Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[Moochie]

Ok, obviously you're too far out in fantasyland to have a rational conversation.

1. Every scrap of evidence supports the model that consciousness is (yes, is) the activity of the brain. That's why altering the brain -- thru chemicals, electrical stimulation, probes, trauma, etc. -- alters consciousness. That's why cognition develops as the brain develops in kids.

2. I haven't dropped anything.

3. There is no evidence for psi.

Your posts are so breathtakingly contrary to fact and reason that there's no point going on with this.

Ah, now I get it. HypnoPsi is trying (without any success, I might add) to verbalize psi into existence. Took me a while to "get" that, such was the blizzard of baloney emanating from HypnoPsi's keyboard. What would cause someone to attempt such folly?

M.

 

[Phil]

I have never said that materialism and religion are of the same vein. . . .

Nor did I accuse you of saying it. I simply said that I didn't think it was accurate to refer to materialism as faith-based in the same sense one would refer to religion as faith-based.

And unless I've been at my cups again, you have said both materialism and religion are faith-based metaphysic.

. . . . I am pointing out that, from an ontological position regarding the origin of objective reality, some funky self-generating form of matter and some super consciousness have equal status. . . .

That may very well be, but a materialist, while quite possibly holding to the notion of some funky self-generating form of matter, does not hold to it simply on faith the same way that a religious person holding to the notion of some super conscious holds to it simply on faith.

Materialists may believe the self-generating matter scenario to be true, but that tentative belief must be based on something observable in the material universe, otherwise they are not materialists.

. . . I have never suggested that anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief - nor would I. . . .

Good.

. . . . If the materialistic ontology is not faith based what is it? . . .

It is based on the observable universe. Nothing is taken on faith.

. . . Has any materialist provided evidence for the self-generation (or whatever) of objective reality? . . .

I don't know. But this point is irrelevant.

If one has claimed such evidence, there are only a few possibilities to consider:

1. They have possibly made a wonderful discovery that must now be heavily scrutinized.
2. They have possibly mistaken what they are looking at to be such evidence.
3. They have discovered nothing and are delusional.

Whatever the case, none of those possibilities requires faith.

. . . . Are you a materialist? . . .

If you need to assign a philosophical label to everyone, you may call me a materialist if you wish. I would not deny it. But as I pointed out previously, there are other terms that are just as useful.

. . . . Yet again, you are trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. This is utterly, utterly, false. People simply don't behave that way. . . .

No, this is utterly, utterly true. And millions of people simply do behave that way.

When it comes to the acceptance of divinity, theists must have a total conviction in their views, otherwise they are not theists. Since there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a divine being, faith is a requirement to be a theist.

 

[Lonewulf]

Ah, now I get it. HypnoPsi is trying (without any success, I might add) to verbalize psi into existence. Took me a while to "get" that, such was the blizzard of baloney emanating from HypnoPsi's keyboard. What would cause someone to attempt such folly?

M.

Ask T'ai Chi

Mostly, it's to say to the world, "I'm right, you're wrong, ha-HAH!", from what I understand. When one person defends the underdog from The Man, it feels more heroic than going with status quo.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Name me one single neuroscientist who claims to have validated causation as well as correlation.

John-Dylan Haynes.

Haynes work concerns where specific bits of information are encoded in the brain and nothing more. Yes, it's an important neurological advance from just saying "this bit processes language" or "this bit processes visual information" but there is absolutely no validation that IP causes (or is) consciousness. None at all.

Better luck next time.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Let me clarify something for you, HypnoPsi.

No scientist can claim to understand how the activity of the brain gives rise to conscious experience.

This alone should tell you that subsequently no scientist knows for sure that neurological activity actually does give rise to conscious experience. You have a very strong belief here and are simply trying to deny that it's faith. Are you embarrased that it's just faith and can't admit it, perhaps?

But your claim that causation has not been adequately demonstrated is patently false.

We don't yet understand the mechanism. But there is no competing theory out there. The challenge now is to shed light on that mechanism. And that is exactly what everyone in the field is working on.

