Is there an atheist schism?

Article by Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy at Florida University

Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute

-There's a schism alright, and I seem to find myself on the unfashionable side of it-

As a professional philosopher my first question naturally is: “What or who is an atheist?” If you mean someone who absolutely and utterly does not believe there is any God or meaning then I doubt there are many in this group. Richard Dawkins denies being such a person. If you mean someone who agrees that logically there could be a god, but who doesn't think that the logical possibility is terribly likely, or at least not something that should keep us awake at night, then I guess a lot of us are atheists. But there is certainly a split, a schism, in our ranks. I am not whining (in fact I am rather proud) when I point out that a rather loud group of my fellow atheists, generally today known as the “new atheists”, loathe and detest my thinking. Richard Dawkins has likened me to the pusillanimous appeaser at Munich, Neville Chamberlain. Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True, says (echoing Orwell) that only someone with pretensions to the intelligentsia could believe the silly things I believe. And energetic blogger PZ Myers refers to me as a “clueless gobshite” because I confessed to seeing why true believers might find the Kentucky Creationist Museum convincing. I will spare you what my fellow philosopher Dan Dennett has to say about me.

There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical.

Read more

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

What do you think of this atheist 'protestant' movement? Do you even care?
Personally I think its interesting, cause it shows them monsieurs New Atheists that their Fundamentalist Scientism is not going unquestioned in the scientific community.

Regards

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Christophe,

I've read several books on evolution by Ruse, and I've enjoyed them all. I've also read several essays by him on the same subject he discusses in the article you link to, and I am in basic agreement with his stance.

In 2003, Ruse, in a review of one of Dawkins' books, wrote:

Science asks immediate questions. Religion asks ultimate questions. There is no conflict here, except when people mistakenly think that questions from one domain demand answers from the other.

I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I think it applies not only to non-religious individuals like Dawkins and other so-called “new atheists,” but to religious and spiritually-oriented individuals such as Ken Wilber.

In the first edition of Integral Spirituality, Wilber writes:

[S]cience cannot say whether God exists or not exists [sic]; whether there is an Absolute or not; why we are here; what our ultimate nature is, and so on. … When science is honest, it is thoroughly agnostic and thoroughly quiet on those ultimate questions.

For some reason, Wilber does not say anything about what kinds of questions religion or spirituality is thoroughly quiet on when religion or spirituality is honest.

In the article you link to, Ruse talks about being modest in his unbelief, and he contrasts such modesty with condescension. I think it's generally a good thing for us to be modest in our beliefs and unbeliefs rather than condescending, and I think this applies to atheists, integralists, Krishnamurti admirers, Dalai Lama admirers, people who consider themselves “Turquoise,” etc.

Ruse is an atheist, as he says in the article you linked to (“I myself share just about every bit of Dawkins's nonbelief,” writes Ruse in the aforementioned book review). Another atheist who I think is modest rather than condescending about his unbelief - unlike “New Atheists” Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins - is British philosopher Julian Baggini. Ruse mentions American theistic philosopher Alvin Plantinga in the article, saying that while he thinks Plantinga is wrong, he does not consider him “stupid or bad or whatever.” Like Ruse, Baggini respects Plantinga and has suggested that Plantinga poses some important challenges to atheists. (Having said that, I doubt too many theists come to their faith through reason. When I hear someone say that they believe in God or even “Spirit” as Wilber uses the term, I do not assume that their intent is to make a propositional statement that can be supported with reason and argument.)

In response to your questions, “What do you think of this atheist 'protestant' movement? Do you even care?”, I think it's a good thing and I do care. I care because I think that whenever anyone communicates their position on religion, spirituality, political and social issues, etc., by “preaching to the choir” in a manner that is bound to polarize those who aren't in the choir, an opportunity to model good communication skills is missed.

Regards,

Jim

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I disagree with both Ruse and Wilber - for the most part, on this particular issue - and we agree about many other issues.

