Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[Copernicus]

I think that I've been pretty clear on these points, and I stand by my claim that scientists assume that the physical world is all there is. They act on that assumption, and it has given them a remarkable track record of successes in predicting how reality behaves. Supernaturalism has a dismal record of failure. That is why so many of us would rather place our faith in scientific explanations than religious ones.

If scientists "assume" then what are supernaturalists doing? How would one describe their behavior in this sense? Give me your thoughts. Be the hidden anthropologist observing human behavior and having to differentiate between two groups of homo sapiens. One group is observed to proceed scientifically, ostensibly making all those "assumptions" you claim. The other group's behavior can be described as ___________.

Fill in the blank, describe the behavior of the other group, the group of supernaturalists, the substance-dualists. What are they doing that clearly and notably distinguishes their behavior from the other group to the objective and unbiased observer?

What I said was that science entails a methodological assumption of physicalism, but that scientists can still be Cartesian dualists who believe in miracles and gods. They just can't maintain that assumption and do science at the same time. I'm more on your side and bilby's than you seem to realize. I think that science is ultimately incompatible with spiritualism simply because any event could, in principle, be the result of some kind of miraculous intervention rather than causal forces. The whole point of science is to build causal models of reality, and supernatural beings would always be able to circumvent those models.

 

[Wiploc]

What I said was that science entails a methodological assumption of physicalism, but that scientists can still be Cartesian dualists who believe in miracles and gods. They just can't maintain that assumption and do science at the same time. I'm more on your side and bilby's than you seem to realize. I think that science is ultimately incompatible with spiritualism simply because any event could, in principle, be the result of some kind of miraculous intervention rather than causal forces. The whole point of science is to build causal models of reality, and supernatural beings would always be able to circumvent those models.

Right. Science methodologically ignores magic because we got tired of saying things like, "Water is made of hydrogen and water unless gods are fooling with us when we test that," "I live at 3782 Elm Street unless Jesus has moved my house since last time I checked," and "All integers are either even or odd unless an evil spirit has deluded me into believing that."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What I said was that science entails a methodological assumption of physicalism, but that scientists can still be Cartesian dualists who believe in miracles and gods. They just can't maintain that assumption and do science at the same time. I'm more on your side and bilby's than you seem to realize. I think that science is ultimately incompatible with spiritualism simply because any event could, in principle, be the result of some kind of miraculous intervention rather than causal forces. The whole point of science is to build causal models of reality, and supernatural beings would always be able to circumvent those models.

Just to finish, you are saying that those two groups of homo sapiens, behaviorally, would be identical for all practical purposes?

 

[Copernicus]

What I said was that science entails a methodological assumption of physicalism, but that scientists can still be Cartesian dualists who believe in miracles and gods. They just can't maintain that assumption and do science at the same time. I'm more on your side and bilby's than you seem to realize. I think that science is ultimately incompatible with spiritualism simply because any event could, in principle, be the result of some kind of miraculous intervention rather than causal forces. The whole point of science is to build causal models of reality, and supernatural beings would always be able to circumvent those models.

Just to finish, you are saying that those two groups of homo sapiens, behaviorally, would be identical for all practical purposes?

I actually said that the same person could be both a scientist and someone who believes in miracles. That is about as identical as it can get.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What I said was that science entails a methodological assumption of physicalism, but that scientists can still be Cartesian dualists who believe in miracles and gods. They just can't maintain that assumption and do science at the same time. I'm more on your side and bilby's than you seem to realize. I think that science is ultimately incompatible with spiritualism simply because any event could, in principle, be the result of some kind of miraculous intervention rather than causal forces. The whole point of science is to build causal models of reality, and supernatural beings would always be able to circumvent those models.

Just to finish, you are saying that those two groups of homo sapiens, behaviorally, would be identical for all practical purposes?

I actually said that the same person could be both a scientist and someone who believes in miracles. That is about as identical as it can get.

I appreciate the response and thank you. Follow me here.

You are observing homo sapiens like Jane Goodall observed her chimps. You don't know their languages and customs, same as she. But as an observer of homo sapiens you know that substance dualism is a concept that may exist in their species. Because you believe that substance dualism indicates complex thinking and because you observe homo sapiens to be advanced and therefore complex, you are going to observe their behavior looking for evidence of the presence of this concept in individuals and in groups of individuals in the species.