Er... the competing theory that consciousness is indistinct from M/E and/or IP is the theory that consciousness is distinct from M/E and/or IP - and there is plenty of published evidence for the existence of psi (regardless of whether or not you accept it).

Nobody has ever demonstrated that consciousness is indistinct from M/E and/or IP. They've never even came close. I think that AI and cognitive modelling are as much fun as the next guy - but you are have no reason to believe that this generates/is consciousness. There's no causation here at all - only your belief.

To deny that science accepts the truth that consciousness = brain activity... it's like denying that science accepts the modern synthesis of Darwinian theory and genetic theory as the foundation of speciation. It just ain't so.

Science is not a solitatry person - there are some who will share or accept your belief and some who won't. As a skeptic of this claim I'm merely asking for real evidence. In your posts your trying to dance around the issue while meekly admitting that you don't really know...

I think you can realise for yourself that's not good enough.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

And I am pointing out that you have constructed the term "materialistic atheism" and it's a strawman of the atheist position! You are critiquing a strawman which you yourself created.

Look, if you want to try to discredit Materialism, go for it. I think you and Piggy are involved in that discussion right now. However, realise that even if you do discredit Materialism, you do not then automatically discredit Atheism. You would have to do so in a separate set of arguments.

For the Nth time - If I merely used the term "Atheism" many people would rightly point out that there are many atheists who still believe in a supernatural dimension to life. Since I am fully aware of this myself I am not going to make that mistake, am I?

And "materialistic atheism" is not a 'construct' of mine. Many writers use the term to specifically be clear as to what branch of atheism they are critiquing.

I have no intention of discontinuing that practice only to be inevitably told that I should be more accurately defining "materialistic athesists" instead of including all "atheists" whenever I critique the view.

It is no straw-man. I am not critiquing Buddhists or Animists (even though I do not share their beliefs). I am critiquing materialistic atheists. Deal with it.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What's more, HypnoPsi is attempting to establish "materialism" as a faith-based "metaphysic", as though folks who do not harbor any faith in unsubstantiated speculations were somehow choosing to "believe in" the philosophy of "materialism".

This is incorrect.

If that were true then you would have to accept the same principle for the opposite argument. Consider, the law of conservation states that M/E cannot be created (or destroyed) by physical processes. Consequently, from the choice betteen matter and consiousness, the only choice left is some consciousness causing objective reality.

Your claim seems to be that when people only have one choice left they're not really "choosing" to "believe in" their metaphysic. As you can see, that definately works for consciousness - but I don't see how it works for matter given the law of conservation. Do you?

If so, how?

My belief that the pen is somewhere in the house, and that I am misremembering where I placed it, or the cat batted it under the closet door, or some such... this is not any kind of faith or philosophical -ism.

<snip>

The poltergeist scenario requires a lot of unsupported speculation. The a-poltergeistic scenario requires none.

The poltergeist scenario is not parsimonious to the problem of the missing pen.

Neither is it parsimonious to posit the existence of an unobserved and unknown form of (or property of) matter/energy that can self-generate out of nothing. You have to simply deal with the choices you have - consciousness and matter - and matter is not a creative agent.

If you ask me, you'd have a much easier time if you just accepted that materialism is a faith-based metaphysic and left it at that.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Read Pinker and Dennett, follow their cites.

Pinker, similar to Haynes, is very much into mapping mental modules onto specific neural activity while Dennett, as a functionalist (or teleofunctionalist to use his own term) attempts to provide the philosophical underpinning to this strategy. But it doesn't lead anywhere except to unsubstantiated and untestable claims.

Dennett's avowal that thermostats have beliefs is completley untestable and entirely faith-based. (I don't _think_ he denys that - but who knows?)

His teleofunctionalist view of consciousness is that you need conscious systems to have both a function and end purpose (telos: end, purpose). That's fine as far as it goes but it's nothing more than faith.

Even if a thermostat does have the set of beliefs 'too hot', 'too cold' and 'just right' along with the 'desire' to maintain the temperature as 'just right' (whenever it get's 'too hot' or 'too cold') how can you ever prove/test such a suggestion?

