Ask a Radical Atheist

[Alric]

Are they physically manifested somewhere? Can we pluck one out of your brain and slide it under a microscope?

Wrong instrument. You can detect and characterize dreaming using EEG.

This is a fallacious argument. The content of dreams is fantastical. The act of dreaming itself is specific patterns of neuronal activity.

Are you arguing that dreams are real? Dreaming is real. Dreams are not. Just like a historical fiction is fantasy but the book that contains it is real.

 

[Piscivore]

The act of dreaming itself is specific patterns of neuronal activity.

Those patterns of neuronal activity, are they real? Do they physically manifest? Can you see the pattern, or just the EEG readout that creates a representation of the pattern?

you arguing that dreams are real?

As "specific patterns of neuronal activity", yes. You just said you had a dream, a "specific pattern of neuronal activity", did you not? How did you do that if the dream wasn't real?

Dreaming is real. Dreams are not.

What is the difference between the act and the product of that act?

Just like a historical fiction is fantasy but the book that contains it is real.

You're missing a bit here. Historical fiction is a story, and stories exist. Sometimes they are contained in a book, sometimes not. The content of that story might not be factual, but the story exists. Do you agree?

There's more to say about fiction, but I don't think we're ready for that yet.

 

[Alric]

Curiously, you didn't quote the part about detecting dreams using EEG. Don't think of me as rude but I am not going to argue about whether dreams are real or not.

 

[Piscivore]

Curiously, you didn't quote the part about detecting dreams using EEG.

What's so curious? I mentioned the EEG- As I see it it shows a representation of the pattern of which you speak, but is not the pattern itself. Am I wrong?

Don't think of me as rude but I am not going to argue about whether dreams are real or not.

Is that because you do not have an answer that will jibe with your apparent insistance that non-physically manifested things can be real?

Let's try numbers. Are numbers real?

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry, skeptigirl, I didn't mean to ignore you, I didn't see your post right away.

And they have a physical aspect as well.

They are manifested from the actions of physical agents, yes. But patterns of neuronal activity, as Alric puts it, are not neurons. EEG measurments and representations of the patterns are not the patterns. The patterns themselves, like numbers, do not have any independent physical existence of their own, but they are still "real", or they could not be measured.

Got any examples of something that exists without any physical evidence in the same way gods are claimed?

I've already told you what I see as the physical evidence of the god I'm talking about.

You might be able to argue something like math. But I think one can connect that to the physical as well.

A pair of apples is not "two". It only represents "two". Connecting to the physical is not the same as being physical.

Maybe I am missing your point.

I should say so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those examples you said were evidence of god only amounted to people believing in gods. Some of us pointed out there are a lot of things people believe in. Belief is a conclusion. A conclusion is not evidence. You never really addressed that objection to your 'evidence'.

I posted an extensive discussion on this arguing with Beth if you'd care to see it. But to summarize, Beth was essentially arguing that if you saw something that was red, your sensory input was evidence red existed. But it is the red thing that is the evidence of something red, not the conclusion drawn from the sensory input. The conclusion you were seeing red was not the evidence, the evidence was the red thing.

You are merely describing conclusions. What is the evidence for those conclusions?

 

[Piscivore]

Those examples you said were evidence of god only amounted to people believing in gods. Some of us pointed out there are a lot of things people believe in. Belief is a conclusion. A conclusion is not evidence. You never really addressed that objection to your 'evidence'.

I did, but you may have missed it because I posted it just when Claus was starting to harrass you again. I think you must have missed it, because I don't see where you got back to me on it.

Again, are you even trying to think through what you are proposing here? By this reasoning if someone believes in a golden calf and builds a monument then there must be a golden calf god.

There is. If you were there, you could even touch it, at least the artifact representing it. You could have spoken to its followers, learned about what the god thought was important, what it expected from its people, could have watched or participated in the rite that honoured it.

How does believing in Santa make Santa real? You are not making any sense.

Depends on what you mean by "real". If you mean will I ever be able to pull the beard of a 400 year old magical elf-saint that flies in a sleigh and personally delivers presents to all the good little children with his own flesh and blood hands- no.
If you mean something that is instantly recognisable to nearly everyone on earth, in whose name gifts are given, about whom stories are told, that entity that inspires good will and holiday cheer- yes, that is real. No less so because we create him.

