If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Materialism

[Tart]

I personally think we are all born with a wonder in our consciousness. Something that tells us that our reality might not be as what it seems, that there may be something mysterious and unexplained in our consciousness.. Something beyond our reasoning...

And we see this manifesting in peoples thoughts all the time... There are sooo many claims (even scientific claims) that go beyond our reasoning.. Like mind over matter, or infinite parallel universes, multiverses, aliens, ghosts, the afterlife, telekinesis, out of body experiences, past lives, the "matrix", mysticism, sorcery, magic, etc... We see people, who honestly wonder about the possibilities of many of these things, perhaps all of us have had these kinds of thoughts amusing the unexplained...

I mean even science, and scientist, and even atheist scientist have amused some of these possibilities, like the multiverse.. The multiverse (something that there is no evidence of) is a theory that came up in a rebuttal against God creating THIS universe... (Ill put a scientific video below that suggest "mind over matter" is a real thing)

But then when we come to the idea of God, all of these wonders turn away and people are certain that God cant exist, that miracle cant happen, that there is no after life, there is no soul, etc.... As soon as God gets into the picture, all these wonders that we are born with contemplating, are trashed as a means of mocking and discrediting anything out of the inexplicable, and everything boils down to cold hard science... This is Scientific Materialism.... This is why David Berlinski (atheist philosopher) says in his book "The Devils Delusion" that "scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"... It is this notion that nothing inexplicable exist, that everything is explained, and anything beyond explanation (like God) is mocked...

Its a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt...

To me, this seems like a complete indoctrination of atheism... And is there any proof that there is nothing beyond these cold hard explanations? No... But it is assumed....

So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically? If something like "mind over matter" is true, how can you say the divine is false? (example: video below)...

(Personally i think Christianity explains in perfectly.. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

[youtube][/youtube]

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 120 by DrNoGods]


well congrats on turning 60, you have probably been through a lot!

I don't personally have much of a problem with evolution being taught in schools, though it might be nice to allow alternative arguments...I think most kids will take their study of it beyond the classroom either way. And if they learn that conventional wisdom is not infallible- that's not a bad lesson


I have family in the UK, the funny thing is that prayer, hymns Christian religious education is still technically mandatory there I believe, and has been part of the national curriculum forever- and yet there is far less religiosity among kids

If you want something run into the ground, let the government run it perhaps?!

In any case, my prediction is that more people will accept evolution as the correct description of how life diversified on this planet going forward, to continue the current trends, simply because it is supported by overwhelming and consistent evidence. This evidence keeps coming, especially in the genetics realm, and there is no alternative theory that is seriously threatening to knock ToE off of its perch. Old religious ideas are fading away, as they should be, as more people become scientifically literate and see these myths for what they really are.

And I predict it will go the way of steady state & classical physics, and likewise all the religious/ theistic implications complained of in the new theory, will mysteriously vanish once proven beyond most reasonable doubt. Nobody will be forced to give up their atheist beliefs, any more than Lemaitre's 'religious pseudoscience' forced them to- and science will progress, somewhat delayed, but perhaps more solidly in the end having been through such extra ideological vetting. There's a reason for everything!

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 108 by Guy Threepwood]

Guy Threepwood: "Not to mention countless false assumptions of Darwinian evolution"

Please do mention them!

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 108 by Guy Threepwood]

Guy Threepwood: "Not to mention countless false assumptions of Darwinian evolution"

Please do mention them!

Many are involved in explosive events like the Cambrian, which were explicitly predicted to be artifacts of an incomplete record, to be filled in and smoothed out as more fossils were discovered.

The fossil evidence showed the exact opposite, the events became ever more explosive.

This error involved many falsely assumed 'transitionals' which turned out to be adolescents, unrelated, or distorted fossils- or outright hoaxes

we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 108 by Guy Threepwood]

Guy Threepwood: "Not to mention countless false assumptions of Darwinian evolution"

Please do mention them!

Guy Threepwood: "Many are involved in explosive events like the Cambrian, which were explicitly predicted to be artifacts of an incomplete record, to be filled in and smoothed out as more fossils were discovered."

And, indeed, the record is far more complete than it was in the 19th century.

Guy Threepwood: "The fossil evidence showed the exact opposite, the events became ever more explosive."

Moreover, the "Cambrian Explosion" lasted about 25 million years, which seems pretty slow for an "explosion". It was marked by the appearance of hard parts, shells of chitin and calcium carbonate, probably in response to an change in ocean chemistry. We now know it was preceded by the Ediacaran era in which all animals were soft bodied and much harder to fossilize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Guy Threepwood: "This error involved many falsely assumed 'transitionals' which turned out to be adolescents, unrelated, or distorted fossils- or outright hoaxes"

Please cite some of these "assumed transitionals" and the reasons they were not transitional forms.

Guy Threepwood: "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time"

That is not a well-supported assertion.