And it's not without good reason that Dennett (and McCarthy) pick thermostats. Their 'signal' or 'no signal' activity is detrmined by inhibitory and exhitory input just like a neurons action potential firing is determined by inhibitory and exhitory neurotransmitters.

(Neurons, however, don't care about 'just right' - they'll fire an action potential as soon as they're electrochemically excited enough and won't when they're inhibited.)

The fundamental point here is that whether you're talking about thermostats or neurons (even if we agree they are both teleofunctional), there is still no reason to assume that consciousness emerges from this activity.

As a skeptic, I say it's all just subjective projection (belief) on the part of the observer. It's the exact same type of thinking that causes people to see faces on mars or correlation in the stars with events in their life.

Read any of the studies from the brain-consciousness site. Every one of them is immersed completely in the model that consciousness = brain activity.

So what? There's still no evidence that the teleofunctional property of neurons (or thermostats) in any way causes consciousness. (And their alleged teleofunctional property is debatable as well!)

But you won't. Because if you're still saying all this, you're willfully ignorant.

Actually, in taking a look through this citation list (which is all that website appears to be) I recognise a few names/papers that I'm quite sure I have read perviously. I also recognise more than a few book titles, from which I'm pretty certain I've read the odd chapter from when I was a student.

My time is much more limited these days, but how many papers and books from noetic scientists and parapsychologists can you say you have read?

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Comparing consciousness to the weather is just plain silly.

Not at all. Both are emergent complex phenomena arising from physical activity.

So you believe. Prove it. (Not the weather.)

Every study out there demonstrates causation.

No study "out there" demonstrates causation. Cite one - and explain how you and the original author/researcher have reached this conclusion?

You like the radio analogy because it allows you to propose that we're receivers of some sort. Trouble is, no one has ever detected any incoming signal, and no investigation of the brain has supported a receiver model.

Not exactly - though I see the confusion the analogy causes. If I were to spectulate, I would not say that our consciousnesses are off somewhere distant sending a signal to our physiology.

It's more like a computer or CD player -- drop those and they go wonky -- because the computing and the music are results of the activity of the machine.

Same with the brain.

The brain is an information processor. I see no reason to doubt that. I see good reason to be skeptical of the claim that IP is consciousness (and/or that consciousness emerges from IP) - there's simply no evidence or any way of testing the claim.

Now go read Pinker, Dennett, and the brain-consciousness studies. Til then, I think we can stick a fork in your BS argument.

Oh, I've certainly read Pinker and Dennett. Pinker's "How the Mind Works" is just a few feet away from me along with Dawkins "The God Delusion".

I happen to consider "How the Mind Works" to be an extremely good book and an excellent introduction to the complexities of evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology for both the inquiring layman and seasoned academic. Pinker has a good knack for properly introducing and explaining very complex ideas with clear examples.

Now you go read Irreducable Mind by Kelly, et al. (Personally, I'm waiting until the price drops a little.)

Try to really think about your beliefs. Ask yourself what real solid evidence you have to support the subjective view that consiousness is neural activity. If you can't do that you're in the land of the 'true believers'.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Piggy]

There's no point trying to reason with a person who'll look at a dog and tell you it's a cat.

Good night and good luck.

-Piggy

 

[HypnoPsi]

If the brain is just a receiver, you'd think there would be a signal to measure. Heck, we should be able to intercept thoughts with a scanning device.

I don't recall ever saying the brain is just a receiver. (Neither do I think it's just singly either a transmitter or a processor. It's all of these things and more.)

And scientists have and do study the transmission of thoughts between minds (and from minds to matter). It's called parapsychology and noetic science - and many positive results have been observed and published. Whether you believe in it or not that, at least, is still the case. The same cannot be said for materialistic research into consciousness. There's no evidence at all that consciousness is IP and/or EM. None. It's just a subjective belief.

Do you see the difference here? One group studies consciousness and then makes evidence based claims from the data while another group studes IP, EM and M/E and makes faith based claims about consciousness with no data to suggest either causation or emergence.

Materialists are entitled to their beliefs, but thinking (or actually claiming) that these untestable and unsubstantiated claims are scientific is simply wrong.

