›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The problem with "Atheism"

AndrewAndrew
edited July 2008 in Flamewars
I'm bored, let's debate. Skip to 4 minutes in the first video to skip the introduction.
Ok2oJgsGR6c
LsrtOZdJitA
«1

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    As far as wanting to sell atheism and "win", he's right about the fact that we shouldn't call ourselves atheists. Not for any semantic reason, but for marketing reasons.

    The thing he's wrong about is his suggestion that you have to "build your own telescope" to test the non-metaphysical claims of mystics and such when it comes to spiritual human experiences. This is nonsense. The neurological and biochemical sciences are clearly capable of testing these claims. Recently we have shown the different brain patterns in medidating monks, and we have even been able to trigger out of body experiences. I don't think this speech was given too long ago, so I wonder if he had heard of these findings at the time. If he has heard of them since, I wonder what he thinks of them.

    Also, I didn't watch the second video, which I assume is Q&A.
  • AndrewAndrew
    The thing he's wrong about is his suggestion that you have to "build your own telescope" to test the non-metaphysical claims of mystics and such when it comes to spiritual human experiences. This is nonsense. The neurological and biochemical sciences are clearly capable of testing these claims. Recently we have shown the different brain patterns in medidating monks, and we have even been able to trigger out of body experiences.
    He elaborates in the Q&A; that what he is talking about is not supernatural and that they can be observed by science. It's not the idea that we cannot know how it works or why it affects us, but rather that we cannot obtain the meaningful personal implications of such an experience vicariously.
  • AprecheApreche
    He elaborates in the Q&A; that what he is talking about is not supernatural and that they can be observed by science. It's not the idea that we cannot know how it works or why it affects us, but rather that we cannot obtain the meaningful personal implications of such an experience vicariously.
    He's not saying anything meaningful there whatsoever.

    Let's say I'm a doctor who treats burn victims, but I have never been burned myself. I know everything there is to know about being burned. I know what the meaningful personal implications are. I know how to treat it. It's my primary expertise. However, if I try to imagine what exactly it will feel like to be burned, my imagination will be incorrect. I will correctly imagine pain. I will incorrectly imagine the type of pain, the intensity, the experience, etc. That doesn't matter. I don't need to have the experience. I know everything there is to practically know about it through study of others who have.

    In fact, I would argue that being burned would offer no new insight. There is nothing to be learned by having the experience myself. There is no way to know that the feelings I experienced are in any way like the feelings others have experienced. Until some day when we have some method of perfect empathetical communication, it is absolutely impossible to know any feelings, other than your own, in any way. Your burning experience could be completely different from someone else's. Until we can do otherwise, these sorts of questions lie completely within the realm of philosophy.
  • AndrewAndrew
    I will incorrectly imagine the type of pain, the intensity, the experience, etc. That doesn't matter. I don't need to have the experience. I know everything there is to practically know about it through study of others who have.
    I think you underestimate the power of visceral experiences. Let's take the effect of warfare on soldiers. You know all the knowledge about the situation, you can study and even observe the fight. However, until your body actually reacts to the stressors of the situation and your Flight or Fight response kicks in, I would argue that you have a minutia of understanding of the situation. By your analogy, people who watch Saving Private Ryan should develop Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

    Again, experiences can alter our brains even if only at a subconscious level. Simply knowing the facts is not enough. Also, you need to stop being such a Qualiaphile.
  • AprecheApreche
    Your entirely misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I'm saying.

    Let's say both you and I go back in time to fight in WW1. We're in the same bunker. We both end up like Johnny Got His Gun. The same shell hits both of us, we have the exact same horrible injuries. Now we both "really" know what it "feels" like. What guarantee do we have that we are both actually "feeling" the same thing? For all we know, the sensual experience we have both felt could be completely different. There is no way to know anyone's feelings. None. Attempting to have a similar experience offers you nothing.

    You don't have to do cocaine to know cocaine. Having the actual experience personally does not offer you any additional useful knowledge. Even if it did, your memory is the only record of that experience, and memory is completely unreliable. You might remember having the experience, but be completely wrong about it. No feelings other than your own are observable by you. The only thing you can learn about by experiencing more feelings, is your own feelings. Even then, you can only really know about your feelings in the present. Your future and past feelings are not recorded, and are non-observable in any way.