The Golden Calf, Santa, would not exist in the way I am talking about if only one person believed in them. They do exist despite anyone's disbelief or ignorance of them. Belief, "conclusions" are not relevent to their existance.

I advanced a question also that you didn't answer, and it might clear up a few things:

Answer me this. Is "skeptigirl" a thing that is "real" in and of itself, independantly in the world, or is it something created by the workings of your brain cells? Do you doubt your own existence simply because what you "are" is just the result of some process?

The argument you are making against god with regard to "conclusions" seems to work equally well against personal identity. How do you know you are who you believe yourself to be? The literature on psychology is full of people that thought they were someone else.

I posted an extensive discussion on this arguing with Beth if you'd care to see it.

Please. Link?

But to summarize, Beth was essentially arguing that if you saw something that was red, your sensory input was evidence red existed. But it is the red thing that is the evidence of something red, not the conclusion drawn from the sensory input. The conclusion you were seeing red was not the evidence, the evidence was the red thing.

I'll hold off on commenting until I read it in full.

You are merely describing conclusions. What is the evidence for those conclusions?

I'm not talking about belief. I'm not describing any "conclusions". If you think that I am I'm not communicating this correctly.

 

[articulett]

Here you are dead wrong. Unbelievable wrong. Take me, for lacking a better example, I make no ontological commitments, other than that, I'm comfortable with the naturalist research that some claim is behind materialism. There you go. A materialism skeptic who is not a woo.

How is being skeptical of materialism different than being skeptical of evolution? What other explanation fits what we observe so well? To me, being skeptical of evolution while having no evidence of any alternate theory is woo-ish. So, unless you have an explanation with evidence, it sounds like you are using gaps in knowledge to insert your beliefs. For me, that's "woo". I have a strong "woo" meter, I guess.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How is being skeptical of materialism different than being skeptical of evolution? What other explanation fits what we observe so well? To me, being skeptical of evolution while having no evidence of any alternate theory is woo-ish. So, unless you have an explanation with evidence, it sounds like you are using gaps in knowledge to insert your beliefs. For me, that's "woo". I have a strong "woo" meter, I guess.

It is evident that you have not read the thread in which I explain my views. First, materialism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Don't play a strawman here. Explanation about what??? If you are a materialist you might answer (to the question about what's the world made of) "it is made of matter".

If someone asks me the same question I will state that the question is meaningless.

I hope you can spot the difference, because that's all you will find different in my views in respect to materialism. Now, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from my position, but they belong to somewhere else.

BTW, this demonstrates that your woo meter is nothing but a woo belief.

 

[articulett]

It is evident that you have not read the thread in which I explain my views. First, materialism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Don't play a strawman here. Explanation about what??? If you are a materialist you might answer (to the question about what's the world made of) "it is made of matter".

If someone asks me the same question I will state that the question is meaningless.

I hope you can spot the difference, because that's all you will find different in my views in respect to materialism. Now, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from my position, but they belong to somewhere else.

BTW, this demonstrates that your woo meter is nothing but a woo belief.

My point was not that materialism had something to do with evolution... I am trying to figure out how you perceive yourself as "not a woo" when I see you as a woo. I see those who are "skeptical of evolution" as a woo, because although we don't know everything (and the "skeptics of evolution" know a whole lot less), they never have anything else that explains the data better... they fill the perceived gaps in knowledge with whatever it is they've been indoctrinated to believe. Their evidence is that it "feels right" or "they like it better" or "it's in their holy book", I guess. Such explanations don't fit what we observe.

Materialism fits what we observe--when a brain is damaged, consciousness is altered... despite eons of wanting to exist separately from our bodies... there isn't any evidence that this can happen. So what IS the alternative and what is the evidence for it. I'm not asking for anything big. I'm just trying to see if you are doing the "skeptical of evolution" semantic dance.