There seems to be a misunderstanding by most who do not have a thorough grounding in both science and philosophy, about the distinction between belief and knowing, and what is possible.

Science and logic tend to indicate that it seems probable that is not even theoretically possible to know anything with absolute certainty.

That seems to leave us in the position where most of what is commonly called knowledge is more correctly labelled a “useful operational hypothesis that is yet to fail a test in reality”.

The problem for most people is that all of us start small, essentially from nothing.   
As we develop, we make distinctions.
The easiest and simplest distinctions to make are simple binaries - true/false, hot/cold, light/dark.  

In a simple world these simple distinctions serve us well, and using them, applied to our observations, we build ever more complex models of “reality” (whatever reality is).

We must all start from such simple beginning, but those who are honest in their explorations will soon find that such simple models start to fail on a regular basis as we approach the boundaries of “everyday experience”.

Exploring such boundaries leads inevitably to the conclusion that such simple notions as true/false have an operational usefulness within certain well defined conditions, yet fail if scaled up to the expanding limits of knowledge and awareness.


Certainly there is a sense in which absolute knowledge is denied to the seeker who is honest with himself - and the most accurate representation of what is real seems to be available to someone who can at once hold all the information they have gathered through experience, and at the same time hold open the question, what is so?

From standing in such a question, we build probability functions about the likelihood of any particular hypothesis being so in any particular situation.   Sometimes the probabilities are very close to unity.

So, in that sense, KW is correct, science cannot say, with absolute precision of unity, that God does or does not exist, and having studied a great deal of evidence in half a century of reading and inquiry, I hold the operational hypothesis that all evidence indicates that if there are God like entities operating in our area of space, they have had little or no influence on the evolution of any aspect of our species.    I go further and state that it seems most probable (very close to unity) that if some God like entity had something to do with the beginning of this universe (which seems highly unlikely, but we have no evidence one way or the other), then at some stage in it's history, it will have evolved from simpler material by a process of evolution by natural selection of some sort of replicator in some sort of matrix.

So - operationally, and in the sense of there being some ultimate purpose for humanity other than the purpose we each choose for ourselves, I say no - that is a highly improbable hypothesis - and I have a great deal of evidence to support that statement.

Can I understand why concepts like God are common to human cultures - certainly - in the absence of good scientific information it is a very sensible sort of hypothesis.    It takes a great deal of information and a great deal of disciplined inquiry for it to seem otherwise to a context machine such as the human mind.

I was exceedingly fortunate to have several centuries of courageous individuals willing to stand up to the dogmatic truth of their time, and risk death for heresy, and to challenge the accepted truths of their day with evidence that suggested alternative explanations gave a better fit.   Being born into such a culture, my context machine of a brain has been able to see such a probability since it was about 8 years old.   Had I not been so fortunate in having so many scientists preceding me I would probably have believed in God like most others.
I dislike false modesty, the evidence is there, and it does not serve anyone's best interests to ignore it.    And there is also a trap of hubris, in anyone stating that they have the true and final answer - because they probably haven't.

Operationally I am an atheist, and if a God showed up and said gidday - I'm the bloke that started all this and a few trillion other universes, and here are a few miracles to demonstrate - then I might review that position - and I think I might always retain a nagging doubt that such one claiming to be God was simply a very highly evolved entity with a very warped sense of humour (some sort of Douglas Adams on steroids).   I would still hold the question - what is the matrix of God? 


Science explains why religions exist, and supports many of their operational paradigms for social harmony. 
Science can falsify the claims that God must exist, without necessarily being able to make the claim that God does exist.
Science does provide a solid understanding of how theological arguments arise, while the inverse is not true - except in a tautological sense of God having a very weird sense of humour.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

hi folks
heres some irony. if someone has no beliefs then s/he is le devine by default. if i dropped all beliefs which includes prejudices/images then iam construct aware to to the point of indistinguishability from pure essence, and who have you? iam not saying iam god, i have my reasons for that, which is approximately, i need a frekin break, i get to be a mortal, big time, now and then. the problem with this break is it can be so out of control and can be reinforced by enterprise driven co-habitants of our space, who i probably colluded with, in the grey depths of a non time specific subconscious which i deny, which i have to deny (you wouldnt believe some of the content) either way iam sunk in an inextricable ecological slide, a likely evolutionary mistake or a psychological crises in the guise it gets into. thats a weeny bit about the break being out of control.

