Re: Christian refuses to drive atheist bus

"Tim Tim R" wrote:

[me, about not rejecting outright the possibility that there's
more than "the observable Time-Space universe":]
But, e.g., clearly I have absolutely no way of telling whether there
is a spiritual being of vast power and intellect that is obsessively
concerned that we should not get any good evidence of its existence;
it would be awfully difficult for there to be any evidence for or
against. On the other hand, that isn't a possibility I see any need
to give much thought to, for various obvious reasons.

[Tim:]
Yes, I do see where you are coming from. However, a lot of our perception
of ideas has to do with how they are expressed, and the words used to convey
the ideas. The words "spiritual being of vast power and intellect" for
instance don't really portray the concept as I personally understand it.

Er, I wasn't suggesting that they do. I was giving an example of
one reason why it would be insane to be certain that there's nothing
other than "the observable Time-Space universe". It wasn't meant
to be a description of *your* god!

OK, granted, the universe is a very interesting place. I'm not quite
seeing the connection with God, though. I assume you aren't really
saying "Physics has some strange and counterintuitive features, and
there are some fundamental questions to which we don't currently
have satisfactory answers, therefore we should believe in God" or
anything like that; but what *are* you saying? It seems that there
are some steps that you're leaving unstated...

To clarify. I am centering on self-awareness, consciousness, or whatever
you may wish to call it, that sense in which we are aware of our own
existence, and postulating the notion that far from being a kind-of side
effect of development, it is the be-all-and-end-all, the reason for all
things.

OK, but it seemed -- earlier on, at least, when you challenged
"mark" to answer a bunch of questions -- that you were not just
saying "here is what I happen to believe" but *arguing* for
your beliefs, or against "mark"'s. And whether it's God-as-such,
or some less specific notion that "the universal consciousness
is the source of all things", that's in question, I don't
understand how your argument (if that's what it is) fits
together. I'm missing some steps.

As I said, the corresponding philosophy is that a totally
un-observed and un-experienced Universe is meaningless.

What grounds are there for believing that? (And: do you mean
that such a universe, if it were to exist, would lack meaning,
or that that *talk of* such a universe is meaningless, or what?)

It seems like you're trying to make naturalism false *by
definition* -- no need to offer evidence for God or a
"universal consciousness" or whatever, just declare that
the idea that a consciousnessless universe might have
existed is meaningless. I tend to think that when someone
tries to make their position correct by definition, it's
a sign that something's wrong...

(We, now, can find out quite a lot about the early universe
by observation; is that enough to make it non-meaningless?
It seems to me that it ought to be. In which case, the fact
that if scientific naturalism is right then the universe
used to be consciousnessless doesn't invalidate it even
for those who *do* accept your principle that observation
is needed for meaning.)

Also: #3 is not, in fact, an explanation or an answer. It just
pushes the problem to a different place. If the existence of
life in our universe is so very surprising, why is the existence
of life "before" our universe not equally surprising? After all,
the whole point of this argument is supposed to be that if (as
it were) you set things going at random, life is tremendously
unlikely to emerge. So how can it help to postulate this
tremendously-unlikely thing from the outset?

Especially since the "life" you're postulating is (at least if
it's proper to call it "God") an extraordinary thing indeed,
possessed of properties no life we're closely familiar with
has. Immortality! Extratemporality! Perfection! Ability to
create universes at will!

I suppose the response to that is, 'Why not?'

I'm not suggesting that those properties are impossible. (Though
I expect some notions of perfection that have been proposed
would turn out to be incoherent if examined closely enough.)
Only that a being with those properties is quite a big extrapolation
from what we know about.

And especially since it is also (almost by definition) Mysterious
and Ineffable. Something is only useful as an explanation in so
far as you can say what follows from it, and scarcely anything
at all follows from the existence of a Mysterious and Ineffable
being. If you claim that it has the traditional divine properties
such as supreme power and goodness, all sorts of things seem
to follow that clearly aren't true (e.g., that the world isn't
full of disease and sin and death and stupidity and ugliness,
alongside all the good stuff).

Of course I cannot answer that one, except to say that maybe the world we
have is the best one that can be, for some reason, or that perhaps it is
still 'in the making' from our perspective.

