and mastered it and that gives you the thrills. Until you did it you don't really get it.
You cannot explain everything in any language. You cannot explain German grammar in binary code. No freakin way anybody will understand anything.

No. This is not what I am talking about. Art isn't just about emotions. It's about exploring universal truths such as meaning and value.

By the way, I'm with your mom. No way!

Why? I only see you completely misunderstanding the lot of it. Touching every subject with the most primitive interpretations you can get a hold of.
It seems to be you that doesn't understand the purpose and meaning of languages and abstractions.

Seriously? This from a guy who thinks the arts are about "feelings"?

I suppose it might answer your problem with reductionism. Basically reductionism is nothing to be afraid of and it also doesn't have to be something that "takes all the magic our of everything" which is usually the problem for religious people. It is important to understand that we have different levels of abstractions and certain things on one level can only be properly explained by a language that lives and works on the same level of abstraction. Hofstadter effectively spends his book trying to explain an idea that he thinks wasn't properly understood in his first book. The strange loop is a symbol an abstraction for the human us, our soul, our 1st person. Effectively what you would describe as a soul. The strange loop also offers some interesting answers to time travel paradoxes. Namely that the you of before isn't exactly the you of now.
It builds on Gdel's Incompleteness Theorem and along with references to music (Bach) and various interesting paradoxes and logic puzzles he tries to make the reader see the beauty of this pattern the strange loop and other higher abstraction patterns.
In a way it is a theory of a materialistic soul. Greatly influenced by information science, mathematics, artificial intelligence and the whole cognition science where he come from.
It is aimed at rational scientist people that need a sound model for anything.

Thank you for this example, but I don't see this as reductionist thinking at all. I see no problem with discussing the soul in terms of materialism, rather than in poetic or even religious terms. The language specific to any discipline will explain the same phenomena in its own way. That's cool.

By the way, you don't have to be a "scientist person" to be rational.

It is not the religion of materialist but it is one that is more appealing to such rational scientist people especially those close to Math in any way.
It gives a currently for many satisfiable solution to qualia.

[color=#99999]BTW In my experience people that don't have a Math mind of sorts that many of his fans in CS, AI, Math, Physic, IS have, often don't really get it or can grab the ideas. I don't think any "religion" is for anyone.
And the stuff about Qualia is a philosophy which I could never explain to my grand ma in any satisfiable way. It isn't a religion but it can be a part of a world view and I would say a religion is sort of a world view.
This incompatibility is one reason why I think monotheistic religions are false simply for the claim to be right? If they are, god is an idiot and there is no way around it because the Bible/Qu'ran/Upanishads/.. don't work for anyone (as has been demonstrated). And not even the same way for those inside. He must have been wrong about the exclusivity or an incompetent communicator, or not exist. It is all the same god (ours) doesn't work either because the different basic concepts are so different they are pretty much nothing alike.[/color]

Well, you at least seem to be a person who values meaning. By the way, although I believe in God, I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. That God doesn't make sense to me either.

[kayky]

Sorry, Dusk. I didn't mean to overlook this part of your response. Sometimes it's hard to sort these things out on the post page.

You do know the concept of true free will? You are free to choose what you want if there are choices you have free choice. You cannot choose what you want. (True free will) You want it because of indoctrination, inborn traits, previous experiences, drugs, ...

It's true that choices can be influenced by these things, but we are not slaves to them.

In another plane if you will. What would be the non physical incarnation of the mind to you, if the physical uses the brain?

I don't think it's necessary to think of the soul as existing on another plane, although that might be true of its origin. I think that in this life the physical and the spiritual are inexplicably intertwined.

[dusk]

Thank you for this example, but I don't see this as reductionist thinking at all. I see no problem with discussing the soul in terms of materialism, rather than in poetic or even religious terms. The language specific to any discipline will explain the same phenomena in its own way. That's cool.

Yet it is something that those so called reductionists go by. That reductionism destroys all meaning is just wrong. It is one way of understanding parts and details. Those scientism people that you claim are a danger don't think of it as the only way to tackle any problem. It is the best/only for some though.
It think the claim that reductionism is some kind of ultimate religion of scientists just wrong and a huge misunderstanding. Claiming that it leads to nihilism at some point (small parts) is imo about as intelligent an observation as saying money has no inherent value. Which is so popular in recent financial crisis talk. With similar enlightenment value for the debate.

No. This is not what I am talking about. Art isn't just about emotions. It's about exploring universal truths such as meaning and value.

Well what I tried to explain was that part about what an explanation is and what you can convey with a "language".
Some art certainly is about conveying emotion first. Other art is about meaning and values and emotion. If they be universal is rarely the case and pretty much always open for discussion.

I've read it three times, and I still don't know what you mean.

You could switch to the free will thread that is currently running.
Otherwise I'd have to ask with what concepts surrounding mind and free will are you familiar with? I don't really care to give a lecture. We got Wikipedia for that.
Some keywords indeterminism, determinism, identicality (I don't know if there is one perfect English word, I had philosophy in German, it is not related to free will but to theory of the mind), true free will, weak free will aka free choice, dualism (descartes)

[scourge99]

Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

You made the (false) accusation, now back it up.

Where on this thread did I claim Sam said that? This is the false claim that needs to be backed up!

