Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
He Moves in Mysterious Ways
If, as Isaiah 55:8-9 indicates, God's behavior and thoughts are far different from our own, then He presents a great mystery to human beings; all of which, believer and unbeliever alike, hobbled by their mere humanity, are equally unqualified to discuss the true nature of God.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Soulless it Seems
In regard to human consciousness, I consider myself a philosophical materialist: brains generate minds; minds are what brains do, with no other substance, concept, or mechanism needed to explain human thought processes. I think the evidence from neuroscience favors this view.
But what about dualism, the idea that there is more than the physical, the notion that the real you is your soul, and that your consciousness continues to exist even after your death? I think a computer CPU, with integrated RAM and a firmware operating system, is a good analogy for the human brain.*
* For those who aren't acquainted with the innards of computers: I'm talking about all the parts of a computer (the memory, information storage, and information processing) being completely fused together on one integrated, self-contained computer chip.
In the materialist view, the entire "self" is exclusively contained on that one chip. If a part of that chip fails, say, part of the RAM becomes corrupted, it's like suffering from Alzheimer's. That part of the self can never be restored; it is forever lost.
In the dualist view, the chip is a transceiver and physical projector of the non-material self (soul), which is transmitted over the ether(eal)net to the body. If part of the chip fails, the transmission and reception of information between the hardware body and the self becomes garbled, but the "true self" is still intact on a server somewhere.
Problems: we've never been able to find a method of transmission between the body and the soul, and no one has ever been able to provide good evidence for the existence of the heavenly server farm.
But what about dualism, the idea that there is more than the physical, the notion that the real you is your soul, and that your consciousness continues to exist even after your death? I think a computer CPU, with integrated RAM and a firmware operating system, is a good analogy for the human brain.*
* For those who aren't acquainted with the innards of computers: I'm talking about all the parts of a computer (the memory, information storage, and information processing) being completely fused together on one integrated, self-contained computer chip.
In the materialist view, the entire "self" is exclusively contained on that one chip. If a part of that chip fails, say, part of the RAM becomes corrupted, it's like suffering from Alzheimer's. That part of the self can never be restored; it is forever lost.
In the dualist view, the chip is a transceiver and physical projector of the non-material self (soul), which is transmitted over the ether(eal)net to the body. If part of the chip fails, the transmission and reception of information between the hardware body and the self becomes garbled, but the "true self" is still intact on a server somewhere.
Problems: we've never been able to find a method of transmission between the body and the soul, and no one has ever been able to provide good evidence for the existence of the heavenly server farm.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Moral Absolutes
Moral absolutes exist in a room with a Catholic, an Arminian, and a Calvinist each holding their bibles, all secure in the notion that the absolute truth contained in that book imparts to each of them the absolute certainty of the absolute morality of the fact that the other two are headed straight to hell.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Mark Rowlands Hates Humanists
Philosopher Mark Rowlands answers Massimo Pigliucci's rejoinder to three different posts he made regarding the reasons he's not a humanist, here. I posted a response to that latest post, in the comments at Secular Philosohpy (reprinted below).
Hello, Mark. I'm a bit puzzled by some of the logic you're using here.
You seem to be saying that if an organization's manifesto does not include a reference to something you hold valuable, it is safe to assume they are actually against that particular concern? Wouldn't such an assumption be similar to reading the aims and goals of the local astronomers club, and then declaring that, "When push comes to shove, they've all got their eyes on the stars, and so care nothing for the concerns of the very planet they inhabit! Their club charter doesn't mention a thing about saving the whales; they're obviously anti-cetaceanists! And to the extent that astronomers care about anything else, they then are not astronomers, are they?"
That's quite a stretch, I think. It's also incorrect when it comes to humanist concerns. You say humanists care little or nothing for the environment, yet if you look at the Humanist Manifesto III, that's plainly not the case (emphasis mine):
"Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond."
If the astronomers lived in an astrology dominated world, their manifesto would probably be centered around describing what sets them apart from astrologers. Likewise, the Humanist Manifesto III looks to have been written with the main thrust of describing humanist values vis-a-vis a religiously dominated world. You seem to be perceiving stated humanist values as being written vis-a-vis an environmentalist worldview. That's clearly not the case.
Even if most humanists were self-centered proponents of speciesism, one would think they'd still be rational enough to accept a non-humanist's argument that taking action to save the planet, and all other species on and in it, was in the best interests of humanists and, indeed, was the only way to further the goals of humanism itself.