(I will, however, admit that non-materialists have no genuine understanding of what consciousness really ultimately is either.)

But no, the reality is that the brain creates consciousness through biological processes.

So you believe. Prove it.

(And you're forgetting about computers and thermostats and God knows what else (no pun intended) that 'create consciousness' as soon as you buy into neofunctionalism or any other materialistic viewpoint.)

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I have never said that materialism and religion are of the same vein.

Nor did I accuse you of saying it. I simply said that I didn't think it was accurate to refer to materialism as faith-based in the same sense one would refer to religion as faith-based.

You replied to my post saying "I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate.

And are we both reading the same thread? If you want blind unsubstantiated belief in materialism just read Piggy's posts (along with a few others'); and s/he, at least, has had the good sense to withdraw recognising that materialistic arguements cannot realistically stand against non-materialistic arguments.

And unless I've been at my cups again, you have said both materialism and religion are faith-based metaphysic.

I would say that religion (the exoteric manifestation of spirituality) is very strongly faith-based - particularly when you look at fundamenalism. The competing metaphysical claims of consciousness and matter/energy however, in regards to the origin of objective reality, are more in line with the type of belief that you're talking about.

(That said, the rule of parsimony, as explained fully in my post above, does lend more weight to the argument for conscious causation. We shouldn't posit unknown/unobserved properties or types of matter/energy when we already know consciousness exists.)

Materialists may believe the self-generating matter scenario to be true, but that tentative belief must be based on something observable in the material universe, otherwise they are not materialists.

As is also explained in my post above, the law of conservation states that physical properties do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter. The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[thaiboxerken]

There's no point trying to reason with a person who'll look at a dog and tell you it's a cat.

Good night and good luck.

-Piggy

Yep, this is like debating evolution with a creationists. Hypnopsi simply cares little for evidence in preference for his belief that a soul exists. I'm going to stop as well. One can only have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people.

 

[Phil]

You replied to my post saying "I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate. . . . .

I apologize. The sentence you quoted is unclear. I didn't mean to suggest you were saying that materialism and religion are in the same vein. I meant to suggest that you were saying they were similar in that they are both faith-based, which in fact you did say. I am often posting in a hurry and don't take the time to edit as I should.

. . . And are we both reading the same thread? If you want blind unsubstantiated belief in materialism just read Piggy's posts (along with a few others'); and s/he, at least, has had the good sense to withdraw recognising that materialistic arguements cannot realistically stand against non-materialistic arguments. . . .

I can only assume that we are reading the same thread. The probability that we are is very high. I mean, I have no way of knowing for sure, so I don't have faith that our eyes are seeing the same words, and that our brains are interpretting the same ideas, but considering some indications that material universe is giving us, like the fact that our replies seem to be related, and are posted in order, and are generated on the same browser page, it's a safe bet that we are reading the same thread. No faith required.

Oh, and coincidentally, what I've read of Piggy's posts, he/ she seems to be pointing out a similar phenomenon in that, although we aren't one hundred percent certain (i.e. we don't have faith) that consciousness is caused by brain activity, given that we can alter consciousness by stimulating or "turning off" portions of the physical brain, it's highly likely that consciouness is a function of the brain. At the very least, given what the material universe is telling us, the physical brain appears to be the best place to start looking for more concrete answers. And he/she even cited some examples of the many people who are doing that, none of whom have taken anything on faith, but instead made assumptions about what is most probable given the limited set of information available. No faith required.

Beyond that, it appears to me that Piggy has not "withdrawn recognizing materialistic arguments cannot realistically stand against non-materilistic arguments", but instead has simply grown weary of people who refuse to recognize his/her well-reasoned replies and has moved on to something else. Of course, I'm only basing that on what the material universe, namely the posts in this thread, are telling me. I wouldn't presume to take it on faith.

. . . . I would say that religion (the exoteric manifestation of spirituality) is very strongly faith-based - particularly when you look at fundamenalism. . . . .

Yes. I agree.

. . . The competing metaphysical claims of consciousness and matter/energy however, in regards to the origin of objective reality, are more in line with the type of belief that you're talking about. . . .