I don't know what you will find. I don't know what you will see as evidence one way or the other.

And now that you've been out observing this species for a couple of years, you report back with your findings. What have you learned? Is the concept of substance dualism present in the species? To what degree? And how does it manifest as behavior?

Of course, you can forget the whole thing (unless you've uncovered evidence of lizard people, in which I am very interested.)

I am going to be observing as well so we can compare our notes.

An exclusive peek in the world of Spiritualism

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What I said was that science entails a methodological assumption of physicalism, but that scientists can still be Cartesian dualists who believe in miracles and gods. They just can't maintain that assumption and do science at the same time. I'm more on your side and bilby's than you seem to realize. I think that science is ultimately incompatible with spiritualism simply because any event could, in principle, be the result of some kind of miraculous intervention rather than causal forces. The whole point of science is to build causal models of reality, and supernatural beings would always be able to circumvent those models.

Just to finish, you are saying that those two groups of homo sapiens, behaviorally, would be identical for all practical purposes?

I actually said that the same person could be both a scientist and someone who believes in miracles. That is about as identical as it can get.

I appreciate the response and thank you. Follow me here.

You are observing homo sapiens like Jane Goodall observed her chimps. You don't know their languages and customs, same as she. But as an observer of homo sapiens you know that substance dualism is a concept that may exist in their species. Because you believe that substance dualism indicates complex thinking and because you observe homo sapiens to be advanced and therefore complex, you are going to observe their behavior looking for evidence of the presence of this concept in individuals and in groups of individuals in the species.

I don't know what you will find. I don't know what you will see as evidence one way or the other.

And now that you've been out observing this species for a couple of years, you report back with your findings. What have you learned? Is the concept of substance dualism present in the species? To what degree? And how does it manifest as behavior?

Of course, you can forget the whole thing (unless you've uncovered evidence of lizard people, in which I am very interested.)

I am going to be observing as well so we can compare our notes.

Perhaps it is simply distinguishing inert matter from other things that exist, such as thoughts. We have actual apples and we have the idea of an apple. We can distinguish the painting of a bowl of apples from an actual bowl of apples. But both convey is the apple idea. We cannot eat the idea of an apple, so, they are not the same thing. Is this "substance" dualism?

 

[Copernicus]

...You are observing homo sapiens like Jane Goodall observed her chimps. You don't know their languages and customs, same as she. But as an observer of homo sapiens you know that substance dualism is a concept that may exist in their species. Because you believe that substance dualism indicates complex thinking and because you observe homo sapiens to be advanced and therefore complex, you are going to observe their behavior looking for evidence of the presence of this concept in individuals and in groups of individuals in the species.

I don't know what you will find. I don't know what you will see as evidence one way or the other.

And now that you've been out observing this species for a couple of years, you report back with your findings. What have you learned? Is the concept of substance dualism present in the species? To what degree? And how does it manifest as behavior?

Of course, you can forget the whole thing (unless you've uncovered evidence of lizard people, in which I am very interested.)

I am going to be observing as well so we can compare our notes.

An exclusive peek in the world of Spiritualism

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, since Jane Goodall wasn't studying her own species. Like her, I know the languages and customs of homo sapiens. Being able to read their literature, I see direct evidence of the concept of substance dualism, not to mention belief in deities, since written records began, and we even have a whole philosophical literature devoted to it since the 17th century, which is why it is more commonly known as "Cartesian dualism". So I do not need to look far to find "evidence of the presence of this concept". I know what I would find. If you feel that you don't have enough evidence that the concept exists in our species, I will not get in the way of your continuing search.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, since Jane Goodall wasn't studying her own species. Like her, I know the languages and customs of homo sapiens. Being able to read their literature, I see direct evidence of the concept of substance dualism, not to mention belief in deities, since written records began, and we even have a whole philosophical literature devoted to it since the 17th century, which is why it is more commonly known as "Cartesian dualism". So I do not need to look far to find "evidence of the presence of this concept". I know what I would find. If you feel that you don't have enough evidence that the concept exists in our species, I will not get in the way of your continuing search.

Humor me. Maybe we'll both learn something.

Is your contention that we can't do research on our own species by observing its behavior? As you go about your day simply observe the behavior of members of your species for belief in substance dualism. What are you seeing? If you find any instances of substance dualism behavior (SDB) simply bring them here.