Kayky: Believing that science will eventually explain everything about the human experience is scientism.
scourge99: Where did Peter or the science Peter mentioned claim that?
Kayky: Peter sent me to Sam. I was responding to that YouTube video.
scourge99: Where in the video does sam claim "science will eventually explain everything about the human experience."

If you stopped trimming previous dialogue out of your responses you'd better follow the things YOU claim. Its especially odd considering that it takes extra effort to trim them out.

I don't recall doing any trimming. I do care about the appearance of my posts. But I think this particular issue is simply a misunderstanding on both our parts:

Scourge:
It seems every time science conflicts with your beliefs you have a knee-jerk reaction and blurt out "reductionism" or "scientism". Are you ever going to backup these bald faced assertions? Is the theory of gravitation "reductionistic" and "scientism"? How about evolution?

Kayky:
Believing that science will eventually explain everything about the human experience is scientism. Believing that studying the brain can explain everything about what it means to be human is reductionism. Believing that the Bible is the literal word of God
is fundamentalism. I simply call it as I see it no matter what side of the fence it's on.

So these statements were made to YOU, not Peter nor Sam. When you snipped out that first sentence, I thought you simply misunderstood whose argument I had been responding to in an earlier post. But what you snipped had nothing to do with either Peter or Sam. It was in response to your accusations.

Freewill makes testable claims. In those areas where we can test it it has been found lacking or the evidence contradicts what we would expect. If you would have actually read up on the studies and experiments Harris cites you would have noticed that but you seem too poo-poo anything before honestly considering it.


Just look at all the rhetoric you have employed one after the other:

1) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are engaging in scientism.

.

I never said that. The statement doesn't even make sense.

2) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are engaging in reductionism.

Absolutely.

3) Scientists who claim freewill is an illusion are wrong because they are in the realm of philosophy and not science.

Yes. It is one thing to say we know what is going on in the brain when a person makes decisions. To go on to say that this proves human free will is an illusion is an attempt to make a philosophical statement.

Whats the next whacky argument going to be? This debate is EXACTLY like a debate with a Young Earth Creationist in every way shape and form.

That's your best argument to counter my claims? I'm just whacky?

What next? Scientists are involved in a conspiracy to suppress the truth? Or Fmri doesn't work?

This came out of your head, not mine.

Scourge:

I have. I have read many of his books and watched his videos. And he doesn't argue anything like "humans are nothing more than an animal having knee-jerk reactions to stimuli in my environment." Quite the opposite.

Kayky:

How so?

Already explained. But you dismissed that out of hand as well making yet another bald faced assertion when you replied: It reduces humanity to a factoid.

You can't be serious. The only "explanation" you have offered is that I am wrong and I just don't understand. Oh yeah. The new one: I'm whacky.

Its clear you aren't interested in correcting your misunderstanding just as young earth creationists aren't interested in learning about what evolution actually says.

This is hardly a new argument: Kayky just doesn't understand. Throw in an insult. I'm not familiar with this debate tactic.

Scourge:
But if i did you would expect me to back it with something substantive. That's the point. I doubt you'd find it reasonable if i say "i have personal experiences of magic and i have encountered wizards." Yet, when it comes to claims of gods you rattle on about your "experiences" and expect readers to treat it categorically different?

Kayky:

I have no expectations at all. This is the same old tired argument that only that which is subject to empirical evidence has any reality. As I've told you before, I don't live in that box.

Scourge:
Another strawman and dismissive handwaving.

Hardly a strawman. It goes to the very heart of the matter as to why we reach different conclusions about Sam's work.

Kayky:

Then by all means explain to me how I'm getting it wrong.

I did. And you hand waved it away as a "factoid".

Will you please direct me to that explanation? I must have missed it. All you did was say Sam's conclusions do not demean humanity, to which I disagreed. That is hardly an explanation.

You can only lead a horse to water. And I did. Now stop blaming me that you are thirsty.

What water? I listened to Sam and disagreed with his conclusion. Your response is that I'm wrong and whacky.

I find nothing wrong with what Peter has said so far. Its right on track with what I have claimed.

All you are saying here is that you have no problem with scientific reductionism. I already know that.

Already explained. Go review what I said and instead of dismissing it out of hand. Try to actually think about it and consider it honestly.

All you did was give your opinion about how the study reflects on humanity. There was no argument to dismiss.

The glove fits. And there certainly isn't anything intrinsically insulting by having your arguments compared to a YEC. Unless you actually take science seriously its a non-issue. Its clear you do not based on your hand waving of the evidence and random cries of "scientism!" and "reductionism!!!" .

Sorry, Scourge. You can't insult your way out of a debate. Scientism and reductionism are real phenomena that you can't simply "hand wave" away.

When you actually want ro understand why brain scientists believe the mind is the product of the brain (thus freewill is an illusion) then let me know. Then we can discuss the evidence and experiments which lead them to such conclusions.


Some valid criticisms I see on this matter:
1. Explain a flaw or oversight with the interpretation of the data from an experiment/study.
2. Provide an alternate explanation for the results of an experiment/study.
3. Point out problems with the integrity of a particular experiment's/study's methodology or data.

But I will not waste my time debating silly and inane things like:
1. Brain scientists are guilty of scientism.
2. Brain scientists studies/experiments/data/conclusions can be hand waved away because they are based on reductionism.
3. Brain scientists are colluding or conspiring to suppress the truth.
4. Scientific findings and conclusions are just opinions.