i am extending the term non believer, which includes reference to god and religiousness if not religion, but closer to home is the structure of belief. in the wider context a real non believer lands in the other dimention. perfectly reasonable, its a fact. can be tested, but no demos please :) even a scientist will tell ya, the demonstration alters the fact

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Ted.

I agree with most if not all of what you say though I might word some things differently. Like you, Dawkins, and Ken Wilber, I'm an atheist. When I post to forums like this one I like to mention that Wilber has admitted to being an atheist, because I think that his slippery politician-like manner of speaking may lead some of his readers and fans to think otherwise.

As I'm sure you know, Dawkins distinguishes between “Einsteinian religion” and “supernatural religion”in his book The God Delusion, and he makes it crystal clear that he has no problem with “Einsteinian religion” and that his only target is “supernatural religion.”

I started a thread here in August wherein I quoted Wilber admitting that he's an atheist and defining Spirit or God in a way that fits hand and glove with the way Dawkins defines “the Einsteinian God,” which is to say a God that doesn't do anything, that has no causal powers, etc. Here's a link to that post.

I should qualify what I said was my wholehearted agreement with the Ruse quote I included in my previous post. If someone appeals to religious or spiritual authority to support a scientific claim, then I think there is indeed a conflict between religion and science or spirituality and science. And vice versa, if someone appeals to science in an attempt to undermine whatever psychological meaning someone may derive from religion or spirituality, then there's a conflict.

Incidentally, in The God Delusion, Dawkins quotes Jung answering an interviewer who asked him if he believed in God by saying, “I don't believe, I know,” and on this basis Dawkins puts Jung in the “strong belief” in “supernatural religion” category. This is a mistake, though Jung is partly if not largely responsible for it for often speaking in a cryptic manner, as he did during that BBC radio interview.

Jung belongs in the “Einsteinian religion” category, or at most the “agnostic” category where “supernatural religion” and a supernatural God is concerned. He was emphatic that one can only know God psychologically, and when he said “I know” he meant that he knows God as a psychological “archetype.” He did not mean that he knew God in any other sense, though he didn't clarify that and probably said what he said in order to be provocative. It's too bad that Dawkins apparently didn't consult with some bona fide (trained, certified) Jungians before putting Jung in the “strong belief” in “supernatural religion” category in his book.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Jim, 

I would really like to ask you something, and I totally understand if you don't want to share it…but when and how did you know that you were an athiest?  I really hate labels, but for some time have had a suspician that I am at least an agnostic, if not an Einsteinian Athiest…

I resonate with so much mysticism as well though, like Rumi…and also with the Energy/Tao/Shiva dance of life…systems theory…etc…

I distain of any kind of doctrine, including Buddhism…but recognize my own true nature…while seeing such beauty in the underlining truths of all traditions…

Anyways…just hoping for a little direction…as I seem to be a a little human being in an ocean of spiritual giants…gol*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star,

I hate labels too, but sometimes find it easier to use them than try to avoid using them.

I was a child in a Catholic school in Queens, a subway hop from Times Square, when a nun taught us that God was Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. This was in second grade, as I recall.

A few weeks later she taught us about free will via the story of Adam and Eve, who, she said, were given free will by God and chose to disobey him, resulting in their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

This was in the fifties when it was still legal for nuns to whack students with yardsticks, and so it was with some trepidation that I raised my hand and asked, “Sister, if God is Omniscient, then He knew that Adam and Eve would disobey Him before he created them and before he created the world. So where is the free will in all this?”