I've been out for a couple days and have observed hundreds of members of our species and nowhere have I observed SDB in action. Like Goodall I am pretending that I do not know their language and writing. Of course I can certainly tell when they are communicating with each other but don't know the precise information being exchanged.

When I see an instance of SDB or CD (Cartesian Dualism) what am I observing? What will I see?

I will concede that the discussion of substance dualism does in fact exist in the species as an interest, a hobby, but so far I have not seen any indication in the behavior of the species that it is anything more than that. I attribute this to typical superstitious inclinations and curiosity about their environment but I have not observed it getting out into mainstream behavior. Help me find it.

 

[abaddon]

I will concede that the discussion of substance dualism does in fact exist in the species as an interest, a hobby, but so far I have not seen any indication in the behavior of the species that it is anything more than that. I attribute this to typical superstitious inclinations and curiosity about their environment but I have not observed it getting out into mainstream behavior. Help me find it.

Substance dualism is an interest among a few philosophers.

The basic idea is based on how our subjective interior experience is entirely dissimilar to objects in the exterior world. Human's experience of consciousness is that it has no extension in space, no weight, no color, no texture, no edges, no thickness, and on and on with a long list of "no's".

The behavior you can expect to see is people talking and/or acting as if they're an immaterial person "in here" who's looking out through the eyeballs at a material world that's "out there". They conclude from that experience that, whatever consciousness is, it's another sort of substance than the substance of objects that have properties of "thinginess" (extension in space, color, texture, etc).

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, since Jane Goodall wasn't studying her own species. Like her, I know the languages and customs of homo sapiens. Being able to read their literature, I see direct evidence of the concept of substance dualism, not to mention belief in deities, since written records began, and we even have a whole philosophical literature devoted to it since the 17th century, which is why it is more commonly known as "Cartesian dualism". So I do not need to look far to find "evidence of the presence of this concept". I know what I would find. If you feel that you don't have enough evidence that the concept exists in our species, I will not get in the way of your continuing search.

Humor me. Maybe we'll both learn something.

Is your contention that we can't do research on our own species by observing its behavior? As you go about your day simply observe the behavior of members of your species for belief in substance dualism. What are you seeing? If you find any instances of substance dualism behavior (SDB) simply bring them here.

Nobody is denying that it is possible to do social science research, least of all me. If you are truly interested in what Cartesian dualism is all about, you can study the vast literature on the subject. I did provide you with some links to the subject matter. If you really don't see any evidence of the phenomenon out there, then I really don't think anything I point to is going to sway your opinion.

I've been out for a couple days and have observed hundreds of members of our species and nowhere have I observed SDB in action. Like Goodall I am pretending that I do not know their language and writing. Of course I can certainly tell when they are communicating with each other but don't know the precise information being exchanged.

When I see an instance of SDB or CD (Cartesian Dualism) what am I observing? What will I see?

I will concede that the discussion of substance dualism does in fact exist in the species as an interest, a hobby, but so far I have not seen any indication in the behavior of the species that it is anything more than that. I attribute this to typical superstitious inclinations and curiosity about their environment but I have not observed it getting out into mainstream behavior. Help me find it.

I don't know what you expect to see. What does "SDB in action" mean to you? You seem to have some idea of what you are looking for, but I don't. BTW, Goodall was not pretending that she did not know the language of the apes she was studying. She really didn't know it. In the case of human beings, you, she, and I know the information being exchanged. That's why human language works so well.

If you concede that substance dualism exists as "an interest, a hobby", that's something, I suppose. It is just a technical term used by philosophers to describe a belief in mind-body dualism. You must have heard the expression "mind over matter" sometime in your life. To the extent that you understand what that means, you are on the road to finding evidence of "SDB", as you put it.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, since Jane Goodall wasn't studying her own species. Like her, I know the languages and customs of homo sapiens. Being able to read their literature, I see direct evidence of the concept of substance dualism, not to mention belief in deities, since written records began, and we even have a whole philosophical literature devoted to it since the 17th century, which is why it is more commonly known as "Cartesian dualism". So I do not need to look far to find "evidence of the presence of this concept". I know what I would find. If you feel that you don't have enough evidence that the concept exists in our species, I will not get in the way of your continuing search.

Humor me. Maybe we'll both learn something.

