The Great Contradiction

[Wiploc]

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

It seems to me immensely unlikely that my mind is a mere product of magic. For if my mental processes were determined wholly by a magic, eccentric, and self-contradictory stranger, I would have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true. They might be sound magically, but that wouldn't make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be the product of a magic-throwing god.

 

[Wiploc]

Freewill is assumed and yet argued against in atheistic reasoning.

Many atheists argue for free will. Many theists argue against it. Don't characterize arguments against free will as "atheistic."

 

[Wiploc]

The QUOTE button isn't working for me, so I won't be quoting or attributing as much or as well as usual. This is in response to post 43 by Remez.

Haldane’s point is from a naturistic viewpoint (foundational to atheism) there is no thinking.

That's not Haldane's point, and naturalism is not foundational to atheism.

Buddhists, for instance, are mostly atheists, but they aren't naturalists.

I'm firmly in the strong atheist camp, but I'd have to do research and introspection to learn whether I'm a naturalist.

 

[Wiploc]

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.

Asserting free will is asserting creation ex nihilo.

That's absurd. I have free will, and creation ex nihilo seems to me absurd.

I do not assert creation ex nihilo when I assert free will.

 

[skepticalbip]

The QUOTE button isn't working for me, so I won't be quoting or attributing as much or as well as usual. This is in response to post 43 by Remez.

Haldane’s point is from a naturistic viewpoint (foundational to atheism) there is no thinking.

That's not Haldane's point, and naturalism is not foundational to atheism.

Buddhists, for instance, are mostly atheists, but they aren't naturalists.

I'm firmly in the strong atheist camp, but I'd have to do research and introspection to learn whether I'm a naturalist.

Both Lion and Remez have a tendency to declare what atheists believe and why then try to argue against their strawman. Neither can be depended on to directly address what atheists actually post.

 

[abaddon]

I think we can be pretty sure it arises from brain activity somehow.

"Arises from". So it becomes something else than brain activity. That's one reason why I share Haldane's incredulity.

"I agree with Haldane" didn't mean agreement with whatever his philosophy was. I only meant I share the incredulity about consciousness being equivalent to brain activity. The details of that don't matter at all. Not in this theism vs atheism forum. I'm just noting the Haldane quote isn't problematic for atheism and, as I said, that's my only point.

This is important ... don't mistake taking supernaturalism as the default alternative to what scientists say. Someone doubting science all-encompassing abilities isn't necessarily an ache for supernaturalism or religion. That's the loop the theists are stuck in.

The stuff presented about determinism and free will is just part of the theist's inverse argument for theism by "reverse apologetics" - the idea is if they can ram holes in "atheistic reasoning" then theistic reasoning becomes the default alternative: 'Here is a reason that materialism is false, so naturalism tumbles too, so the ground has fallen out from under atheistic reasoning, so supernaturalism is a rational alternative, so therefore my faith in supernatural beings is not a blind faith'.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion I hope this helps.

Let me first begin this response with an acknowledgement that I’m sure we both agree wtith…. that god of the gaps philosophy (gotg) does exist and is wrong.

Sure. And the simple way to rebut GOTG reasoning is to either;
A) Remove the gap or B) use a different place-holder word other than God.

When you DON”T HAVE REASON for some gap of understanding you simply ASSUME god did it.

The assumption is not so much that God did it but that someone or something did it.
The argument from First Cause or Intelligent Design isn't God-Of-The-Gaps reasoning.
And atheism doesn't have any quarrel with agency or contingency unless that prior cause happens to be called divinity.
Atheists would be overjoyed if the origin of life on Earth was shown to be the result of aliens and panspermia.

It happens and has happened throughout history. But all should be aware that it is just as wrong and prevalent to assume a nature of the gaps (notg) philosophy.

Yep. Better to stay focussed on the actual existence of those gap(s) and consider which possible explanation fills that gap best. Presuppositional atheists/materialists dogmatically insist on anything BUT God.

But
It is also true that many skeptics have FALSELY accused theists of that errant reasoning. For if the skeptic ignores the inferences/reasons being provided by the theist and instead arbitrarily opts to mislabel or ignore the provided theistic reasoning as purely assumption then the error lies with the skeptic.

Right.
And if atheists are going to use the label GOTG to dismiss every single theistic position then they shouldn't be surprised when they get called out for doing their own godlessness-of-the-gaps. The mysterious ways of "random chance" is NOT a better explanation than teleology. "Spontaneous" is not a better placeholder word than God.

