Best of Luck to All!

[grex]

Let me rephrase that.

We will never know how.

I might add that Emergentism is a philosophical rather than a scientific explanation. Science doesn't claim to ever be able to figure it out. In fact, due to the nature of the question, most scientists will tell you it is a question science can not answer, not because it's hard, but because it's outside the realm of science. My point: Atheism is a faith just like any other, and it's a perfectly legitimate faith to have. Just don't go bashing others for having theirs.

Good luck, all.

[Astaroth]

If atheism is a faith, then what is a lack of faith? Because that's what I have, a lack of faith.

[dowjonesindustrial]

This is already a more interesting thread than it was ten posts ago; salud to all 3 above posters for their thoughts and re/covering of the middle ground.

[grex]

If atheism is a faith, then what is a lack of faith? Because that's what I have, a lack of faith.

The way I see it, atheism is a faith in randomness, Emergentism (to some extent), and a faith that there is no God. I say faith because the existence of God cannot be proven.

If you don't have a faith that there is no God, or that there is a God (i.e. you aren't certain), you're probably agnostic. But agnostic just means you're ambivalent either way. But if you don't have faith and are searching, you're just searching?

[jackassjim]

But agnostic just means you're ambivalent either way.

Ambivalence implies the presence of contradictory attitudes or feelings toward an object, a sort of back and forth between believing that God is, and believing (s)he isn't. This understates the power of agnosticism, which can, in effect, constitute a principled philosophical stance for someone who believes that the human mind cannot know if there exists a supreme being.

[miratrix]

But to say you can believe in completely ludicrous things like people living in whales, talking bushes, magical transformations of bread into fish and the like, walking on water, a space zombie who fathered himself only to have himself killed to rectify the mistake he made when creating us (even though he's infallible -- it must be a test!), and vampiric blood rituals, while still being an intellectual is patently absurd!

That's totally the point, though! Miracles ARE completely absurd! That's what makes them stand out from the rest of the rational, scientifically explicable world! Ludicrous is an interesting word choice - in practical terms, they are ludicrous, but in poetic terms they sometimes are far from it. Anyway, I doubt anyone who believes in any miracles would try to convince you they're perfectly normal and believable, and I've only come across one or two religious people who've ever argued miracles follow laws of nature.

What you're insisting on isn't so much intelligence, or rational thought, or education level, as much as adherence to philosophical materialism or naturalism...and I can't think of any intellectual disciplines apart from philosophy, philosophy of science, or theology in which it might even be necessary to hold a position on those schools of thought.

(Also, "a space zombie"? I've never heard that one before. Where on earth did you come up with it?.)

Oh and regarding the recent posts on agnosticism...I think in addition to holding agnosticism as a temporary or permanent philosophical stance and therefore opting out of religion, you can also be a religious agnostic. Most people seem to disagree, though.

[jackassjim]

you can also be a religious agnostic. Most people seem to disagree, though.

Are you refering to those agnostics who view what little faith they have as a relatively costless insurance?

Edit: Oh, and +1 for your characterization of the previous poster's argument. I think you're on target.

[miratrix]

I'm referring to those agnostics who choose to take full part in rituals, confessions, and communities of faith despite not knowing, or not being convinced, of the total truth of the faith. This is only a possible stance if you define religiousness as including behavior and commitment, rather than exclusively as a matter of philsoophical & emotional certainty. This tends to be more of a point of contention with Christians and Muslims than Jews, Buddhists, or members of other faiths, in my experience, even though I think the line between "agnosticism" and "Christian doubt" really is pretty fine sometimes.

Getting pretty off track here, but this is more interesting than that SoP I'm not working on

[jackassjim]

Doubt is not the same as belief we cannot know. I'm not sure it qualifies.

[Astaroth]

If you don't have a faith that there is no God, or that there is a God (i.e. you aren't certain), you're probably agnostic. But agnostic just means you're ambivalent either way. But if you don't have faith and are searching, you're just searching?

I don't necessarily have a problem with "agnosticism", but ambivalence is not what I have. I forgot to mention that I am in the exact same place with regards to God as I am with regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Loch Ness Monster (I would say I am more inclined towards believing that one than God!), fairies, and all sorts of other things proposed to exist but having no evidence to support their existence.