.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Guy Threepwood]

Anyway even if being a theist is to feel 'squeezed' that does not change the evidence as I see it- yes it was pretty comfortable to be an atheist, & the alternative did seem fairly daunting at first- but what have all these feelings got to do with reality ultimately?

What "evidence" changed your mind? Please present it for all of us to examine. Because I am betting that it will turn out to be an example of completely subjective wishful thinking. I am saying that based on much past experience with believers. This is the point where believers usually make the claim that they have been in touch with God and have felt His presence. But that is a very subjective form of "evidence," since it is a personal experience that cannot be examined. I have never had such an experience myself. I do not doubt that such experiences seem utterly real to those who experience them, because I have heard the stories of such experiences related far too many times. My question becomes, "what do such experiences have to do with reality?" People of various faiths have reported having this experience throughout history. Does that serve to verify it, or are we talking about mass hallucination here? A hallucination whose root cause is the overwhelming desire, the overwhelming NEED, to believe that there is some deeper meaning to existence? Have I been left out of experiencing this mass religious ecstasy/hallucination simply because I do not happen to share a particular overwhelming need to believe in a deeper meaning to my existence?

ecstasy
The experience of ecstasy is not restricted to Christians. "The path to true ecstasy begins by earnestly seeking ecstasy, which requires the rebuking of one's ego. Attaining that ecstasy requires drowning of the ego. Without doubt, true ecstasy is a blessed elusive state. It is indeed closeness to God." "Although it is a fascinating state, those who give themselves to it entirely become unbalanced, for too much of anything can be self-destructive." "Yet in time the aspirant realizes that this wonderful ecstasy is ultimately a form of intoxication." Understanding this is the key to the whole experience of being "touched by God." The video is only five minutes long. Watch the video carefully, because it appears to explain much.


Now watch Christians experiencing the "ecstasy" of their belief in Jesus.





Someone give that girl a cigarette. And try not to giggle.

So what are we dealing with here? The experience of encountering an actual spiritual presence? Or a self induced hallucination finding a means of expression that has been entirely derived from one's own passions and emotional needs? It seems to be an experience that many find pleasurable and desirable. But is it good for anyone? And it also seems to be something common to many if not all religions. But what does it have to do with reality? There may well be a religious need gene that non believers do not possess. I do not seem to possess it.

Let's consider a famous example drawn from Christian scripture. One of the most famous religious conversions in all of Christianity, is the description of Paul's experience while traveling to Damascus.

According to Acts 9, while on the road to Damascus Paul became stricken. Acts specifically indicates that at one point Paul went three days without drinking. Whatever the cause, Paul was clearly severely dehydrated. Three days without water is a critical condition. Severe dehydration commonly affects the eyesight, as the vitreous fluid in the eye thickens and is diminished, and causes the neurons in the brain to misfire from lack of fluid, inevitably resulting in hallucinations. Among other symptoms. So, sick and disoriented Paul had to be helped into the city by his traveling companions who then left him at the home of a CHRISTIAN MAN to be cared for. This is a significant point! Sick and delirious from dehydration, and while being tended to and prayed over by a CHRISTIAN MAN, Paul came to believe after his recovery that during his illness he had experienced a face to face visitation with the years dead Jesus. This experience proved to be life changing for Paul and after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. Hardly a surprise, really, given the circumstances. But we in the 21st century, in the light of reason and logic, are left to consider whether it is more reasonable to conclude that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, conversely, whether it is reasonable to conclude that it is more likely that Paul actually MET WITH AND CONVERSED WITH A DEAD MAN!

As a non believer dispassionately examining the account in Acts, it's perfectly apparent to me that there was a clear physical medical cause for Paul's experience. Paul was severely dehydrated, and severe dehydration invariably produces hallucinations. The brain requires water to function properly. People become "out of their heads" when severely dehydrated. Does Paul's belief that he met with and conversed with a dead man have any rational connection to reality? The answer to this question seems to depend entirely on each individual's need and desire to passionately experience deeply felt religious ecstasy. Or to remain firmly planted in clear thinking reality.

Here is a suggestion for an avatar for you, btw. I am a Monkey Island fan from way back.

[bluethread]

No, I am contending that you are being disingenuous. I contend that you do a great many things because "a super old book says so".

Of course I do. I treat money like it has value because I have to use it to buy food. I obey made up laws because they afford me safety. I do all sorts of things because I'm a living organism and I want to continue being a living organism amongst other living organisms for a while longer. What I do doesn't have anything to do with objective truth. And ancient theological texts don't contain objective truth, they contain the cultural musings of an ancient culture that wanted to continue being living organisms so they made up some explanations and rules and wrote them down.

No, not of course. Why would you fault other for others doing things because "a super old book says so", when you just admitted that you doing things because "a super old book says so"?

That said, I am not arguing for a particular "super old book", but for the value of mythology. Science can help answer the who, what, when and how questions. However, it can not answer the why question.