You are skeptical of materialism. Yes, there are things we don't understand... the same with evolution. But what evidence is there that supports any other conclusion? If you don't have evidence or alternate explanation, forgive me, if I conclude you are a woo. It is an opinion after all. The only alternative to a naturalistic explanation is a supernatural one; materialism (physicalism, naturalism, etc.) IS the natural explanation, isn't it? That makes all other explanations, supernatural. I don't believe in the super natural... and even if I did, I certainly have no reason to think you or anyone else has access to it. So, naturally it's logical for me to conclude you are trying to convince yourself you have a logical alternative without presenting your view or any evidence for it.

 

[Robin]

I believe this short story illustrates the point in that there are ways to conceive a creature like god. Its a story, it is science fiction, yet, it is undeniable that Issac Asimov have more imagination than us. And again, this is not insulting us.

There are many, many, many ways of conceiving a creature like god. Including the way Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindu's do.

Do we really need another?

 

[articulett]

I think that whether Isaac Asimov has more imagination than "us" is also an opinion.

You might want to be careful about stating opinions as facts BDZ. Everybody is capable of forming their own opinions. I'm not saying that I don't think Asimov is wonderfully imaginative... but I don't know all the imaginative capabilities that "us" represents, and therefore, Asimov having the most imagination IS, in fact, deniable (or at least "arguable")--contrary to your claims that it is not.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The only alternative to a naturalistic explanation is a supernatural one; materialism (physicalism, naturalism, etc.) IS the natural explanation, isn't it? That makes all other explanations, supernatural. I don't believe in the super natural... and even if I did, I certainly have no reason to think you or anyone else has access to it. So, naturally it's logical for me to conclude you are trying to convince yourself you have a logical alternative without presenting your view or any evidence for it.

Articulett, this goes far beyond your ad hoc answers. You see, those work when dealing with people who believes in supernatural stuff, ghosts, superpowers, you name it.

I'm talking about a completely different thing. Does epistemology ring a bell? FWIW, and even when I'm sure you will not understand, I have problems with the word "explanation". We have not explained anything, all we have (all we can have) are descriptions. And the difference is radical (yet subtle at first sight).

So, please, don't attempt to label me using the common concepts you have learned here when you have no clue on where I'm coming from.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did, but you may have missed it because I posted it just when Claus was starting to harrass you again. I think you must have missed it, because I don't see where you got back to me on it.

The Golden Calf, Santa, would not exist in the way I am talking about if only one person believed in them. They do exist despite anyone's disbelief or ignorance of them. Belief, "conclusions" are not relevent to their existance....[snip]

Seems like you are just saying the god concept is real. That is not the same as saying gods are real. So evidence for god beliefs and god concepts is different than evidence for gods exists.

The discussion with Beth ends with post #1308 on page 33 in this thread. You'll do best to work back from there rather than try to go forward from wherever it starts. The points got clearer in the end and were repeated a lot in the middle. Beth may have had more to say but she's temporarily limited in typing due to a finger injury.

 

[articulett]

Articulett, this goes far beyond your ad hoc answers. You see, those work when dealing with people who believes in supernatural stuff, ghosts, superpowers, you name it.

I'm talking about a completely different thing. Does epistemology ring a bell? FWIW, and even when I'm sure you will not understand, I have problems with the word "explanation". We have not explained anything, all we have (all we can have) are descriptions. And the difference is radical (yet subtle at first sight).

So, please, don't attempt to label me using the common concepts you have learned here when you have no clue on where I'm coming from.

I'm not even sure you have a clue where you are coming from. Yes, theories are descriptions... but scientific theories are the very best explanation we have. If you have something different and there's evidence for it, I'd like to know. If not, then I presume your being skeptical of materialism is on par with those who are "skeptical" of evolution.

If you can't explain the difference then, I'll presume you are using gaps in knowledge to tell yourself that your "alternative explanation"-- for which you have no measurable evidence--is still on the table.

You labeled me... you said your skeptical of materialism... I am equally entitled to have an opinion about your beliefs and their validity. Right. I have as much right or more right to skeptical of your inferred alternative explanation that you have to be of materialism... You won't say what you believe, because you don't want us to point out the flaws in it. That's a typical woo trick. It's easy to be skeptic of science and skeptic, so long as you don't have show how poorly your alternate explanation fits the observations. You can be skeptical of gravity if you want, as well. I don't care. I make up my own mind as to who sounds clear and informative and who sounds like an obfuscating woo.