If you mean that the materialists approach to the origin of objective reality is not based on faith, than yes, you are correct.

. . . . (That said, the rule of parsimony, as explained fully in my post above, does lend more weight to the argument for conscious causation. . . .

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality? . . . Umm . . . Nope.

I tell you, I really don't see it that way. I may be missing something, but that statement right there appears to me to be you saying, "I said it, and I really like the way I said it. So it's true."

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality actually seems to violate the rule of parsimony. I'll think about it again really hard to be sure, but I suggest you do the same thing.

. . .As is also explained in my post above, the law of conservation states that physical properties do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter. The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns.

The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns????

I don't think anyone has posited an unknown; at least not an unknown that is completely unsubstantiated. However, you now seem to be positing a free-floating consciousness of some sort as the origin of objective reality. And where such a thing is certainly entertaining to consider, it is far and away unsubstantiated.

Tell you what, I'll think about this again really hard, too, in case I'm missing something, but I suggest you do the same thing.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Yep, this is like debating evolution with a creationists. Hypnopsi simply cares little for evidence in preference for his belief that a soul exists. I'm going to stop as well. One can only have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people.

In otherwords you, like Piggy, also realise that materialistic beliefs, being self-contradictory, unsubstantiated and untestable, simply cannot meaningfully stand up against even light criticism.

If I didn't care for evidence why would I be asking for evidence that can substantiate materialistic views of consciousness and/or the origin of objective reality in nearly every single post?

And I have never said I believe that a soul exists. I may have a soul that continues on somehow - or it may be the case that consciousness is just like water in a cup, taking the shape of the cup temporarily and then eventually joining some wider 'whole' with no individual identity.

You're right about one thing - one can only have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people. And is it not reasonable to be skeptical of materialism given it's claims are unsubstantiated and untestable?

Is it not reasonable to apply the rule of parsimony to competing claims?

All you two are proving here is that you are stumped when someone points out the holes in materialistic theory.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Oh, and coincidentally, what I've read of Piggy's posts, he/ she seems to be pointing out a similar phenomenon in that, although we aren't one hundred percent certain (i.e. we don't have faith) that consciousness is caused by brain activity,..

Why do you continue to equate faith with one hundred percent certainty? The very word means belief without certainty (which can only come about through conclusive evidence).

given that we can alter consciousness by stimulating or "turning off" portions of the physical brain, it's highly likely that consciouness is a function of the brain.

You have no way of knowing whether or not consciousness is altered with drugs or whatever. That faulty physiology can impair mental functioning is one thing, but a lack of memory of certain times or whatever does not mean that consciousness itself is being altered - unless you *already* assume that consciousess is IP - a claim for which there is no evidence.

At the very least, given what the material universe is telling us, the physical brain appears to be the best place to start looking for more concrete answers.

What's is the material universe telling us? That the brain is the place to look for concrete answers to cognition? The mind is just the experience of IP in consciousness and nothing is being proven here about consciousness itself.

And he/she even cited some examples of the many people who are doing that, none of whom have taken anything on faith, but instead made assumptions about what is most probable given the limited set of information available. No faith required.

I don't have "faith" in neuropsychology either - it is a valuable and very interesting field which can offer us much undersanding of ourselves and offer much help to the impaired or sick. But it doesn't prove anything about consciousness.

Beyond that, it appears to me that Piggy has not "withdrawn recognizing materialistic arguments cannot realistically stand against non-materilistic arguments", but instead has simply grown weary of people who refuse to recognize his/her well-reasoned replies and has moved on to something else.

What "well-reasoned replies"? I've asked for clear evidence that consciousness is IP and/or E/M (or an emergent property of such) and s/he hasn't provided any.

Correlating brain activity with mental events is one thing (and a quite amusing thing at that when materialists start talking about theromostats and computers), but claiming this shows anything about the nature of consciousness itself is faulty reasoning.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
. . . The competing metaphysical claims of consciousness and matter/energy however, in regards to the origin of objective reality, are more in line with the type of belief that you're talking about. . . .