It appears you're making that very argument in your last paragraph. Yet, in your concluding sentences you negate its force. Basically, you're saying that humanists need to realize that it's in their best interests to save the planet, but they won't do it because you've decided that's not what humanism entails. Have I got that right?
You said: "OK, we can bleat on about how much we care about the planet, or other animals, but in general (though not always) these are just crocodile tears."
So, humanists cannot be active environmentalists, and vice versa? Why not? Because you've decided that the humanist movement largely consists of hypocrites, and those that actually do take action for environmental causes don't realize they're behaving in a logically impossible fashion (or, at the very least, that they're no longer "true" humanists - whatever that means)?
Even if you feel that I am completely in error here, is it your intention to rally people to your cause, which I assume is saving the planet and other species, or are you more concerned with everyone signing on to your definition of humanism and admitting that they're just a bunch of loathsome, deluded hypocrites? A similar question would be: Can Christians and non-believers work together on environmental issues, or must the Christians first admit that their religion is nonsense before non-believers will consider them truly and sincerely on-board?
Hello, Mark. I'm a bit puzzled by some of the logic you're using here.
You seem to be saying that if an organization's manifesto does not include a reference to something you hold valuable, it is safe to assume they are actually against that particular concern? Wouldn't such an assumption be similar to reading the aims and goals of the local astronomers club, and then declaring that, "When push comes to shove, they've all got their eyes on the stars, and so care nothing for the concerns of the very planet they inhabit! Their club charter doesn't mention a thing about saving the whales; they're obviously anti-cetaceanists! And to the extent that astronomers care about anything else, they then are not astronomers, are they?"
That's quite a stretch, I think. It's also incorrect when it comes to humanist concerns. You say humanists care little or nothing for the environment, yet if you look at the Humanist Manifesto III, that's plainly not the case (emphasis mine):
"Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond."
If the astronomers lived in an astrology dominated world, their manifesto would probably be centered around describing what sets them apart from astrologers. Likewise, the Humanist Manifesto III looks to have been written with the main thrust of describing humanist values vis-a-vis a religiously dominated world. You seem to be perceiving stated humanist values as being written vis-a-vis an environmentalist worldview. That's clearly not the case.
Even if most humanists were self-centered proponents of speciesism, one would think they'd still be rational enough to accept a non-humanist's argument that taking action to save the planet, and all other species on and in it, was in the best interests of humanists and, indeed, was the only way to further the goals of humanism itself.
It appears you're making that very argument in your last paragraph. Yet, in your concluding sentences you negate its force. Basically, you're saying that humanists need to realize that it's in their best interests to save the planet, but they won't do it because you've decided that's not what humanism entails. Have I got that right?
You said: "OK, we can bleat on about how much we care about the planet, or other animals, but in general (though not always) these are just crocodile tears."
So, humanists cannot be active environmentalists, and vice versa? Why not? Because you've decided that the humanist movement largely consists of hypocrites, and those that actually do take action for environmental causes don't realize they're behaving in a logically impossible fashion (or, at the very least, that they're no longer "true" humanists - whatever that means)?
Even if you feel that I am completely in error here, is it your intention to rally people to your cause, which I assume is saving the planet and other species, or are you more concerned with everyone signing on to your definition of humanism and admitting that they're just a bunch of loathsome, deluded hypocrites? A similar question would be: Can Christians and non-believers work together on environmental issues, or must the Christians first admit that their religion is nonsense before non-believers will consider them truly and sincerely on-board?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Religious Truth
Is there such a thing? If so, what epistemic metric can we use to know we've actually discovered it? This question is explored by Simen on the de-conversion blog. The conversation was about whether or not religious truths should be subject to empirical scientific investigation. Following is an only slightly modified version of my comments on the issue.
Heather (and perhaps others) have touched on the Argument From Disagreement, which says: Because theological claims conflict, at least some of them must be false, and all of them could be false. Now, I'd like to take that argument in a different than usual direction.
There are two ideas in the comments that I've been thinking about. Agkyra started things off at the top by asserting that theological questions are outside the domain of empirical science, and I believe it was Kramii who mentioned a toolkit for investigating reality.
If what Agkyra says is true, and the resolution of theological questions is ultimately outside the purview of empirical science, is there an alternative method for discovering religious truth? Considering that various strongly held, yet diametrically opposed, religious beliefs continue to cause warfare and other forms of human suffering, wouldn't it be a worthwhile endeavor to resolve such conflicts? I'm not talking about ecumenism, although I find that worthwhile as well. I mean the actual methodical determination of which theological claims are in fact true.