This assumes that scientific materialism cannot ever answer this question. This also assumes that another means can answer this question. This further assumes that there even is an answer to this question.

How is it that science can answer the why question? Mythology can by creating archetypes that embody the common experience. One can look to "super old books" to find the archetypes that have withstood the test of time.

That is a value question and the driving force behind all of the other questions. Science can not answer that question and yet is driven by it. "Super old books", along with not so old books and current books have examined that question philosophically. Our societies are based on what is written in all of those books.

What our societies are based on has nothing to do with objective reality. Our societies are based on our human ability to share an imagined reality. Our societies are proof of our ability to construct imaginary orders for cooperatives purposes.

What doe that have to do with science.

I have no problem with philosophy being used to examine the human condition, morality, and the question of existence. I have issues with theology as it assumes a higher being with a mind, motive, morality, and means to influence our reality. I see no reason to adhere to a moral standard derived from a human interpretation of a supposed divine influence, of which we have no proof at all.

So, to what moral standards do you adhere?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 124 by TSGracchus]

And, indeed, the record is far more complete than it was in the 19th century.

It certainly is, & the staccato pattern became ever more crystallized, ever more difficult to dismiss as an 'artifact of an incomplete record'- to the point that even Darwinists splintered off into punctuated equilibrium

Moreover, the "Cambrian Explosion" lasted about 25 million years, which seems pretty slow for an "explosion". It was marked by the appearance of hard parts, shells of chitin and calcium carbonate, probably in response to an change in ocean chemistry. We now know it was preceded by the Ediacaran era in which all animals were soft bodied and much harder to fossilize.

Even drawing that generous bracket around it, it's a geological blink of an eye, for not just hard bodies, but most of the major phyla to appear. It may have been much much faster as far as we know- as Dawkins puts it 'It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.'

in which all animals were soft bodied and much harder to fossilize.

Understood, but 'the dog ate my homework' does not = an A grade.

Cryptozoologists make the same argument about Bigfoot remains- apparently they bury their dead very carefully!

Guy Threepwood: "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time"

That is not a well-supported assertion.

Sorry I forgot to attribute that quote , it was from David Raup, renowned paleontologist & curator of the Chicago field museum.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 125 by Tired of the Nonsense]

wow thanks for the detailed response! I should know better than to start a debate like this when I have a lot to do!

What "evidence" changed your mind? Please present it for all of us to examine

I outlined the 3 corroborating lines of evidence as I see them -a couple of posts back-

Fossil record
Math
Direct experimentaion

if you want to pick one..

Because I am betting that it will turn out to be an example of completely subjective wishful thinking

c'mon Hoyle, is that projectionism? nothing could be further from the truth. It was a pretty uncomfortable grudging acceptance, at first at least- I was perfectly happy as an 'intellectually superior' atheist prior to becoming a 'superstitious idiot!'

Is finding the Rosetta Stone, and concluding intelligent design, wishful thinking?

Have I been left out of experiencing this mass religious ecstasy/hallucination simply because I do not happen to share a particular overwhelming need to believe in a deeper meaning to my existence?

Again, the other way around, for me at least- I concluded, purely academically, that some sort of creative intelligence, be it 'ET' or otherwise was simply a less improbable answer for some of the most difficult questions

It was several years before I even rationalized that, as creator of the universe, reserving the ability to communicate with your creations is ultimately a matter of a creator's will, not our naive attempts to comprehend the mechanism- particularity in an age where 'invisible mass communication' is something we mere mortals do all the time!

Actually it's something I never bring up as an argument, because I know how I felt about such accounts when I was an atheist, I would pretty much write off anything else the person said! But since you ask specifically!..

I've been very ill, dehydrated and hallucinogenic before- and it ain't that! Still of course I can't prove this experience, nothing close to anything I've ever experienced before, was not some odd chemical discrepancy, that suddenly manifested itself as a one off, when I was in perfect heath, broad daylight, (and entirely sober!) but again- it comes down to least improbable explanations.. I can't overstate how much of a die-hard materialist I was before all this, I might have made you look a little wishy washy on the subject!

It's an odd difference between thinking and knowing- the closest thing I can compare it to- if you ever dreamed you were awake, and were absolutely certain of it, then when you do wake up, you are still certain of it, just infinitely more so- what's the difference? it is utterly impossible to communicate isn't it?- but I think that's how it has to be- the most personal experience possible- it is, I would argue, the best kind of evidence there is


Empirical:
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on.....

Here is a suggestion for an avatar for you, btw. I am a Monkey Island fan from way back.

Yarr! can you tell me anything about the treasure of Big Whoop? That's why I'm here, I'm still searchin!

- thanks for the avatar suggestion! though the old pixilated version is probably more apt for me at my age! awesome game, back when they left something to the imagination..

I am curious about your experiences though

Did you, do you, ever have doubts about atheism?