There are two aspects of this. One is what your "philosophical" position is, which is mostly what we have been talking about here. But the other, and IMO the more important aspect, is how you go on to APPLY this philosophical position to the way you live your life. This can sometimes be completely different to the philosophical position itself. For example, I am philosophically an agnostic, but in practice I am an atheist. Some people call this "agnostic atheism" and is the label I tend to opt for. Why do I "practice atheism"? Because it's intellectually easier and more comfortable to me, and I don't see any sort of cognitive dissonance here.

My other options would be to be an "agnostic agnostic", which is extremely difficult, and people tend to go through this phase transitionally in their teenage years as they begin to reject religion. One can practice agnosticism by constantly evaluating every single thing that happens against these two hypotheses: "God exists", and "God does not exist". Although philosophically viable, this is a very tiring way to live your life, especially if you have better things to do, such as worry about your grad school applications.

The final option would be "agnostic theism", which means that I have ambivalent doubt as previously described, but I choose to "play it safe" by practicing a theistic religion. Once again there is no philosophical discord here in my view, and in fact I think a substantial portion of the religious community are in this camp, especially younger folk. These are the people that are actually willing to converse with you about faith and will express doubt.

So, to recap, here are my options:

1. Theistic theism: Thanks, but no thanks. Only Sith deal in absolutes. Sith and Fundies. Show me some evidence and I'll think about it.

2. Atheistic atheism: See above. Although I should say that there is plenty more "evidence" to support this than the former.

3. Agnostic agnosticism: Confusing, takes too much effort, although philosophically sound. Grew out of it about 8 years ago.

4. Agnostic theism: This is the vast majority of people... I see the appeal, but personally don't buy it. (What if I'm wrong? What if YOU'RE wrong?)

5. Agnostic atheism: Ah, now we're talking. Yes please.

[gadhelyn]

I always figured there are three very simple classifications for religiousness:

1) Theistic: this one's easy, it's the religious who pray and go to church and have a defined religion that they practice. This view point does allow for an infinite universe, as it accepts the limitations of human understanding, that we will never comprehend everything.

2) Agnostic: think religion from a science point of view. There's something out there that cannot be explained by science, and as such is impossible for a human to comprehend it enough to have an actual religion about it. Sure, it might be as simple as God or the Hindu Pantheon (I say as if Hinduism had a simple pantheon), but there's no evidence that completely and utterly supports one religion. It's just safer to believe something's out there and keep it that simple. Also can allow for an infinite universe.

3) Atheist: nothing's out there, everything can and eventually will be explained by humans eventually. Seems to allow for only a very large but finite universe (as eventually nothing would come as unknown).

But this only holds true if you hold a godless society that believes in there always being an unknown as agnostic, i.e. the universe of Dune, post-Scattering in which Leto II set it up to allow for human expansion into an infinite, unknown future and universe without the need for a godhead.

[Astaroth]

Hmm.. sounds like I should read past Children of Dune!

[seunghwane]

Wow. I opened this thread not expecting a heated debate.

Anyway, I'll just quickly add a thought. And that is to say, if science explains everything, how does it explain free will and self-consciousness? Are we all products of external stimuli, atomic collisions, and quantum interactions? Are our decisions predetermined, or probabilistically determined (if you consider quantum physics)?

The most popular scientific theory that accommodates self-consciousness (but still doesn't explain free will) is something called Emergentism. Basically, it says, put a whole bunch of molecules together in a complicated enough fashion and it becomes self-aware. We don't know how, but it just does. Nor can we predict the arrangement of said molecules to produce such self-awareness. In fact, it doesn't even have to be molecules, it can be anything. Self-awareness just... happens.

This has been the inspiration for Jane (in the Ender's Game series) and rogue computer programs in various movies (i.e. Eagle Eye, I, Robot).

Can you really write software that can become self-aware, and undertake actions of free will?

So those who are religious believe in God (or some higher power). Those who are atheists most commonly believe in Emergentism (which I find harder to swallow). I believe that, more likely than not, there are things in this universe that no human can comprehend no matter how hard he/she thinks.

Neuroscientists are getting there.

Consciousness is a difficult thing to define, but decision making is not.

In the end, it comes down to semantics- if you are using fuzzy words and concepts, then it is inherently scientifically not testable.

Using a reductionist point of view, you can tackle these problems, which is what researchers like Bill Newsome of Stanford and Howard Hughes Medical Institute are doing by studying animal models.

[grex]

Please tell me how neuroscientists are getting there? They're definitely getting somewhere, but not to any explanation of decision making. They can characterize things in great detail after a decision has been made, sure. But they will never be able to tell me how a decision is made in the first place.