If you mean that the materialists approach to the origin of objective reality is not based on faith, than yes, you are correct.

No - and materialism is not an "approach". Reductionism is an "approach". (The term you're looking for is "Methodology".) Materialism is an ontolological philosophical position that (most often) utilises the reductionist methodology. Materialism is a faith-based metaphysic.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
. . . . (That said, the rule of parsimony, as explained fully in my post above, does lend more weight to the argument for conscious causation. . . .

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality? . . . Umm . . . Nope.

I tell you, I really don't see it that way. I may be missing something, but that statement right there appears to me to be you saying, "I said it, and I really like the way I said it. So it's true."

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality actually seems to violate the rule of parsimony. I'll think about it again really hard to be sure, but I suggest you do the same thing.

The above is total nonsense. Materialistic beliefs about the origin of objective reality require the needless multiplication of entities - namely, believing that there must be some unknown and unobserved property (or type of) matter that allows the law of conservation to be overcome.

There is absolutely no evidence that is the case.

However, from our original position we have both consciousness and matter as candidates for causation of objective reality. The rule of parsimony is to use what we already have rather than bringing in some funky self-generating magic powder into the mix.

That doesn't prove that consciousness is the force behind objective reality, it just means its the better reasoned argument because it doesn't involve bringing in hypothetical unknowns that go against a known law of physics.

The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns????

I don't think anyone has posited an unknown; at least not an unknown that is completely unsubstantiated.

Really? Show me some evidence of matter having the ability to self-generate out of nothing then?

However, you now seem to be positing a free-floating consciousness of some sort as the origin of objective reality. And where such a thing is certainly entertaining to consider, it is far and away unsubstantiated.

When I move my arm up and down it requires energy, measured in kilojules. If I'm just a biological machine, then it's all down to stimulus/response - but there's no evidence at all that consciousness emerges from mechanical processes. When consciousness kickstarts the walking-talking, interacting and moving of arms up and down process there is no definable materal cause.

Now, okay, so one kilojule of energy (or whatever it is) popping into objective reality due to conscious agency isn't a very big deal given the amount of energy that already exists in the Universe. But creating energy isn't something that matter can do, is it? (There's that law of conservation again.)

So, you see, we have no evidence at all to suggest that consciousness emerges from IP or E/M but plenty of evidence for psi. (Even if you don't believe those reports they certainly do exist.)

What could all consciousnesses do together? What could they do if they're linked? (And what is the nature of that link? Is it "God"? Who knows?)

Now the above does violate parsimony. We don't know if consciousnesses ever work together or what the nature of their link is - psi doesn not "prove" that some consciousness or other/s caused objective reality. But given the evidence for psi the theory is much more plausible than completely abandoning the law of conservation in favour of hypothesising about a completely unheard of property or type of matter that can allow for spontaneous self-generation.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Phil]

Why do you continue to equate faith with one hundred percent certainty? The very word means belief without certainty (which can only come about through conclusive evidence). . . .

Which is exactly the reason you cannot place materialism and religiosity under the same umbrella. Faith is not the same thing as it relates to the two. This is all I've been trying to tell you all along. In the religious sense, faith means belief with certainty which comes about with no evidence whatsover.

As to the rest of your post, it seems you have some unresolved issues with other posters, and I have no interest in commenting further on those, other than to say that to me, much of it indicates either an unwillingness to view this subject while divorcing yourself from a pet philosophy, or an inability to understand the opposing viewpoints presented, or a complete departure into fantasy. I'm guessing it's the first, as you seem a fairly bright person.

As to the "faith-based" issue, however, which is where I came into the discussion, we seem to be sawing sawdust. We seem to be getting nowhere, and I have nothing to add that I feel will clarify my position further.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Why do you continue to equate faith with one hundred percent certainty? The very word means belief without certainty (which can only come about through conclusive evidence). . . .

Which is exactly the reason you cannot place materialism and religiosity under the same umbrella.

This old chestnut again. I haven't ever placed religion and materialism under the same umbrella. I've not even really been discussing religion even though you continue to force the issue to the centre as a convenient straw man. I have been discussing the origin of objective reality (conscious or material).