She didn't have an answer other than to suggest that I ask a priest. I didn't bother. I stopped believing in a supernatural personal creator God after that, but I did continue to pray to Saint Anthony, patron saint of lost and stolen articles, because my mother had told me that praying to him helped one recover lost articles, and my experience was that this worked. (Maybe it worked because the mental act of praying calmed me down enough to allow my brain to remember where I “lost” whatever it was I couldn't find.) I also became an altar boy, this was when the mass was still said in Latin.

So I guess I became an atheist (in the sense in which Dawkins and Wilber are atheists) when I was 8 or 9 years old or whatever age I was when I was in second grade.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

HI again Star,

Let me add a postscript regarding the issue of meaning and loss of meaning.

One of the biggest concerns some people seem to have where “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” is concerned, when we are talking about the tub of religion or spirituality, has to do with meaning. I've heard people say that a good reason to avoid destroying certain beliefs that cannot be justified through argument and evidence is that doing so may leave us bereft of meaning.

I imagine that many if not most posters here have gone through periods of “loss of meaning” or however one might wish to put it. It can be devastating. I don't have any “shoulds” about how anyone should deal with it. There is this movie with Ellen Barkin and Robert Duvall where she plays his daughter and is killed in a car accident, which is of course devastating to him. At the end of the movie (which I haven't seen in decades and I don't remember the title - it's not The Apostle, which stars Duvall and which I've never seen), he is baptized in a river. This is clearly the right thing for the character in the movie.

Once, during a period of loss of meaning that I went through, it seemed as if my imagination had died. Since childhood I'd painted colorful painting, and I had to force myself to paint during this period and I could only paint black paintings. Someone might say I was depressed, and that probably was the case, but there was more to it than that.

It's like, if you put a sock on your hand it's easy to see it as a puppet with a face, even if you haven't sewn buttons on the sock for eyes. When I was going through this phase of loss of meaning, I would've just seen a sock.

Then one day I saw a bird at one of the feeders around my house, and I said hi to it. My imagination started to move again after that. I realized that imagination creates illusions, but I also realized at this point that I needed illusions.

It's like the story Woody Allen tells in Annie Hall:

“This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, 'Doc, uh, my brother's crazy, he thinks he's a chicken,' and uh, the doctor says, 'well why don't you turn him in?' And the guy says, 'I would, but I need the eggs.'”

I suppose I should add that I think that people who say or imply that they literally live without any illusions are full of shit. “I've realized the Nondual, I'm free of illusions, blah blah blah.” Bullshit.

;-)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ha ha, a good one Jim.

If I may add, if you really want to loose the ego, instead of Wilber's usually abstract way, then get completely humiliated.

However, nobody I know volunteer's for this.

We'd like to find an easy way of course, maybe meditating ;-). 

IMHO, as I've mentioned before, we may all crave for the conversionary experience.

But as Watts used to say, “how does one get grace'?

Gaddy 

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Jim…

I have been through much of the loss of meaning, and it was devastating as you say…but I still find that I experience periods of it at even deeper levels of just learning to be human…

I have no illusions about a sky god, or a savior, or a buddhamind, or being re-incarnated, or reaching some stage or state where I can make miracles happen in some magical way, and yet I cannot deny the magic of the rainbow…nature in her majesty…our human mind and body…and the joy I feel within just breathing the air and watching the leaves scatter and feel that I am some how picked up and carried along with the wind and colors…

I feel myself challenged at even deeper levels with honest inquiry, and so, I agree that my path of awakening, is on-going, and one that is an awakening of my own humanity and the possibilities this human realm holds…

I also feel myself alone…in the sense that I am experiencing my own truths…awakening to what is real within myself and even recognizing it within nature especially, but also in a few friends with whom I feel a great connection…

I have no illusions concerning prayer…I don't pray…the last time I did was many months ago when I quit smoking and a deep depression was triggered as well as a desire to get drunk…I prayed to every lord, god, and awareness I could think of, knowing well that the decision to drink or not, resided within me…and, I did not…

All that nondual, enlightenment, I am one with all…I have experienced zoning out in these states of consciousness…but those states wear off, and the real world is always right where I left it…