Is your contention that we can't do research on our own species by observing its behavior? As you go about your day simply observe the behavior of members of your species for belief in substance dualism. What are you seeing? If you find any instances of substance dualism behavior (SDB) simply bring them here.

Nobody is denying that it is possible to do social science research, least of all me. If you are truly interested in what Cartesian dualism is all about, you can study the vast literature on the subject. I did provide you with some links to the subject matter. If you really don't see any evidence of the phenomenon out there, then I really don't think anything I point to is going to sway your opinion.

I've been out for a couple days and have observed hundreds of members of our species and nowhere have I observed SDB in action. Like Goodall I am pretending that I do not know their language and writing. Of course I can certainly tell when they are communicating with each other but don't know the precise information being exchanged.

When I see an instance of SDB or CD (Cartesian Dualism) what am I observing? What will I see?

I will concede that the discussion of substance dualism does in fact exist in the species as an interest, a hobby, but so far I have not seen any indication in the behavior of the species that it is anything more than that. I attribute this to typical superstitious inclinations and curiosity about their environment but I have not observed it getting out into mainstream behavior. Help me find it.

I don't know what you expect to see. What does "SDB in action" mean to you? You seem to have some idea of what you are looking for, but I don't. BTW, Goodall was not pretending that she did not know the language of the apes she was studying. She really didn't know it. In the case of human beings, you, she, and I know the information being exchanged. That's why human language works so well.

If you concede that substance dualism exists as "an interest, a hobby", that's something, I suppose. It is just a technical term used by philosophers to describe a belief in mind-body dualism. You must have heard the expression "mind over matter" sometime in your life. To the extent that you understand what that means, you are on the road to finding evidence of "SDB", as you put it.

There is a mind-body dualism that becomes apparent when someone dies. The person exists as a process running upon the neural architecture. When the process stops, the body is still there, but the person is not.

 

[Copernicus]

There is a mind-body dualism that becomes apparent when someone dies. The person exists as a process running upon the neural architecture. When the process stops, the body is still there, but the person is not.

A good point, because brains are not to be equated with minds. A mind is an emergent property of brain activity, although people often simplistically equate it with the brain. Mental activity is one of the things that a brain does, not just a physical object. Or a process, to use your term. We sometimes use the word "brain" to refer to a "mind", but that is just a kind of synechdoche. The two cannot be equated.

What makes debates over mind-body dualism so confusing is that it is easy to equivocate on terms like "dualism". Sometimes it is just a shortened way of saying "Cartesian dualism"--the belief that mental activity takes place independently of physical matter and can exist in a disembodied state. So we sometimes hear expressions like "ghost in the machine" and wonder about whether a machine can have a "soul" in the same sense that human beings do. A classic example is found in Philip K Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", which served as the basis for the movie "Blade Runner". At other times, dualism is used in the broader sense and not specifically to mean just a type of dualism such as Cartesian dualism.

So the opposite of dualism is sometimes called monism. However, it is still possible to maintain a sense of dualism without maintaining Cartesian dualism, and that has give rise to a technical synonym in the philosophical literature--substance dualism. Substance dualism is the idea that reality divides into two forms--the material and the spiritual. Spirits can be embodied or disembodied. The alternative is usually called property dualism, the idea being that mental activity is just a property of the interaction of certain configurations of physical matter. In that sense, a mind cannot be disembodied, because the body's brain is the physical substrate that manifests the mental activity.

Of course, the concept of dualism keeps popping up in debates over free will, which is something that you are deeply interested in and have devoted much time to in other discussion threads. Property dualism is not the only materialist concept being tossed around in ontological debates, but it is well-established in the literature.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thank-you everyone for the great responses. As you can tell I've got a real burr over this one. Henceforth I think I will always view discussion of dualism as a quasi-academic discussion hobby, at least until scientific evidence is able to pin things down. Playing devil's advocate with myself I thought about gravity, an invisible phenomenon that we still can't figure out 100%. But that didn't work as people are comfortable with scientific gravity. For gravity to be a worthy example folks would have to be reacting to some kind of magic gravity/anti-gravity belief and go about tethering things down so they would not move just in case real gravity didn't work. But people don't do this.

People do go into buildings and sing songs, dance, make recitations in that religious sense, allegedly communicating with some kind of invisible force or creature, but that doesn't work either. All those behaviors can be explained without invoking dualism.

There is a mind-body dualism that becomes apparent when someone dies. The person exists as a process running upon the neural architecture. When the process stops, the body is still there, but the person is not.