Yes, religions do tend to begin with someone having a mystical experience - and their attempts to share their insights in metaphors and what have you are almost always taken a little too seriously by their followers. But what does that even have to do with the current discussion?

Or consider someone's conversion to religion. They can hardly be said to instantly adopt all practices, rites and beliefs instantly since it often takes years to make head nor tail of them. The first thing that usually happens is that they consider themselves and their place in the world - the reason for it all and conclude it can't just be for nothing. They don't see how it all just happened by itself.

As they progress in a religion, then they start to become more and more accepting of the peculiarites of a given path.

The type of people who seek to convert others doesn't thrust a whole host of strange ideas onto people. They know that doesn't work. They're more subtle than that. They start small, cultivate "trust" and a "sense of belonging" before they hit them with the really strange stuff.

Incidentally, there are parallels in this process between religion and materialism even though they are quite different. Candidates are introduced to "skepticism" first. "C'mon, surely it's sensible not to believe in faries without evidence, right? I mean you want to be a sensible person like us, don't you? All you have to do is be skeptical!"

What they don't point out is that all your left with is strange faith-based ideas about the origin of objective reality and the nature of consciousness. The best end-result example I can give you is Dennett's avowal that even thermostats have beliefs.

Try throwing that at someone first and see how they approach materialism from that point forward.

Faith is not the same thing as it relates to the two. This is all I've been trying to tell you all along. In the religious sense, faith means belief with certainty which comes about with no evidence whatsover.

And I disagree entirely. But (aside from the above comments) I'm not the one who's been focussing on religions. I've been focussed on the origin of the objective universe. To say that materialism isn't a faith based metaphysic every bit as much as the consciousness view is quite wrong.

As to the rest of your post, it seems you have some unresolved issues with other posters, and I have no interest in commenting further on those, other than to say that to me, much of it indicates either an unwillingness to view this subject while divorcing yourself from a pet philosophy, or an inability to understand the opposing viewpoints presented, or a complete departure into fantasy. I'm guessing it's the first, as you seem a fairly bright person.

I have no "unresolved issues" with other posters. I'm not out to 'convert' anybody to anything. I'm perfectly happy for thaiboxerken and piggy to keep silent. I'd like to see more materialists go away and privately focus on getting their own house in order before trying to criticise/debate others.

And I strongly disagree with the accusation that I have been unwilling to divorce myself from a pet philosophy. I have repeatedly been comparing and contrasting two competing views and pointing out which view I am critical of and why and which view I support and why. I've seen nobody else do this. Instead, they seem only willing to consider materialistic views.

If your statements were true then I would not be asking for evidence to support materialistic views, since I'd essentially be believing that nothing can compete with a non-materialistic view and so no evidence should be considered. I've not done that.

Who else can say the same?

_
HypnoPsi

 

[The Great Hairy One]

For the Nth time - If I merely used the term "Atheism" many people would rightly point out that there are many atheists who still believe in a supernatural dimension to life. Since I am fully aware of this myself I am not going to make that mistake, am I?

You are arguing about materialism. This has nothing to do with atheism. As I said in my previous post, if you discredit materialism, you do not automatically also discredit atheism. You have to approach the discrediting of atheism as a separate argument, because the two beliefs are entirely separate themselves.

I've read this thread through a couple of times, and can see no arguments from you discussing atheism at all. All of your posts are arguing about materialism. As I keep reiterating, this has nothing to do with atheism.

And "materialistic atheism" is not a 'construct' of mine. Many writers use the term to specifically be clear as to what branch of atheism they are critiquing.

Many writers? Many? When you provided the Google search for "materialistic atheism" we only came up with 2,230 pages (it's up to 2,240 now because of this discussion), and the majority of those links were to a book by Hans Gerhard Koch, who is so obscure he does not even have his own page at Wikipedia!

Practically every link in that Google search is to some forum where the term is used - again as a strawman - by some christian apologist in an attempt to discredit atheism.