It's a matter of causality. I wave at someone. What caused that? Well, muscle contractions. What caused that? Electric impulses. What initiated those impulses? My brain. What prompted it to initiate them?

A) The electrochemical state of my brain, coupled with the external stimuli that is affecting it, blah blah blah. Any scientific explanation implies we are simply products of the state of the universe, ergo we are robots. I would have waved no matter what, given those exact circumstances. My "decision" was merely an illusion.

One explanation (I'm not claiming it's right), is that my decision arose from an extra-material force. If I am completely physical, my actions are completely determined by the physical world around me. If I am extra-physical, I can make decisions independent of the world around me. Hence the concept of a soul. And extra-physical forces in general.

Now, when you see "Neuroscientists are getting there," they're getting to a point where they can describe A) in greater detail.

My point: A belief in nonphysical forces is just as tenable as a belief that things can be explained with reductionistic methods, etc. I am NOT arguing for one side, or the other. I am merely saying that yes, you can be an intellectual and hold religious views.

[Astaroth]

You haven't really shown how the two views are equally tenable, or even addressed the issue, you just stated it.

When your argument begins with "this is something that science cannot touch", then naturally your answer to the question "can science touch this?" will be "no!".

Stop! Hammertime.

[grex]

How about this:

I have seen no scientific evidence for or against the existence of extraphysical forces. But those who believe in such forces don't believe everything can be explained by science.

I have seen no scientific explanation for free will. I have heard that "scientists are working on it", but I have not even heard, nor can I imagine, the experiments one would undertake to explain free will. I haven't even heard of a hypothetical scientific explanation. It's not even possible to fudge a scientific explanation of free will. That's why most discussions on this topic are in the realm of philosophy.

So you choose between: science can't explain everything, here's a nonscientific explanation vs. science can explain everything, but there is no scientific explanation for this.

There. You might even say that the former is more tenable than the latter. It's just that people very much assume that science can provide an explanation for every phenomena out there, and most people don't even bother asking for a scientific explanation for something as simple as free will. Most atheists have no idea what reductionism is, what emergentism is, or even what the mind-body problem is. They just assume people smarter than they are are going to figure out the answer, as if an answer can be found. Sound like faith? And the belief that science is the be all and end all of everything in most cases comes about as a result of upbringing... imagine that.

So if if you think the answer to the question "can science touch this?" is a "yes!", I'd very much like to hear an explanation.

[Astaroth]

I haven't even heard of a hypothetical scientific explanation. It's not even possible to fudge a scientific explanation of free will. That's why most discussions on this topic are in the realm of philosophy.

Maybe you should try reading more science and less philosophy? There are plenty of hypotheses out there.

So if if you think the answer to the question "can science touch this?" is a "yes!", I'd very much like to hear an explanation.

No, I think the answer is "who knows? why do we have to decide this? let's just wait and see".

As for your repeated attempts to describe anything related to science as faith... I find that curious and interesting. Do you want to discuss semantics?

People don't have the time or the interest level to read every single scientific journal out there and be up to date with all the "-isms" philosophers (post-modern ones, mainly) have come up with lately. Obviously you will trust that someone will figure something out... if you actually care about whether it will be figured out. An example is a cure for a disease. Science-based medicine has cured many diseases in the past. This gives people a very good excuse to trust that they will eventually figure out the disease they care about. Do you want to say that they have faith that it will be figured out? Go ahead, use whatever word you like!

As for the consciousness thing that people just keep banging on about, why exactly do you care so much? I'm not saying I don't care, I'm just wondering why you think it so devastatingly important that it infuriates you and makes you want to reject science all over the place!

Finally, as for being brought up to have faith in science, well I am quite proud to be one of those children brutally indoctrinated into "scientism"! Why am I proud of it? Because it happens to be based on evidence and pragmatism. Name one other faith that is based on evidence.

Actually, from now on I consider myself to be a person of faith. In science.

[grex]

I'm not rejecting science. Quite the contrary.

If you would read my above posts, they are mostly in response to Minnesotan. I am saying that atheism is understandable, as is religion. The end. There really is no argument, sorry if I made it seem like there was.

As for those "-isms". They date back to Aristotle and are by no means trivial. It's just an interesting problem I find fascinating, that people have been thinking about for millennia.

[seunghwane]

Astaroth, it's a lost cause.

Without having any knowledge of neuroscience, he pontificates about the status of the field.

Even though I am being recruited by the Harvard neuroscience PhD program, I realize that I have no knowledge to make such grand statements about my own field, let alone a completely unrelated field.