What I have experienced that is true and so much more wonderful, is just the joy of living this gift of life, this second chance to live human…and make a difference in some small way…and help others to do the same…

It was very painful when my religious concepts collapsed…and I have not built on that ground after having leveled it…and I do continue to question at even deeper levels…looking for solutions that continue to help me be a better human being…not b/c of any fear or guilt, or nobility or self-righteous goody two shoes shit, but just b/c it is the humane thing to do resonating with my sense of humanity…

Sometimes I still struggle with purpose…but I have to believe that humanity is purpose…and that I have gone through what I have gone through for a reason…maybe that is an illusion…but like you said, at some level we need them…I try not to bullshit others, but I especially try not to bullshit myself…

Thank you for sharing a bit of your personal journey…I still cannot bring myself to put a label on it…except to say I know that I am a human being…

*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Jim !

I knew you were from New York but not from Queens.

What Yankee years were you there?

I lived just north of New York in Canada and grew up with the Yankees from about 1959 on.

I have a great affection for that time, ala Larry David, Mickey and all that yeah know.

Were you interested?

Love Gad 

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star, I'm going to butt in, sorry. ;-).

Here's Gad's actual POV although I find few who agree with me.

Most of the time I'm pretty neutral on this whole thing. However, when I'm happy I could care less.

However, when Gad has been down and depressed and getting screwed over yada yada then I'm a true believer. Tried and true.

Once upon a time I was in a boating accident where I was caught under water for a short period of time and I thought I was going to die. I started praying pretty quick. This happened spontaneously and actually against my will.  There was no time for reason - are you kidding me. This came up from inside of me no matter what I thought I was. As I say, God is the court of last appeal.

Now that is how I feel. I really do not believe there is any real atheists or theists - this is bravado. That IMHO is the rational ego talking. The tough guy. The guy who thinks he's the man of reason. You know, the fellow who get humiliated and then cries in private and pretends it never happened. 

As they say, no atheists in fox holes. Now there's an experiment. :-).

Love, Gaddy  

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Gaddy, 

I appreciate your response…I have been in various fox holes…I have cried and prayed and cried and prayed…sometimes it seemed my prayers were answered and sometimes not…but what I could never really understand was the injustice of this world…why a god would allow such innocence to suffer in such horrific ways…I spent years getting drunk at God I guess…escaping life every way I could…and when sobriety was forced upon me…I had to grow up and face my reality…I started changing my actions, and my life began to change…When I began to take responsibility for me…my life got better…

I use to pray to die…b/c I could not face life…now I not only face life, I live it…if that is not coming out of a fox hole, I don't know what is…while I cannot explain why I got sober and got a second chance and others I know did not…I cannot believe that a loving God would make such choices in his children…It just never made sense to me…

If there is a God, it is life itself…and it runs through the veins of all nature and being…we are it's legs and arms…we have to save ourselves…we have to save the earth…we humans have to do it together…

love, Star…

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I hear yeah. I haven't brought it up here but I'm a recovering addict myself. I understand. 

More later as we go along.

Thanks, Gaddy   

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIabgPX14R4

more will be revealed???  lol…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Gaddy's favourite. '-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uwvBizKAwc