And there are no "branches of atheism". Either one is an atheist or one is a theist. That's all, end of discussion. If one is a materialist or non-materialist, that is a different area of philosophical belief, nothing to do with one's theistic beliefs.

I have no intention of discontinuing that practice only to be inevitably told that I should be more accurately defining "materialistic athesists" instead of including all "atheists" whenever I critique the view.

You are not even discussing atheism. All of your arguments are to do with materialism. The two are completely separate philosophical positions which need to be considered in isolation.

I feel like I'm talking to a post or brick wall.

It is no straw-man. I am not critiquing Buddhists or Animists (even though I do not share their beliefs). I am critiquing materialistic atheists. Deal with it.

"Deal with it"? No. You're being intellectually dishonest and are not debating in good faith. You are insisting on using a term which is false and a strawman. You insist on corrupting and discrediting your own arguments by not taking an honest stance.

Either drop this strawman position which you have raised, or accept the label "dishonest debater". Those are your only two choices.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[HypnoPsi]

You are arguing about materialism. This has nothing to do with atheism. As I said in my previous post, if you discredit materialism, you do not automatically also discredit atheism. You have to approach the discrediting of atheism as a separate argument, because the two beliefs are entirely separate themselves.

I've read this thread through a couple of times, and can see no arguments from you discussing atheism at all. All of your posts are arguing about materialism. As I keep reiterating, this has nothing to do with atheism.

And, as I keep reiterating, I have no criticism against plain old "atheism" since someone defining themselves as just an "atheist" could very easily be a Buddhist or whatever. Neither have I suggested - or would I suggest - that discrediting "materialism" automatically discredits "atheism"

I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" plain and simple. This is the "When you're dead, your dead" variety of "atheism" that does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
And "materialistic atheism" is not a 'construct' of mine. Many writers use the term to specifically be clear as to what branch of atheism they are critiquing.

Many writers? Many? When you provided the Google search for "materialistic atheism" we only came up with 2,230 pages (it's up to 2,240 now because of this discussion), and the majority of those links were to a book by Hans Gerhard Koch, who is so obscure he does not even have his own page at Wikipedia!

When I do an advanced search on Google for pages that exclude the name Hans Gerhard Koch, the search result still returns 2,020 pages. (Amusingly, the first link is to a paper written by one Howard Thompson for The Texas Atheist newsletter which begins with the sentence "I am a materialistic atheist.")

And there are no "branches of atheism". Either one is an atheist or one is a theist. That's all, end of discussion. If one is a materialist or non-materialist, that is a different area of philosophical belief, nothing to do with one's theistic beliefs.

Complete nonsense. The very reason for the existence of adjectives in the English language is to limit, qualify, specify or distinguish a noun. It's why we have them!

"Atheistic" adj. "Materialism" n.

"Materialistic" adj. "Atheism" n.

See? It works either way as "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism".

Your real agenda here is nothing more than to try to find a way to insulate the most common - or perhaps just the most vociferous - variety of atheism in western culture from real criticism because you realise it cannot withstand well reasoned arguments.

Do you honestly think you're going to have much luck convincing people to do that?

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
It is no straw-man. I am not critiquing Buddhists or Animists (even though I do not share their beliefs). I am critiquing materialistic atheists. Deal with it.

"Deal with it"? No.

Then you're going to have to remain frustrated as the best you'll get out of me is the occasional "atheistic materialism" instead - which still returns 17,900 pages!

You're being intellectually dishonest and are not debating in good faith. You are insisting on using a term which is false and a strawman. You insist on corrupting and discrediting your own arguments by not taking an honest stance.

This is utter claptrap. I certainly wouldn't claim that my grammar is leagues above average but I usually find I know how, when and why to qualify a noun.

I have defined quite clearly what branch of "atheism" I am critiquing and what type I'm not critiquing. The only intellecual dishonesty here is your insistence that there are not differing types of atheism when there quite plainly are.

Either drop this strawman position which you have raised, or accept the label "dishonest debater". Those are your only two choices.

I strongly suggest you look to yourself first and perhaps get your facts straight before you get yourself in to what basically amounts to an argument over grammar.

_
HypnoPsi