are you an atheist?

Unless you are a Young Earth Creationist.

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (1 minute ago)

As in what would drive you to subscribe to it.

It is explanatory. YEC is just a particular belief in how.

I guess what I really mean is a utilitarian approach to belief. I'm fine with any belief that doesn't interfere with a person's rational interactions with the material world. In other words, if a person says "prayer will help me get through my cancer treatment," I have no objection to them praying, and I recognize that that may on some level be a true statement. If they say "prayer IS the best cancer treatment" that's where I get off the train. When otherwise logical, rational people "believe" in God, this is often the kind of belief they have. The belief in an immaterial "spirit" or "soul" that transcends the body does not necessarily interfere with a person's ability to otherwise function rationally, and if it provides a source of comfort and meaning, then why not? Same with the abstract idea of an eternal God, as long as you don't think you can ask God to move objects for you or put the $100 in your wallet that you owe and don't have.

If you want someone to move objects for you and give you free money you should probably just be less selfish for a start.

Yeah, it should have very little to do w the material world. Particularly politics!

tend to agree with Hurting and AB. there are rational reasons that I don't believe in gods (or at least, not the Judeo-Christian one), but the crux of it is based on underwhelming personal experience while actively seeking out religion in my youth.

also think Hurting's summation above is good. there's a diff between someone having a comforting belief, and there's also the brain-dead girl's family and their attorney who don't accept "death".

It is interesting that in debates the theist holds their beliefs to different standards of evidence than they do with things in daily life. But to Hurting's point that is often a good thing.

also completely unrelated, but when someone's having a rough time of it, and you know they're not particularly religious, best not to immediately reply with the consolation "You know there's someone called God that can help you out." HOW ABOUT "I'M SO SORRY TO HEAR THAT!" INSTEAD.

used to get that all the time from one of my hyper-religious friends and...ugh.

People being patronizing sucks whether God is invoked or not.

I thought the most telling part of the Nye/Ham debate was a question from the audience directed at Mr Ham: "what evidence would be necessary in order for you to change your beliefs?". His answer...nothing would ever change his mind. So why go thru the pretense of debates, couching your faith in science/rationality, claiming to just not be convinced by the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, etc etc??

WLC, though far more intelligent than Ham (then again, who isn't) said something similar. His five points always end with "it all boils down to the warm fuzzy feeling inside your chest".

for you that's God. for me that's acid reflux.

It is interesting that in debates the theist holds their beliefs to different standards of evidence than they do with things in daily life. But to Hurting's point that is often a good thing.

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:20 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think most people have some things in their daily life that do not withstand rational scrutiny.

Agreed. But I mentioned debates because that's where they try to justify religious belief much more intellectually than one might casually participate in a superstition for instance.

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:06 AM (5 hours ago)

science is a means of explanation. it is not the only conceivable means of explanation. other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

I am always amazed that reading animal entrails to discover clues to the intentions of the god(s) ever caught on. The movements of birds being read as omens, ok, it's not so far a leap, but the entrails of eviscerated victims, hoo boy, that's some mighty craziness.

WLC, though far more intelligent than Ham (then again, who isn't) said something similar. His five points always end with "it all boils down to the warm fuzzy feeling inside your chest".

for you that's God. for me that's acid reflux.

― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:50 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i suspect you've never suffered from acid reflux if you'd describe it as a warm fuzzy feeling

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:06 AM (5 hours ago)

science is a means of explanation. it is not the only conceivable means of explanation. other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:50 PM (8 minutes ago)

Like what?

fwiw the principle of sufficient reason does not withstand rational scrutiny.

that aside, it's interesting to me how "creationism" has sort of manifested itself as a sort of (materialist?) ideological formation within Christianity. it almost feels like they've ceded the terms of the game before even playing.

like, this "debate" is basically a political con job and a joke.

Like what?

The brain works with symbols in ways that are not limited to language, logic or math. An explanation that makes no sense when viewed factually or logically can still satisfy that part of the brain that interprets life through such symbols.

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

Before we get off track, I was saying how can a God, who is attributed with creating the universe, not be an element of scientific concern if he is the cause of everything material? How could God be separate from science if he is such an important variable in the material origins and behavior of the universe?

God shouldn't be a rational thing imo. If he was, then he would be part of science.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (6 hours ago)

Responding to that.

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

I don't think so, unless you're assuming that once we have a scientific explanation for everything, we will describe everything in scientific terms. I mean if you could identify some kind of neurochemical process relating to humor, would you no longer use the unscientific descriptor of something being "funny"?