Anything's possible. But each on-the-face-of-it-awfully-unlikely
postulate you require makes your position as a whole less credible...

To be truly self-aware, I
believe it must be possible to make real choices, otherwise self-awareness
without the ability to interact and affect things would seem to be
meaningless.

Quite possibly (though it seems to me you're rather quick to declare
things to be meaningless), but there's a big gap between "if we could
never make any real choices at all then we'd be mere automata, and
that would be no good" (which might be true) and "anything God might
do to the world that would reduce the amount of evil in it and the
severity of its consequences would require us to be mere automata"
(which seems absolutely ridiculous to me; do you disagree?).

And if you prefer instead to
festoon it with all the details of (say) traditional Christian
theology, then the question arises: why *that* god rather than
some other? How come divinity is so Finely Tuned?

For me, interpreted through my beliefs about universal consciousness,
traditional Christian theology seems to fit. However, I do acknowledge that
some degree of 'fit' can be found in other religions, such as Buddhism,
nevertheless I can see how the philosophies that are expressed in
Christianity seem to fit best. For instance, the notion of the Trinity.
One God, not divided. Perceived by us in different ways, but that is
easiest understood if we acknowledge our own perceptual limitations. God is
described in Christian theology as being present in all things, the source
of all things, as a consciousness, and non-temporal. It all fits, for me.

I would guess that if you had been brought up among Muslims
rather than Christians you would be writing with equal conviction
that Islam "all fits, for me". That doesn't mean either that you're
wrong to be a Christian, or that you'd be wrong to be a Muslim
in that situation (though it's hard to see how both could be right),
but if it's true it does seem to make it less easy to believe that
all those details of Christian theology are supported by, er,
whatever evidence you have for your beliefs about universal
consciousness. :-)

This isn't an *explanation*, it's a cop-out.

I didn't say it was an *explanation*, I am only saying I believe
consciousness is the key to all things.


Regarding Time-Space, and consciousness, we get into questions about
whether all Time and all Space just 'exist', and it is only our
consciousness that creates the illusion of the 'flow' of time from
past, through present and into future. Relativity seems to me to
suggest that, since 'now' is a subjective, all possible Time and
Space is is just "There", and it is only our consciousness that is
limited to a small range of Time and Space. If so, then 1969 is
still "There" (taking liberties with the word 'still', I know!) and
in 1969 there is a little boy looking forward to his 11th birthday
'tomorrow', just as there is a 50 year old man typing this in the
year 2009 anticipating being 51 tomorrow. Both me and that little
boy are the same person, separated only by time. However, I am
*aware* of now, in a direct sense, but not of then (except vaguely
in memory). Presumably that boy in 1969 is aware, just as I am now?

I think this speculation is really about terminology rather than
about reality. Suppose (1) that 1969 is Still There, and (2) that
it isn't; is there anything you could possibly do to tell the
difference? If not -- well, I wouldn't go so far as the logical
positivists who said that then the question was flatly meaningless,
but I do think it's unlikely to be useful.

Well, maybe one day we will be able to do something to tell the difference.
The point is the implications it has for the nature of consciousness.

I'm not yet convinced that it has any; but one rather obvious one
that it might have is that the future is just as much part of
the Eternal Now -- just "There", etc. -- as the past. Which isn't
an idea I'd have expected you to like, on the basis of what you've
said about choice.

Now consider 'Many Worlds'.
If you want to suggest (as I think Alwyn did) that we are in a
Universe that seems to be 'designed' for us simply because it is the
one that suits out of all the myriads of other possible Universes,
that also seems to imply there will be many other 'Universes'
containing a 'me' that are close to this one. Maybe only one atom
different. So what about the awareness of all those other 'me's?
Not just the awareness of the past 'me' and the future 'me'.

What about them? I mean, really, what about them? It seems like you're
suggesting that there's some problem with the idea on account of all
those other Tims, but I don't know what problem you're suggesting
there is.

Well, I'm not *aware* of being them, am I? Do you get my point? They are
presumably aware of existing, just as I am. But if they are also 'me', how
come I am only aware of *this* 'me'?