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

ub wild and crazy man…gol*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Starlight, “Life itself… and it runs through the viens of all nature and being”. That sounds connective, whole, and spiritual. If “God” is really a tag for “wholeness” or the god-function of “spirit” - a kind of wispy stuff that allows for connection, like Casper the Friendly Ghost who can walk through any wall - then “life itself”, once embraced, seems a useful “theology” to me. Not the old-school theology associated with rigidly assigned roles, etc. But a theology - an idea of how to access and use the god-processs or “I am that I am” (or life itself) nonetheless. 
   Different doors to what I have called (from a more secular, psychology point of view) “whole-mind activity”. Who really knows what, if any “thing”, is on the outside of the whole-mind activity itself? If the activity has any merit, it need not be dependent on something it cannot access. The way to “God”, is, as far as I'm concerned, the “best of God”, and all we need to know of God. 
   If we can psychologically transcend the trauma of the fox hole - and I mean transcend, not limp along with PTSD the rest of our lives - then an applied wholeness or healing has occured, which is, for all intents and purposes, what we are signifying when we utter or print the word “God”. 
   Of course the word has been missused so much that it has come to cue up part-mind activity (God in a box), instead of whole-mind activity. When the part-mind activity is mistaken as being the whole-mind activity, then it interferes with the wholeness response.  If a person is responding to that problem (of confusing part with whole, and of having a dis-ordered mind of part-to-whole, instead of whole-to-part), then it certainly makes sense for them to use a different cue word, in order to cue up the “real stuff”(or non-stuff energy) of wholeness. 
  I have been using the phrase “thinking like energy” lately in order to cue up “spirituality” and to “connect with god-power”. If energy has many of the characteristics of wholeness - as an energy field certainly seems to have - then why not use the cue word of “pure energy”.  From a modern myth of a quantum soup (energy field-like state) we could cue the connectivity of wholeness, openess, acceptance, peace, and renewal/healing. The “energy” wells up inside us and transforms or state of mind or our actual physical state. 
  Some would call this the touch of “God”. But other words may work best for others. Still, the belief in the wholeness and in procedures (such as cue words, situational prompts, etc.) and processes to access, apply, and assimilate it into one's life, is, IMO, a “theology”, at least a theology of sorts - not a-theological, but theological. Perhaps “light-handed theology”, as opposed to “heavy-handed theology”. To me theology is when there is a body of thought pertaining to wholeness or interconnectedness.  The body of thought could be “subtle”, dreamy, impressionistic, so as not to put wholeness in a box. But it is still a body of thought, a kind of theology. One might think they have no thoughts about wholeness, but some are probably there: cue words, windows (to see or access wholeness) doors (to connect with and apply apply wholeness), and hallways (to consistently coordinate or assimilate wholness into one's stage of existence). 
   Another useful cue word may be “Ideal”. Imagine the most advanced stage possible. Use the word “Ideal” to signify your's or my potential (if we could live long enough, learn enough, etc.) and that would also represent a kind of wholeness or god-function. It would be a fore-giving - a meaningful myth of the “given” (as in a gift that is given) - of potential. “Let go and let God”, would then be a kind of “Get out of the way and let the fore-givin potential unfold”. This view would be teleological, in that it would see pure potential for an Ideal state or form as something pulling reality toward it, like a magnet or “force” (with “energy” qualities). 
   As long as we can conceptualize some form of wholeness or optimal potential, it is hard for me to not see those thoughts/concepts as being, at least somewhat, “theological”. 
   Thanks for this post and general discussion as a cue or trigger to thought and “soul-searching”. 
    Darrell

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Gaddy

I thought you were a nondual surfer?
hahhahhahh

clean shot!
molto bene, ragazzo.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Yes Jim, by definition science is, and should be, “a-theistic”- independent of “theism” during its investigation into what is and isn't. The prefix “a” is used to indicate something to the effect of “without”. Agnomia is a nuerological condition in which a person cannot think of the names of things. They may describe “shoe” as that leather object put on the feet to protect the feet”, but cannot think of the name. 
   Amoral does not mean immoral, but means without, or independent of, “moral” considerations. Amputating someone's leg is amoral. It is merely a procedure. It may be used to psychpathically torture someone, as in the Saw movies, or it may be used to save someone's life, if they have an irreversible infection in the part of the leg that is amputated.      
   And so forth. Athiesm is non-theistic, not anti-God. Whenever someone is investigating things or ultimate reality (during philosophical thought) without using the methods or metaphors of “theology”, then they are being an athiest. 
   As a Christian, I see an advantage of being atheistic. It helps open my mind to the potential revelations of a god, if such a thing as “God” turns out to exist, or if it turns out that existance (to stand out) simply doesn't have much meaning or usefulness when it comes to really understanding the concept of “God”. Perhaps “God” is what God does - no more, no less! 
   I once prayed phenomenologically, trying to observe what was happening as I prayed. What I observed/felt was most closely matched to the word “Radiance”. By being atheistic, I discovered an aspect of life that I called radiance, and I still think of it as a major characteristic of God, now that I am back to thinking theologically. The athiesm helped my theism! It helped me take God out of a box. 
   If stepping momentarily outside of my belief helped renew it, then listening to the thoughts from an “athiest” may also help renew my Christianity- at least in the sense of helping me more deeply understand and/or “live” “the word”. 
   Darrell