I may have mentioned this somewhere on this thread already, but the book A Secular Age by Charles Taylor is an interesting attempt to understand how the default position switched from belief to unbelief over the past few hundred years. His answer is complicated, but he talks a lot about how our experience of the world shifted from one of "embeddedness" in a matrix of meaning, where the boundaries of the self are fluid, to one of the lone ego trapped in a depersonalized material shell. He says that this shift is inculcated at such a fundamental level that it affects everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, so that belief nowadays require a conscious effort to resist the default position that it didn't used to.

there's a tendency for theists/spiritualists to retreat to the subjective experiences of the brain, eg "explain consciousness...it's magical, isn't it" or "well I've had personal experience with God" or, as I mentioned above, "nearly all cultures have developed a concept of god(s)". I'd have thought we have learned enough about the brain by now to not put stock in the games it likes to play, or to think they are an accurate reflection of objective reality.

we actually don't know that much about the brain

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

I don't think so, unless you're assuming that once we have a scientific explanation for everything, we will describe everything in scientific terms. I mean if you could identify some kind of neurochemical process relating to humor, would you no longer use the unscientific descriptor of something being "funny"?

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:23 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm merely saying that it is perfectly sane to assume we'll be able to scientifically understand it in a more and more precise way. I don't know what you're getting at- of course we will still be human and be able to subjectively find something "funny".

at what level of brain complexity does it become ~magical~? does a grasshopper's "beliefs" contain a nebulous metaphysical element to them as discussed in that NYT article? or does that require a cerebral cortex?

we know enough to have entire fields of academmia devoted to the knowledge we've gathered about the brain, be real

we actually don't know that much about the brain

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:32 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We know enough to observe how physical change of the brain affects consciousness and personality.

A lot of academics in those fields would tell you that we don't actually know very much, and some would tell you that it is logically impossible to fully understand "consciousness"

I mean obv there a some big gaps in our understanding of it, that's why people retreat within its subjectivity

lol yeah we don't know shit about the brain. funny thing I learned yesterday while reading some article on neuro research - all of the synaptic connections in the brain are at 90 degree angles.

xp

We know enough to observe how physical change of the brain affects consciousness and personality.

uh this cannot be stated with any categorical certainty

We know enough to observe how physical change of the brain affects consciousness and personality.

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:34 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At best, this just gives us cause-and-effect relationships. I know that if I let go of a pencil it will drop -- that doesn't mean I understand gravity.

like Evan said, we know enough, we have a beyond basic understanding of it. this is just silly. we know how structural damage and/or chemical changes can completely alter the experience of consciousness. That should tell you wheree "consciousness" lies.

I'm merely saying that it is perfectly sane to assume we'll be able to scientifically understand it in a more and more precise way.

You realize that you are predicting the future upon evidence that does not pass scientific scrutiny? And that your prediction lacks the precision to be falsifiable?

but please, continue to think that the gaps in our understanding are where the magical, spiritual facets of the universe reside. great track record in that line of thought.

You're completely missing the point.

break it down

xp to GD - unwarranted leap of logic being made there

break it down

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

read the thread

we don't know shit about the brain...immediately followed by a fact we uncovered about the brain

False binary: if you do not believe that science must inevitably explain all things about the brain and consciousness then you must believe in magic.

I'm just gonna start posting crazy shit about the brain k

Recently Lichtman’s postdoctoral researcher Narayanan Kasthuri set out to analyze every detail in a cylinder of mouse brain tissue measuring just a thousand cubic microns—a volume 1/100,000 the size of a grain of salt. He selected a region surrounding a short segment of a single axon, seeking to identify every neuron that passed through it.

That minuscule patch of brain turned out to be like a barrel of seething snakes. Kasthuri found a thousand axons and about 80 dendrites, each making about 600 connections with other neurons inside the cylinder. “It’s a wake-up call to how much more complicated brains are than the way we think about them,” says Lichtman.

Complicated, but not random. Lichtman and Kasthuri discovered that every neuron made nearly all its connections with just one other one, scrupulously avoiding a connection with almost all the other neurons packed tightly around it. “They seem to care who they’re connected to,” Lichtman says.

Lichtman can’t say yet whether this fastidious pattern is a general rule or a feature of just the tiny area of mouse brain he sampled. Even as they scale up the technology, he and his colleagues will need another two years to complete a scan of all 70 million neurons in a mouse. I ask about scanning an entire human brain, which contains a thousand times more neurons than a mouse’s.

“I don’t dwell on that,” he says, with a laugh. “It’s too painful.”

we know that the brain can play tricks on itself (or rather, that parts of it can 'fool' other parts of it? that it has certain tendencies, eg pattern recognition. that damage to it can effect consciousness. this basic knowledge (we are about 75-100 yrs past these facts) should be enough to know that the subjective experience it provides is not to be trusted. a point you seem to have missed maybe while getting bogged down in shit you heard about how experts have lots to learn.

I read nat geo too

the subjective experience it provides is not to be trusted

Buddhists knew this 2500 years ago. Not a recent discovery, boo.

I am always amazed that reading animal entrails to discover clues to the intentions of the god(s) ever caught on. The movements of birds being read as omens, ok, it's not so far a leap, but the entrails of eviscerated victims, hoo boy, that's some mighty craziness.

The search for God is the search for the unknown, and there is no single correct method to use. It's crazy to say there IS a right way to seek God. It's called fundamentalism.