This is important. For many false narratives by the skeptic toward the theist spin off this pseudo philosophy. Eg: You shut down science/understanding when you assume god into the gaps. God is not an understanding just an assumption. Skeptic epistemology is more virtuous because we can admit that we don’t know. Etc.
I’m pretty sure several more examples are about to present themselves following this post.

Yes, as I said, it is a virtue (intellectual honesty) to admit it when you don't know.
But it is the opposite of intellectual honesty to think that just because you don't know, therefore nobody else does either.

With that on the table let me begin…………

It's an intellectually honest admission of ignorance when atheists say "we don't know". But all I can hear is...materialism works in mysterious ways.

Is it?
Or
Is it?

Careful....Lion………Think about it.

There are two levels of inference going on there that skeptics are lazily conflating.

Level 1. Obviously it is honest at the level of not being certain, to assert we don’t know.
Theists are not denying that.
But ……
To arbitrarily extend that honest level 1 admission
To a level 2 pseudo philosophy …….that it then remains honest to arbitrarily deny/ignore all positive reasonable inference about what we don’t know…..is in no way honest. To charge gotg here in this thread, in the face of all the reasoning that has been provided, is pure ignorance and/or DISHONESTY.

Not all atheist counter apologetics involves bad faith accusations of GOTG reasoning against their opponents.
And not all accusations of GOTG are unwarranted either.

It is lazy. It is close minded. If skeptics arbitrarily don’t like the direction your reasoning is going they philosophically shut it down your reasoning and ignorantly allege gotg. They do so by hiding behind the honestly of level 1. Years ago (here) I coined it IDKism. It cloths them in virtue as they create disparaging names…like sky daddy etc. It’s a security blanket, that full of holes and with that false blanket of security they reason that they shut down the conversation and falsely believe they have prevailed. And remember, skeptics like to proclaim that theists are the ones stunting reasoning.

Yep. Well said. Here, have one +Rep

Observe these quick three references all from the same page……..

And……………..

Lion, whatever problems there are for science or philosophers or anyone in your list, there remains this problem for theists: God isn't an explanation.

And…………….

..., snip ...

So the hard problems are all on the atheist side of the debate. They are your problems.

Of course they are. For the theist, anything that isn't obvious is attributed to god or can be found in the holy book... No further attempt at understanding is necessary or maybe even sinful.

….overtly demonstrate their IDKism.

They arbitrarily ignore our reasoned inferences. Then ignorantly default our position to assumption. And then falsely charge us with gotg. And being as virtuous as they are, they conclude your REASONING trumped.

LOL
Yep. Observe the most frequently used IDKism - free will.
Atheist : Free will must be an illusion because I dislike your definition of free will and therefore you must be wrong.

This thread is replete with our purported reasoning. They have forgotten that they have even engaged in attempting to defeat it. But in the end they lazily and arbitrarily ignore our reasoning and mislabel it to be assumption in order to end the conversation by lobbing their harmless spit ball of gotg.

Spit ball
LOL that's what it looks like to me as well.

That is what we are up against.
Again
I hope that helps.
and............
Happy New Year.

Thanks. Same to you.

 

[Elixir]

Both Lion and Remez have a tendency to declare what atheists believe and why then try to argue against their strawman.

That's one of the primary reasons I regard religious navel-gazers as a waste of time in discussion.

Atheists would be overjoyed if the origin of life on Earth was shown to be the result of aliens and panspermia.

Great example right there; a rational person would be overjoyed if the origin of life on earth was conclusively explained and SHOWN to be ANYTHING. Certainly any atheist I know* would be wonderstruck and delighted if it was conclusively SHOWN to be the result of a tri-omni superbeing. But for navel-gazing religious subscribers to first-cause religiosity (presupposers), if it is shown to be anything other than whatever (God) they presuppose, their entire worldview is shattered. Nothing other than their particular god can even be entertained as a possibility.

Disproving the existence of a tri-omni being is a silly idea on the face of it. Such a being could control exactly what you see, what you believe, what you think, what you say, how you feel - why bother to even consider it, except to provide comfort against the things we don't know, an omnipresent excuse to stop trying to explain things?

Sorry, kids; explaining things has proven the most propitious endeavor of human history, and is in large part what defines our species.


* Fair disclosure: I'm what most would call a "soft atheist", i.e. not an atheist at all. I do believe that religions are malevolent bullshit though.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think we can be pretty sure it arises from brain activity somehow.

"Arises from". So it becomes something else than brain activity. That's one reason why I share Haldane's incredulity.