Besides, the fact that there is no proof against something does not, in any way, argue for that something.

I would restate Russell Bertrand's teapot allegory, but I suspect it will go right over the heads of superstitious.

It's also irrelevant how long a problem has been thought of.

Plenty of brilliant people of the old believed in nonsensical things and the fact that Aristotle believed in something doesn't add to the argument at all.

People used to believe that earth is in the center of the universe, that the world is flat, that the plentary orbit was a perfect circle, and so on.

[miratrix]

The final option would be "agnostic theism", which means that I have ambivalent doubt as previously described, but I choose to "play it safe" by practicing a theistic religion. Once again there is no philosophical discord here in my view, and in fact I think a substantial portion of the religious community are in this camp, especially younger folk. These are the people that are actually willing to converse with you about faith and will express doubt.

This is sort of what I mean, although I don't think it's a matter of "playing it safe." I don't think the idea of picking a side that promises eternal reward or avoidance of eternal punishment as a safer bet than the alternative is something that has ever actually had any psychological appeal, because if you don't have a compelling belief in God than you probably don't have a compelling belief in his vengeance and reward system. I think agnostic theists are more motivated by what they gain in this life through personal growth, guidance from holy books and tradition, being part of community, ritual, etc., etc.

...but I also think this is really hard to categorize, because the line between your "agnostic theist" and my "healthily doubting and questioning theist" is hard to draw. The same person might apply either or both to himself based on his tradition, his social and educational background, or his mood on a particular day. "Belief" is a really fuzzy thing.

[Astaroth]

I think agnostic theists are more motivated by what they gain in this life through personal growth, guidance from holy books and tradition, being part of community, ritual, etc., etc.

How strange, I just woke up from a dream in which I was in church and was stood across the room from an old friend so I stared at him until he looked over and recognized me... but he looked over and it turned out to be someone else, so I had to explain why I was staring. And after that I accused the pastor of running a mental home... but that's a different story. The point I am trying to make is, I have also read holy books and taken guidance from them, I have also (albeit briefly) been part of such a community and so on (although I must say I never really did "get" religious ritual, but I realize that's just me). I never once believed in anything supernatural or had even a slight change in my philosophical agnosticism or practical atheism. You might think that sounds crazy (an atheist in church?!) but I'm sure I wasn't the only one. And that was in an evangelical church, let's not forget the Unitarian Universalists who are quite openly non-theistic or the Quakers who might as well be.

[Astaroth]

grex, have you seen this?

Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Gu1YSoDaY

[grex]

Okay, I really thought I was done with my last post.

But this is directly addressed to me. You are saying, I think something, and you can read my mind. That's fine. My mental state is reflected in my physical state. What I am asking is, can you predict that I am going to wave at you? If you examine the electrochemical state of my brain, or even the entire state of the universe, can you predict what I am going to do next? If you can, there is no such thing as free will. If not, my action was not predictable with science (ergo, there are some phenomena that cannot be explained by science).

Here is something called the Free Will Theorem:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/f ... eorem.html

This isn't some obscure proof. This is actually very widely discussed.

[Astaroth]

Well I didn't say any of those things, I was just wondering whether you had seen it because it sounds like something you might be interested in... but more to the point it's an example of something that I'm pretty sure someone in your position a few years ago was saying could never ever be done and is completely impossible. Who even knew someone was trying to extract live images from human brain? It sounds completely insane, yet here it is. So I don't see any point in having to decide right now what the future of science will be. Funny how you try to apply determinism to science but don't allow science to apply determinism to you 8)

As for free will, something I read in a post on another forum has stuck in my mind as all that needs to be said about free will:

"The illusion of having free will is much more important than whether we actually have free will."

From a pragmatic viewpoint, that should fully satisfy you. If you aren't into pragmatism then we have other things to talk about, but if you are, then this should make you re-consider how important a question free will really is.

I would also recommend that you listen to the song "Veil of Maya" by Cynic, as it directly addresses this issue. (or you can just read about the Veil of Maya, but listening to the song is a lot more fun)

[grex]

Again, I am NOT arguing against you. You have a perfectly legitimate stance. I am saying, that your stance is not so much more obvious than any other stance (e.g. religion).

If you choose to believe that free will is an illusion, and that science has an answer to everything, that's you prerogative.

If someone else chooses to believe that free will is not an illusion, that's theirs.

Can we just agree already that yes, it's possible that you're right? But it isn't just the insanely stupid who believe that science doesn't hold the answer to everything.