 

[Serenity's Light]

And they have a physical aspect as well. Got any examples of something that exists without any physical evidence in the same way gods are claimed?

You might be able to argue something like math. But I think one can connect that to the physical as well.

Maybe I am missing your point.

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here). But I think I can suggest a couple of examples that might fit the bill of something that is non-physical and yet exists.

The first one is the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics--for example, "i", which is defined as the square root of -1. By definition, negative numbers cannot be square-rooted, since squaring any number yields a positive number (or 0, if you're squaring 0). Yet, we somehow still have "i".

The other example is related to Piscivore's example of dreams. Any fictional story or character obviously has no physical reality--for example, no extraordinary detective named Sherlock Holmes who had a sidekick named Watson ever existed in the physical world. Yet the fictional stories created in people's minds manifest in the physical world--a person may write his idea down and have it published as a book, movie, or TV show. If a story becomes popular enough, fans may create websites devoted to it, or even organize conventions at which they can gather with other fans to discuss that particular work of fiction. The story itself has no physical reality, but the books (or movie scripts, reels of film, etc) do. Events surrounding the idea (fan conventions, etc) occur in the real world, and obviously all the readers/viewers of the story exist. Furthermore, we can categorize statements about fictional works as true or false. To continue with the Sherlock Holmes example, we can say that "Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street" is true and that "Sherlock Holmes had pink hair" is false. (I believe Steven Pinker discussed the concept of making objectively true or false statements about fictional characters--I think he even used Sherlock Holmes as an example--in one of his books, but I honestly can't remember which one. It might be "The Stuff of Thought", but I could be wrong.)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm not even sure you have a clue where you are coming from.

Articulett, you know that fundamentalists tend to label everything they can't understand. Right? Add to that your complete lack of comprehension of where I'm coming from and this is getting simply ridiculous. Don't do that to yourself.

I don't have beliefs other than our language can describe some natural events and facts. Got it? You believe materialism "explain" things, good for you, but this vision is extremely naive. An explanation assumes knowledge, gives you a (false) sense of tranquility because you "understand". This gives you a ground from where you can act, you can label, you can be confident. But the same goes for every woo belief, they naturally pretend that their beliefs explain.

Now, I have tried to show you that I stop BEFORE THAT (and thats all the difference I have with materialism). I even claim that it is futile to ad the layer about "whats the world made of". It is completely unnecessary.

Our descriptions fit observations? Good. They don't? let's change our models. That's all we can aspire to get. So, again, please stop being obtuse and attribute me whatever you want to see. I do not believe in anything. GOT IT? I hope.. because this is getting tired.

 

[Alric]

This gives you a ground from where you can act, you can label, you can be confident. But the same goes for every woo belief, they naturally pretend that their beliefs explain.

I really dislike post-modernism and relativism.

In science you not only label. You also develop and mechanism or theory that provides testable predictions and are consistent with other theories.

Woo believes, religions, etc, have nothing of the sort. Only word games that have no predictive value in the real world. Oh. Also they like to say epistemology a lot.

 

[Robin]

I even claim that it is futile to ad the layer about "whats the world made of". It is completely unnecessary.

I agree, that is why Materialists generally don't do it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I really dislike post-modernism and relativism.

In science you not only label. You also develop and mechanism or theory that provides testable predictions and are consistent with other theories.

Woo believes, religions, etc, have nothing of the sort. Only word games that have no predictive value in the real world. Oh. Also they like to say epistemology a lot.

My vision is not post-modernist, nor is relativist. Science is not a body of beliefs, but a set of tools. That said, yes, those mechanisms and theoretical approaches are what distinguish it from other attempts to describe our world. And yes, woo beliefs, religions and etc have nothing like that.

Now, the intriguing part is why oh why some people in the forum react so predictable when dealing with someone who "apparently" does not share their world view? It is a paranoid attitude, sorry if this sounds offensive, but it is true.

I state that I do not need an ontological commitment, that science is a set of tools, that all we have, and can have are descriptions and some people react as if I were talking about mind super powers and souls... Come on! I exhort you to give the benefit of the doubt and ask questions, instead of label at first sight!