    I can see why you would suggest I am a qualiaphile based on my previous post, but I can assure you I am not. My point applies to all feelings regardless of whether or not you want to categorize or quantize them.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited July 2008
    The same shell hits both of us, we have the exact same horrible injuries. Now we both "really" know what it "feels" . What guarantee do we have that we are both actually "feeling" the same thing? For all we know, the sensual experience we have both felt could be completely different.
    Doesn't this only reinforce what I was saying? There is no way to really "know what it feels like" from another persons point of view. Again, I don't think I ever said that one could completely understand another person's emotions or physical state. Currently, there is no way you will ever know what living in a cave for a month alone will be like until you actually do it. You may have all the quantifiable facts and observations, but there is certainly an element of psychological impact that is significantly comlpex that we cannot currently understand it's effects on ourselves. The ability to create an abstraction from this complex event into a personal experience in which we can reflect upon and derive meaning is what's important. This cannot not be achieved through vicarious observation.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • AprecheApreche
    but there is certainly an element of psychological impact that is significantly comlpex that we cannot currently understand it's effects on ourselves. The ability to create an abstraction from this complex event into a personal experience in which we can reflect upon and derive meaning is what's important. This cannot not be achieved through vicarious observation.
    We already discussed that you can't know feelings, not even your own, except for your present ones. If there is some meaning to be derived from feelings, that means there is feeling that is derived from which that can not be known or observed. That is why it is impossible to extricate these kinds of ideas from the metaphysical realm.

    He talks about the moment to moment feelings and eliminating the crazy constant thoughts in our heads achieved via meditation or whatever. Sure, there's a lot of evidence to suggest the brain might work this way, but you don't need to feel it to know it. And isn't it still a trial of having good feelings moment to moment, it's just different feelings moment to moment. We know meditation and other such things have some sort of effect on the brain. What more meaning is there to know? What meaning can you possibly learn by actually experienced that different state of mind for yourself? At most you will learn what it feels like for you to do something other people have done. Maybe you will also have better mental and physical health, if we could only be so lucky. What non-metaphysical thing is there to discover that can't be discovered through some other variety of observation?
  • AndrewAndrew
    We know meditation and other such things have some sort of effect on the brain. What more meaning is there to know? What meaning can you possibly learn by actually experienced that different state of mind for yourself?
    I would say that experience gives one a fundamentally different data set than any other form of observation. You may be content with knowledge passed down from other people, but some of us are not.
  • AprecheApreche
    I would say that experience gives one a fundamentally different data set than any other form of observation. You may be content with knowledge passed down from other people, but some of us are not.
    But its unreliable information, so is information from other people. Only scientifically verifiable data counts. All that other stuff effectively does not exist. Even if all this stuff were real, what fundamentally different data set are you going to get? Is it something that can't be described with words? Sounds a lot like religion to me.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited July 2008
    But its unreliable information, so is information from other people. Only scientifically verifiable data counts. All that other stuff effectively does not exist. Even if all this stuff were real, what fundamentally different data set are you going to get? Is it something that can't be described with words? Sounds a lot like religion to me.
    Think about it this way. How do you know how what if feels like to touch fire? Until you have actually touched fire, you will never know. You could measure the temperature with instruments and get an exact reading, but you will never know what the burning sensation feels like. What I am talking about when I say "feelings" is not a metaphysical concept, but rather the physiological and psychological processes that occur in our bodies during certain events. You can derive abstract information from said processes, abbreviations if you will. When my brain processes this light push against my skin when I'm outside, that's wind. When my pupils allow too much light in my eyes, I know it's bright. "Feelings" are just heuristics we use in our common language to describe these processes in our bodies. However, our colloquial language in insufficient to fully express these complex occurrences. Theoretically, given the correct methods and observational techniques, we could quantify these events. Like you said, there is tons of research being performed on meditation and it's effect on our mind. We can explain these events in detail if we want, but I don't want to have to write a dissertation about how "Physical interaction with the cylindrical object, made of a combination of steel and iron, causes a signal transduction within the nervous system which then causes my brain to release neurotransmitters that create a patter that my brain recognizes as cellular damage that has occurred on my epithelium layers of my hand." I just want to use the heuristic, "The pot hot, don't fucking touch it." While the first explanation is more verbose and scientific, the second causes a much more "emotional" reaction.

    Our brains are not wired to be rational, in fact, we are quite irrational creatures. Without proper restraints upon our observation, we can never be sure of our experiences, but that does not deprive them of any meaning.