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Now I'm going to try to speak as nicely as I can. ;-).

I am essentially that atheist - that was my point. I am not in Dawkins camp and I want to be as far away from that camp as possible. I consider him and his fellow followers like Harris, Hitchins, and Dennett to be basically “religion haters”. And I don't want to be there. Period.  

Nor am I particularly interested in what Gould called his (Dawkins) form of “cardboard Darwinism” where genes are “selfish”. Not my thing man. Plus I think the anthropomorphism to be pretty well non-scientific.

But here is what takes the cake, Dawkins “meme” theory” itself is superstitious nonsense and no more scientific than souls and hobgoblins. In his book The God Delusion he talks about it “as if” true and even enters a debate amongst these “true believers” as if any one should take any of this as seriously. There is not such things as memes or holons for that matter.  

Being real science is tough business which as we can see even Dawkins can't hold to.

But anyway, I'm that atheist.

Gaddy

P.S. Dawkins and the other fellows are essentially playing the same role as Ayn Rand played in the 60's. We been there and done that which is why many of the Dawkins gang are libertarians. 

There is so much more to this than just talking about Darwinism. Why is everyone actually so naive here ?  Is there fear of the new orthodoxy ?    

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Gaddy

The meme theory has been found to be a powerful explanatory framework in thousands of tests.    I have performed many myself, directly.

Understanding what the meme theory is, requires quite a bit of work.

To call it superstitious nonsense, without offering any sort of reference to any experimental evidence falsifying it, is not powerful argument - it does you no good service.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Ted, by the same token, dismissing an attempt to offer evidence on the grounds that understanding it requires a bit of work, assumes that either you think that we might not be capable of doing so (understanding), or that you don't want to put forth the effort that you think it might take to explain it to us ordinaries…either way…and maybe without meaning to be, b/c I do think I know you well enough to judge that…it still sounds a bit condescending…

I don't like labels…while I do not adhere to a Sky God,  I also don't adhere to Lord Buddha…but if I find myself in a pickle…which is very rare…but on occasion, in the past I have…and I cried out to all the gods and lords of every religion I ever studied (and I have pretty much studied them all) or I've ever heard of…including awareness with a capitol A…but I still don't believe there was any real effect from doing so…I just had a temporary lapse in sanity…lol

I KNOW that I am responsible for my own beliefs, feelings, and behavior…and I find my strength of being in all things these days…then again, I cannot deny the magic of the real…and the wonder of life as it dances in form in and out of shadows and light…mystical in nature…

I seem to resonate a little with the thread of truth that seems to in my mind connect all beliefs…even the non ones…gol…but I refuse to be labeled or limited by any of them…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star

I don't dismiss any effort to offer evidence - I think you misunderstand me.

I shall try to explain thus:
In various fora and many posts I have been attempting to communicate ideas which require several levels of abstraction, which abstraction cannot be taught in the fashion of most nouns, or simple practical techniques - as by simply imitating.

There are several forms of learning that humans can do.

At the simplest of levels, we just mimic.

At the next level, we mimic behavioural patterns, like actions or languages, and at the same time we learn a “context” for those actions.  We learn not only what to do, but also when to do them, which contexts are appropriate.

At the next level of learning, we form abstractions.   We look at a set of whatever, and find the pattern that connects that set, and distinguishes them from other sets.