Doing this would certainly make the world a more peaceful place. And for those who believe in a loving God, I think he'd certainly be pleased if everyone were on the same doctrinal page rather than fighting over scriptural interpretations or which church or religion was the "right" one. And just think of all the deconverted who could now reconvert with confidence that they're on the right metaphysical track.
If any believers have an idea how to do this I'd be interested to hear it. Such a project would sure beat pastimes like the Sunni vs. Shiite "games" in Iraq. Sure, there would still be different denominations of the certified One True Religion, just to accommodate different tastes in worship services, but people wouldn't have to waste precious time accusing each other of practicing a religion that's "of the devil", or wondering whether or not God really cares if they use condoms.
Does what I'm saying sound facetious? It could be taken that way. It could also be taken as a serious challenge for believers to find a way to revolutionize metaphysical inquiry, and put the Argument From Disagreement forever to rest.
Another thought: maybe I'm making a different category mistake than Agkyra claims is being made by those who attempt to assess theological truths using empiricism. Perhaps theology is more analogous to aesthetics than any type of methodological investigation like science.
Poetry, paintings, and music may contain references to facts, but they're not about empirical truth, although they're definitely not without meaning for those who appreciate them. They may speak to us about the human condition, point out flaws in our societies, cause us to examine our darkest selves, or strike deep emotional chords that inspire us to do great things. There isn't one "true" religion any more than there is one "true" form of artistic expression. Now I'm getting ecumenical, and universalist here...
If religious beliefs and experiences are a close analogue to artistic expression and appreciation, then they can have great power for those individuals whose lives they touch. They also, like art, may inspire individuals but never dictate to the masses. A novel may inspire individuals to change from its lament on the failings of society, but has no right to impose its narrative on that society. And a painting may depict the law, but never legislate. Because religion and art are both "in the eye of the beholder" they can have no authority over those who do not choose to appreciate them.
Heather (and perhaps others) have touched on the Argument From Disagreement, which says: Because theological claims conflict, at least some of them must be false, and all of them could be false. Now, I'd like to take that argument in a different than usual direction.
There are two ideas in the comments that I've been thinking about. Agkyra started things off at the top by asserting that theological questions are outside the domain of empirical science, and I believe it was Kramii who mentioned a toolkit for investigating reality.
If what Agkyra says is true, and the resolution of theological questions is ultimately outside the purview of empirical science, is there an alternative method for discovering religious truth? Considering that various strongly held, yet diametrically opposed, religious beliefs continue to cause warfare and other forms of human suffering, wouldn't it be a worthwhile endeavor to resolve such conflicts? I'm not talking about ecumenism, although I find that worthwhile as well. I mean the actual methodical determination of which theological claims are in fact true.
Doing this would certainly make the world a more peaceful place. And for those who believe in a loving God, I think he'd certainly be pleased if everyone were on the same doctrinal page rather than fighting over scriptural interpretations or which church or religion was the "right" one. And just think of all the deconverted who could now reconvert with confidence that they're on the right metaphysical track.
If any believers have an idea how to do this I'd be interested to hear it. Such a project would sure beat pastimes like the Sunni vs. Shiite "games" in Iraq. Sure, there would still be different denominations of the certified One True Religion, just to accommodate different tastes in worship services, but people wouldn't have to waste precious time accusing each other of practicing a religion that's "of the devil", or wondering whether or not God really cares if they use condoms.
Does what I'm saying sound facetious? It could be taken that way. It could also be taken as a serious challenge for believers to find a way to revolutionize metaphysical inquiry, and put the Argument From Disagreement forever to rest.
Another thought: maybe I'm making a different category mistake than Agkyra claims is being made by those who attempt to assess theological truths using empiricism. Perhaps theology is more analogous to aesthetics than any type of methodological investigation like science.
Poetry, paintings, and music may contain references to facts, but they're not about empirical truth, although they're definitely not without meaning for those who appreciate them. They may speak to us about the human condition, point out flaws in our societies, cause us to examine our darkest selves, or strike deep emotional chords that inspire us to do great things. There isn't one "true" religion any more than there is one "true" form of artistic expression. Now I'm getting ecumenical, and universalist here...
If religious beliefs and experiences are a close analogue to artistic expression and appreciation, then they can have great power for those individuals whose lives they touch. They also, like art, may inspire individuals but never dictate to the masses. A novel may inspire individuals to change from its lament on the failings of society, but has no right to impose its narrative on that society. And a painting may depict the law, but never legislate. Because religion and art are both "in the eye of the beholder" they can have no authority over those who do not choose to appreciate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