How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair? Where there was once this living thing with living behaviors there is now only lifeless wood? And of course we can ask the same of anything that experiences process change. That deceased human body still has purpose. It will decompose and feed organisms with their own neural chemistry. You are actually making a case for monism, I believe, and not dualism. James Cameron would be proud, it's how things work on Pandora. The question becomes why Eywah works only on Pandora and nowhere else in the Cosmos, not on Earth. Some great narrative awaits for the intrepid writer.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair?

If the chair continues to grow branches then we could say that it has the same qualities as the tree. If it doesn't, then a quality of the tree is missing from the chair.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair?

If the chair continues to grow branches then we could say that it has the same qualities as the tree. If it doesn't, then a quality of the tree is missing from the chair.

Why does the moon go through phases? The moon goes through phases because it’s in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

 

[lostone]

Thank-you everyone for the great responses. As you can tell I've got a real burr over this one. Henceforth I think I will always view discussion of dualism as a quasi-academic discussion hobby, at least until scientific evidence is able to pin things down. Playing devil's advocate with myself I thought about gravity, an invisible phenomenon that we still can't figure out 100%. But that didn't work as people are comfortable with scientific gravity. For gravity to be a worthy example folks would have to be reacting to some kind of magic gravity/anti-gravity belief and go about tethering things down so they would not move just in case real gravity didn't work. But people don't do this.

People do go into buildings and sing songs, dance, make recitations in that religious sense, allegedly communicating with some kind of invisible force or creature, but that doesn't work either. All those behaviors can be explained without invoking dualism.

There is a mind-body dualism that becomes apparent when someone dies. The person exists as a process running upon the neural architecture. When the process stops, the body is still there, but the person is not.

How is that any different than my taking a tree and turning it into a chair? Where there was once this living thing with living behaviors there is now only lifeless wood? And of course we can ask the same of anything that experiences process change. That deceased human body still has purpose. It will decompose and feed organisms with their own neural chemistry. You are actually making a case for monism, I believe, and not dualism. James Cameron would be proud, it's how things work on Pandora. The question becomes why Eywah works only on Pandora and nowhere else in the Cosmos, not on Earth. Some great narrative awaits for the intrepid writer.

Perhaps the theme of this thread should be more like 'what is a reasonable person and what beliefs could such a person hold?'

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Perhaps the theme of this thread should be more like 'what is a reasonable person and what beliefs could such a person hold?'

If the culture holds certain beliefs, then it is not unreasonable for a person in that culture to hold such beliefs. After all, it would be unreasonable (or even dangerous) to challenge those beliefs without clear evidence that they were wrong. In America, the President told everyone that the election was rigged, and many believed him. He was a person in authority, and, gee, why would a President lie? Not to mention racial prejudices by color or antisemitism and those who were killed for challenging them.

Then there is the practical problem of "who has time to challenge and correct these false beliefs".

Oh, and yes one of these false beliefs would be that free will and reliable cause and effect are somehow opposed to each other in some way. Shall we call everyone who disagrees with us on this issue "unreasonable"?

It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.

The golden rule has been mentioned. Is the golden rule unreasonable, even in an authoritarian culture?

 

[bilby]

It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.

The golden rule has been mentioned. Is the golden rule unreasonable, even in an authoritarian culture?

If you mean "do to others what you would wish them to do to you", then yes. It assumes (unreasonably) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want.

A better rule is "do to others what they would wish you to do to them". This rule does however require more effort, as you need to find out what they want, rather than just assuming that they want the same things you want.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It is difficult to limit what an otherwise reasonable person might believe.

The golden rule has been mentioned. Is the golden rule unreasonable, even in an authoritarian culture?

If you mean "do to others what you would wish them to do to you", then yes. It assumes (unreasonably) that everyone else agrees with your opinions about what they should want.

A better rule is "do to others what they would wish you to do to them". This rule does however require more effort, as you need to find out what they want, rather than just assuming that they want the same things you want.

Well, if we did to others what they would wish then we would have a hard time raising kids, or dealing with heroin addicts.

There are objectively good and objectively bad things that are done to people. Generally, it is objectively good to allow people the freedom to do what they want, but within that context we would prevent them from causing unnecessary harm to others.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" kinda assumes you already have some objective knowledge of good and evil. But perhaps that is another thread.