    EDIT: The point is, words alone cannot translate the proper physiological or psychological response that occurs with first hand experience.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • AprecheApreche
    What you are saying is true about feelings. However, this guy is taking it a step further. He is claiming that a certain, difficult to obtain, set of feelings exist, and are somehow better than some other feelings. That somehow when you experience these feelings, you will learn something that is different and better from what you usually learn from other feelings. The feeling you get from achieving "enlightenment" might feel better than the feeling of jumping in a swimming pool, but they can both teach you the same amount of information. They teach you what they feel like, no more, no less. If for some reason it is a good idea to go around having new experiences because of all the things you will learn from them, then that's the philosophy that you should try everything once. Not the greatest idea.
  • AndrewAndrew
    However, this guy is taking it a step further. He is claiming that a certain, difficult to obtain, set of feelings exist, and are somehow better than some other feelings. That somehow when you experience these feelings, you will learn something that is different and better from what you usually learn from other feelings. The feeling you get from achieving "enlightenment" might feel better than the feeling of jumping in a swimming pool, but they can both teach you the same amount of information. They teach you what they feel like, no more, no less. If for some reason it is a good idea to go around having new experiences because of all the things you will learn from them, then that's the philosophy that you should try everything once. Not the greatest idea.
    I must have missed this part and I don't think I ever argued that point in this thread. I agree with you that this "special" group of experiences is bullshit. Could you point out exactly where he says this in the video (like a timestamp)?
  • AprecheApreche
    I must have missed this part and I don't think I ever argued that point in this thread. I agree with you that this "special" group of experiences is bullshit. Could you point out exactly where he says this in the video (like a timestamp)?
    I'd have to re-watch it to get a specific quote. However the whole section where he talks about achieving some sort of pre-happiness or "clearing your mind" are the same sorts of ideas in every new age book on the shelves. He's clearly not saying you should try to have as many different feelings as possible. He's saying that there is something special about so-called "spiritual" experiences that are somehow separate from any other experience, and they require special effort (i.e: meditation) to achieve. He is clearly suggesting that there is something special to be learned or achieved by experiences this one subset of spiritual/enlightening feelings, and that atheists and skeptics are ignoring it.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    I think this man is confusing epiphany and euphoria with "spiritual experiences".
  • AprecheApreche
    I think this man is confusing epiphany and euphoria with "spiritual experiences".
    I thought that, however, it doesn't seem to be. He is clearly talking about some sort of everlasting underlying feeling of happiness. That doesn't match up with an eiphany or a euphoria which are more temporary states of more extreme feeling.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    I think this man is confusing epiphany and euphoria with "spiritual experiences".
    I thought that, however, it doesn't seem to be. He is clearly talking about some sort of everlasting underlying feeling of happiness. That doesn't match up with an eiphany or a euphoria which are more temporary states of more extreme feeling.
    So hapiness as a universal constent, or sustained happiness/contentment that can be attained by anyone (both religious and non-religious), or a specifically religious happiness?
  • La Petit MortLa Petit Mort
    But if one experiences the same feeling of happiness perpetually, wouldn't it level out and become plain? it's like getting a new house, at first it seems super special, but as time goes by, it becomes the norm. Same thing with the "underlying perpetual happiness."
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    But if one experiences the same feeling of happiness perpetually, wouldn't it level out and become plain? it's like getting a new house, at first it seems super special, but as time goes by, it becomes the norm. Same thing with the "underlying perpetual happiness."
    As long as the memory of the unhappiness is retained, then the relative happiness can be constant. It is a question of perspective.
  • La Petit MortLa Petit Mort
    But if one experiences the same feeling of happiness perpetually, wouldn't it level out and become plain? it's like getting a new house, at first it seems super special, but as time goes by, it becomes the norm. Same thing with the "underlying perpetual happiness."
    As long as the memory of the unhappiness is retained, then the relative happiness can be constant. It is a question of perspective.
    Well if you lived in a shithole and moved to a mansion, then you'll still remember the shithole, but as time goes on the mansion, you seem to forget the feeling of being in the shit hole because you are used to living in the mansion, same thing will happen.
  • CremlianCremlian
    Move over New Atheism it's time for New Agnosticism (or Radical Skepticism)
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism
    Fuck you, Slate.
  • RymRym
    Fuck you, Slate.
    He makes several fairly poor arguments.
  • AprecheApreche
    He makes several fairly poor arguments.
    Let's make a relgious/atheist argument checklist. Then whenever someone is wrong, we can just list numbers to refute them. This will save us a fuck ton of typing.
    1. Flying Spaghetti Monster
    2. Doesn't recognize that atheism and agnosticism answer two different questions.
    Now we can just make a post that says "Slate is wrong because of #2". So simple.
  • RymRym
    Let's make a relgious/atheist argument checklist.
    It's already done.
  • NeitoNeito
    3. Treating Atheism like a religion.
    4. Pascal's Wager.
  • RymRym
    This would actually be, in all seriousness, a very short list. #1 alone is the root problem with 95% of religious arguments (even pascal's wager's incorrectness basically falls under it), and the remaining 5% are pedantic points about misconstructed arguments.

    FSM is all you need to argue against religion: no person has ever even come close to making a valid argument against it.
  • CremlianCremlian
    image
  • AprecheApreche
    Thank you Blue Gargoyle!
  • RymRym
    Thank you Blue Gargoyle!
    I believe in the Blue Gargoyle.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited June 2010
    FSM is all you need to argue against religion: no person has ever even come close to making a valid argument against it.
    Well.. Probably not valid :-pObviously the discovery institute has all the answers Rym, why are you not googling rebuttals there are SOOOO MANY :-p

    //Can you tell I'm poorly trolling today.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
Sign In or Register to comment.