"I agree with Haldane" didn't mean agreement with whatever his philosophy was. I only meant I share the incredulity about consciousness being equivalent to brain activity. The details of that don't matter at all. Not in this theism vs atheism forum. I'm just noting the Haldane quote isn't problematic for atheism and, as I said, that's my only point.

This is important ... don't mistake taking supernaturalism as the default alternative to what scientists say. Someone doubting science all-encompassing abilities isn't necessarily an ache for supernaturalism or religion. That's the loop the theists are stuck in.

The stuff presented about determinism and free will is just part of the theist's inverse argument for theism by "reverse apologetics" - the idea is if they can ram holes in "atheistic reasoning" then theistic reasoning becomes the default alternative: 'Here is a reason that materialism is false, so naturalism tumbles too, so the ground has fallen out from under atheistic reasoning, so supernaturalism is a rational alternative, so therefore my faith in supernatural beings is not a blind faith'.

Again, I think I agree with pretty much all of that. It hasn’t been entirely clear to me exactly what remez, for example, was doing, but as I said before I stopped engaging with him, it did strike me as being garbled, mostly (including the Haldane quote) irrelevant to the OP, and I did suspect something along the lines of what you say in your last paragraph there, but you have articulated it quite nicely and better than I could have put it.

Tangentially, I don’t know if I would say that consciousness IS (necessarily) something other than brain activity, although I admit this was implied in what I myself said about it arising from brain activity. But as you say, the details of that don’t matter here, for the reasons you give, and because there is no contradiction involved in what Haldane said (the suggestion that there is strikes me as being a detour from, or attempted riposte to, the OP, or both of those things).

And in any case I’m still of the opinion that Haldane’s conclusion was faulty (did not follow).

 

[ruby sparks]

This is important ... don't mistake taking supernaturalism as the default alternative to what scientists say. Someone doubting science all-encompassing abilities isn't necessarily an ache for supernaturalism or religion. That's the loop the theists are stuck in'.

Nicely put, imo, and as you say, important.

Having read around a bit, I get the impression, as I said before, that Haldane has been credited with having leaned towards pantheism in the essay that quote is from. I don’t know enough about his philosophies to know if he would ever have agreed that that label was accurate for any part of his worldview at any time, but I suppose I can see how it could be seen as such.

 

[ruby sparks]

For those who haven’t read it, here is the essay (ie the context for the quote):

http://jbshaldane.org/books/1927-Possible-Worlds/haldane-1927-possible-worlds.html#Page_204

Arguably quite clearly pantheist, I think it’s fair to say?

 

[abaddon]

For those who haven’t read it, here is the essay:

http://jbshaldane.org/books/1927-Pos....html#Page_204

Arguably quite clearly pantheist, I think it’s fair to say?

I don't know. I read 7 or 8 paragraphs, and it indicates he's an atheist and has no belief in the spiritual. Again I agree with everything he said (of what I just now read on that webpage).

Which isn't a problem for the quote remez presented us. If Haldane... emphasis on IF... if Haldane didn't believe that thinking and brain activity are the same, that does not work as a proposition for spirits.

Will you help me understand what the interest in Haldane is?

 

[abaddon]

Earlier I couldn't quote posts. Now I can't edit them either, in any browser. Is anyone else having problems with posting?

 

[skepticalbip]

Will you help me understand what the interest in Haldane is?

Remez introduced a quote from Haldane's work (to support his strawman) assuming that all atheists take his work as our 'bible' and agree with everything he wrote.


Oh, and I don't seem to have any problem at all with the "reply with quote" option or with editing those quotes. It must be a problem with your system... you may try re-booting.

 

[ruby sparks]

For those who haven’t read it, here is the essay:

http://jbshaldane.org/books/1927-Pos....html#Page_204

Arguably quite clearly pantheist, I think it’s fair to say?

I don't know. I read 7 or 8 paragraphs, and it indicates he's an atheist and has no belief in the spiritual. Again I agree with everything he said (of what I just now read on that webpage).

Which isn't a problem for the quote remez presented us. If Haldane... emphasis on IF... if Haldane didn't believe that thinking and brain activity are the same, that does not work as a proposition for spirits.

Will you help me understand what the interest in Haldane is?

I think the general interest in Haldane, from theists (or from remez at least) is because of the scent of woo, and woo from an atheist/scientist authority figure.

Whether relevant to an OP or, as here, not.

I would not be surprised to see Anthony Flew cited next.