I'm afraid I don't get your point; sorry. They are "you" only in the
sense of being Just Like You. (Maybe *exactly* like you; who knows?)
Why should that give you any awareness of them? (And, for that matter,
if they're exactly like you, how would you know whether you're aware
of being them?!)

A similar philosophical question: If
the Starship Enterprise matter transporter could be really built, i.e., a
person steps into it, is completely dissassembled into energy, transmitted
elsewhere, and then reassembled exactly as before, do they commit suicide
every time they use it, and the 'new' being is then another awareness?

I think those are questions of definition rather than of fact.

If Star Trek transporters working in that way can really be built,
then a bunch of the assumptions that underlie our talk about personal
identity turn out to be false; so some of the things we think and say
about personality will turn out not to make sense. That would be a
nuisance, I suppose, but it's no grounds for thinking that Star Trek
transporters are impossible, still less (I guess this is what you
have in mind) that the universe can't work in the sort of materialistic
way that might conceivably make them possible.

Incidentally, if you like this sort of thing and are able to tolerate
fairly heavy-duty philosophy then you might want to look at Derek Parfit's
remarkable book "Reasons and persons". He takes a very clear-headed
look at questions of personal identity, considers what happens to them
in various hypothetical worlds involving transporters and advanced
neurosurgery and artificial neurons and whatnot, and reaches some
counterintuitive conclusions.

My belief is that awareness creates
what we call 'reality' in order to express itself. The Christian
viewpoint is not to argue that the visible Universe, Life, ourselves
is a 'Part of God', since we do not divide God (that's 'Pantheism')
but rather, that God is wholely present in every part of Time-Space,
as well as 'beyond' it if we were able to envisage such a thing.
Thus far from awareness being a consequece of existence, it is the
source.

Sure. But what I don't understand is: If (as seems to be the case)
you're saying that what you've said about quantum mechanics and
relativity and awareness and the general confusingness of nature
is a *reason* for preferring "awareness first" over "universe
first" (or at least a reason for not positively preferring "universe
first"?), the steps by which you get to that conclusion seem to me
to be missing.

There can't be steps to that conclusion that don't involve belief.

What do you mean by "belief" here? I mean, I believe all sorts
of things, and so does everyone else; but presumably you don't
just mean that. Do you mean specifically "belief not based on
evidence", or something? (The sort of thing that people like
Richard Dawkins take to be meant by "faith" and get cross about.)
Or what?

Thus the
first 'step' is belief that there is some kind of reason for, or purpose to
existence.

I don't see any reason whatever why I should assume that; it seems
like something that should be a conclusion rather than an assumption.

Now, starting *from* that belief, a series of philosophical
thoughts lead me to believe that consciousness ('Life') is the reason or
purpose, since it is the only thing that lends any meaning to existence.

(Surely consciousness and life are not at all the same thing?)

I think the notion of consciousness, or something like it, is
probably built into those words "reason" and "purpose" that
you used earlier.

What good is a World that is not experienced by anything? What possible
meaning has it? Now, you may start from a different 'first step', and
believe that nothing has any meaning, reason or purpose. It just 'IS'.

That seems to me like an almost equally strange starting point;
again, it's something that might be a conclusion but surely shouldn't
be an assumption. In any case, it's not where I start from.

If you start from that premise, then you will evolve a more mechanistic
philosophy, that ends up postulating that awareness is just a side-effect of
existence rather than its meaning.

You haven't said anything about what happens if you don't take
any claim about reason and purpose and meaning as a fundamental
assumption. That seems like rather an omission.

Neither of us can prove either position,
and there are 'implausibilities' either way. It ends up with each of us
deciding which view is the least implausible!

Well, of course. Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?

Maybe I'm being dim and failing to see some inferences
that are obvious to you; maybe you just forgot to spell some things
out; maybe there are unfixable gaps in your reasoning; I simply
can't tell.

We both know it all comes back to beliefs about the nature of existence.
I can't prove or disprove either position, and neither can you.

Proof is a red herring. One can scarcely ever prove anything outside
pure mathematics. The question (for me) is how each position fares
when faced with the available evidence.

So. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that
...
which I think is basically what you've been arguing. How do
you get from those to either of these?

4. It is more reasonable to believe that life and awareness
are the cause of the physical universe than vice versa.

5. It is not unreasonable to believe that life and awareness
are the cause of the physical universe than vice versa.

Oops, that came out terribly garbled, and unfortunately you
didn't read my mind correctly and guessed something other
than what I had in mind :-). What I meant was

5. It is not unreasonable to believe that life and awareness
are the cause of the physical universe rather than vice versa.

i.e., a position weaker than #4, but still *opposed* to the
strong materialist position

6. It is unreasonable to believe that life and awareness
are the cause of the physical universe rather than vice versa.

Sorry about that.

I would say that neither position is 'unreasonable', but rather, that it
depends on initial belief.

So how do you explain the existence of people who start off as
(say) Christians or Muslims or whatever, believing that life
and awareness come first, and who after re-examining the evidence
available to them change their mind and become atheists? Whatever
the explanation for their change of opinion, it surely can't be
that they started off from the assumption that everything is
meaningless, or that life and awareness are the product of
natural phenomena, or whatever.

Or, equally, what of those who start off as materialist atheists
and end up believing in God? If their belief in God is to be
explained by their having started from the assumption that the
world is meaningful and purposeful, then so much for your suggestion
that atheists have to start from the opposite assumption!

(4) does not explain how awareness can exist
without a World to exist in. From our experience, awareness seems to
require the existence of a physical brain. Thus, we cannot comprehend
awareness existing *without* such a physical structure.

That seems rather excessive. I mean, sure, we can't see in detail
how it would happen, but then we also don't know in detail how it
happens *with* that physical structure.

To my mind, the principal objection to the idea of awareness that
isn't based on any physical structure is simply the lack of evidence
for any non-physical structure that might do the job.

However, because we
cannot envisage something, it does not necessarily mean it cannot be. On
the other hand, (5) goes no way to give a reason for the existence of a
physical universe, or any reason or purpose for the arise of conscious
awareness. So it simply depends on initial belief: Is there a reason or
purpose for existence (even allowing that we may not be able to know that
reason or purpose), or is existence itself entirely without reason or
purpose? I take the first option, believing that the only sane thing to do
is to live *as though* it has a purpose, even if I can never be sure, and it
remains just a belief. I believe conscious awareness *is* the reason and
purpose. To me the second option is not reasonable, since I just feel
unable to contemplate a purpose-less, cause-less Universe. I know that in
itself is a limitation of my perception, but so be it!

Well, as you may have guessed I'm a bit puzzled by the idea of
taking "the universe has a purpose" as a basic assumption. But,
as you say, so be it. It's not for me to tell you what your
axioms are allowed to be.

But, if it helps at all, I don't find that my life is made wretched
or futile by not taking "the universe has a purpose" as an axiom.
So if the reason why you feel unable to contemplate a "purpose-less,
cause-less universe" is that you think it would be too depressing
and enervating, allow me to suggest that it might not be. :-)

Also: there's a difference between a universe that doesn't *have*
a purpose and a cause, and a universe that doesn't *contain* purposes
and causes. I'm not sure which "purpose-less, cause-less" was meant
to mean...

--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... Your god isn't needed. ... What is the exact process by which this new life added material to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: very important for your life...
    ... A primitive superstition arising from the Arabian Penninsula, ... Please clarify what you mean by "the secret of existence." ... universe has *always* existed in some form, ... ANY GOD EXISTS. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Christian refuses to drive atheist bus
    ... meaning to the universe. ... God, or universal consciousness, or anything of the kind. ... That is the exact same reason why it is not credible to suppose ... of the creeds is that Christianity comes "as a package". ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: More Crap from you Darwinians
    ... mechanism does not equate to God. ... everything else in this universe seems to exist in a finite ... Only the existence of God would explain how everything in this ... lifeform which has moral authority over humanity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT Reason is dead - was Reason Prevails
    ... > accept His existence and respond appropriately, ... been simply "Because God wills it so". ... today of *how* the universe exists than we did in the past, ... explosion (or "Big Bang") occur?" ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Loading