 

[ruby sparks]

For what it’s worth, this (below) seems to be the key, if somewhat off-topic section of the essay, at least as regards the woo whoops I mean pantheism:

“Without that body it [my mind] may perish altogether, but it seems to me quite as probable that it will lose its limitations and be merged into an infinite mind or something analogous to a mind which I have reason to suspect probably exists behind nature. How this might be accomplished I have no idea.”

 

[ruby sparks]

The existence of everything has to be explained. The existence of my creator being does not have to be explained.

Just to go right back on topic, would it be more accurate, I wonder, to call this The Great Exception, rather than The Great Contradiction?

 

[skepticalbip]

The existence of everything has to be explained. The existence of my creator being does not have to be explained.

Just to go right back on topic, would it be more accurate, I wonder, to call this The Great Exception, rather than The Great Contradiction?

Possibly Moogly was referring to a typical theist/atheist exchange such as:

T... If science explains everything then how did life begin?
A... There are several theories as to how abiogenesis happened but we can't know which, if any, of them actually happened.
T... If science can't explain it then how could science discount god as doing it?
A... For science to take god as the answer, there would first have to be some evidence of a god with such a power.
...etc.
...etc.

Theists, in many such 'debates', insist that someone supporting science must explain in detail how and why something happened or they take science as merely anti-god. However, they seem quite comfortable in accepting some poorly defined, magic entity performing miracles. They seem to take god as a given that has so need of explanation.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, I think I’m just being pedantic.

I think I was partly just trying to steer the thread back from its detour.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ad hominem.

What's your point?

My point is your reasoning for rejecting Haldane’s assertion is fallacious. It is called an ad hominem attack. You attacked his political and personal beliefs rather than his unrelated assertion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
And
Just to get another one out of the way….

Haldane most likely reasoned from unstated premises he absorbed by osmosis from the Christian culture he grew up in.

That is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Like this one, for instance?

Perhaps in my haste to respond I shouldn't have assumed that the quote I cited was well known. I thought it to be common knowledge, and that is my fault. But your reply does not reflect that you knew this quote and why it fits this context.

I say that because your reply sort of seems to be making my point and your charge of my reasoning being a non sequitur does not seem to fit.

So here is the quote........properly stated..........

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

Care to change your thoughts?

You offered the circumstance of the argument coming from Haldane rather than from some random internet user, to Bilby, as a reason to change his thoughts about its merit. In the words of the master, "That is a classic example of the genetic fallacy."

As your link says, "Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance." An ad hominem is usually a fallacy, because the characteristics of the arguer are usually irrelevant to the merit of the argument. But that's not what's going on in this case. In this case, you made an argument from authority. An ad hominem is perfectly relevant to the authoritativeness of a purported authority. The fact that Haldane was an idiot is irrelevant to whether his argument is logical, true; but it's entirely relevant to whether Bilby should care to change his thoughts on account of you telling him Haldane was the source of the argument. What, is "someone's or something's history, origin, or source" relevant when you appeal to it but irrelevant when I appeal to it? When you make an argument from authority, you open your alleged authority up to non-fallacious ad hominems.

...If determinism is the way of the universe then you don’t have the free will to think or reason at all. Choice does not exist. Think about it. ...

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far. Thus I have reasonably demonstrated to you my position is not assumed. Your baseless allegations there are quite insulting.

Oh, come off it. How dare I suggest you made an assumption; but it's perfectly fine for you to suggest I haven't thought about it? Dude, we come here to argue -- to tell other people why they're wrong. That means telling them they relied on false premises, or telling them they made reasoning errors, or telling them they didn't think. If you're going to feel insulted whenever others don't just roll over and accept you as their patronizing professor and themselves as your respectful students, you're going to feel insulted a lot.

What bibly offered seemed to be a non sequitur that then went on to actually support my contention to begin with.

Not at all. Bilby simply pointed out that Haldane had not made a logical argument. Haldane's conclusion does not follow from his stated premises.

And I countered his charge of it being a massive non sequitur. Which you have failed the reason into your assertion there. Simply repeating bibly’s error does not make it correct. ... Before you reply, you may want to first go back and read my reply to bibly on that.

Stop calling him bibly. He's bilby.

bibly:

1. Adj. Of or relating to the Christian religion.
2. Adj. Zealously religious.
3. Adj. Having reverence or, for that matter, any positive feelings for the Bible.

bilby:

either of two burrowing nocturnal bandicoots (Macrotis lagotis and M. leucura) having a long tapered muzzle and large pointed ears

I'll address our substantive dispute over substance dualism when I have more time...