Once we get used to abstracting, there appears to be no theoretical limit to the levels of abstraction of which we are capable, though there is some evidence that few people are comfortable with more than 7 levels of abstraction.


I read the posts today, and had a sinking feeling in my gut, that there was no communication happening, I felt the old habit of, “you are wasting your time Ted - no one will thank you, you wont achieve anything, leave them to their illusions”.

And I choose the alternative - to give it my best shot to actually communicate at least some significant fraction of what is in my head that is so obvious to me, but seems very difficult to communicate.


I find the criticisms of Richard hard to interpret as anything other than a mechanism in the mind of the one giving the criticism that prevents that mind from understanding what Richard is trying to communicate.

Rather than speak for Richard, I will speak for me.


For me, I find it easy to understand why people think there is a God.   The world about us is amazingly complex.   It really does look like a very complex design, it all works so well together.

I can understand that most people do not have a passionate interest in looking at the detail of how things work.
Most people do not love the inquiry so much that they are willing to spend thousands of hours doing experiments, looking down microscopes, looking up telescopes, examining things in ways that produce results that are at first glance counter intuitive.
I do have such an interest, and have done for over 50 years.

For me, I have done so much reading, and confirmed so many observations with observations of my own, that ideas like evolution are now the foundation of my thinking.   These ideas have completely replaced the ideas that all cultures give us originally in our childhood - ideas that are based on external authority - dogma.


I understand how the two fundamentally different mechanisms of mind work together to make us the sorts of things we are, and create the environments we find ourselves in.

We have two very different mechanisms at work in our brains.
We have neural networks, which are very good at forming habits, and recognising contexts.   Then we have long term memory, which seems to operate in a fashion that has its closest physical analog in how hologram works.

The combination of these two things working together makes us potentially very powerful (infinitely so, in terms of our ability to explore possibility space).


For me, I can understand the experience of the mystics, and perhaps understand why they said what they said, and I cannot agree with the interpretive schema they use when reporting their experiences.   I understand that we are very complex entities, connected to everything around us in some very deep and profound ways, and probably in ways that we are yet to even guess at (and what I understand already is already mind bogglingly amazing).

It seems obvious to me, that many here read very different meaning into what Richard Dawkins writes to what I do.

I have a somewhat more humanist approach than Richard, and there is very little in what he has to say about evolution that I disagree with.

Similarly with Ayn Rand.   Her epistemology is sound.   I found two logic errors in her ethics, which invalidate many of her conclusions, and considering the state of biological knowledge in her day, she did amazingly well.  (I have made similar comments about people doing amazingly well with huge holes in their information base regarding many other great thinkers, like Kant, Tielard de Charin, Wittgenstein, Russell and many others.)


So for me, I do not live in the sort of “Flatland science” world that some seem to think, nor in my opinion and experience does Richard Dawkins.


A very common human response to something we do not like at some level is to use ridicule to dismiss something we perceive as threatening.

Another very common human response is that when under stress, we accuse others of our own worst failings (and we all have a lot of those).


Zak calls Richard a dogmatic atheist, and Gaddy labels him a religion hater.
In my experience and understanding Zak couldn't be more wrong.   Richard has said many times, that all it would take to disprove evolution is one fossil out of sequence - such a fossil has never been found.

I don't think Richard hates anyone, and he has no time for organised religion.  And based on the history of religions in persecuting anyone who holds an opinion that is not “authorised” or that challenges “authority”, I don't blame him.

I oppose any system of thought that tells anyone either how they must think, or how they must act, other than in relation to ensuring the life and liberty of themselves and everyone else.


And, when I attended Auckland university, I restarted the university branch of the humanist society, but it soon became obvious that all the other so called humanists were there to “bash” Christians, rather than to help people - a sort of intellectual one upmanship, rather than any sort of genuine inquiry into what best develops the infinite capacity of every human being.
In many cases, I felt much closer in humanity to the Christians than to the humanists, particularly some of the Jesuits.

No church has a great record in allowing intellectual freedom.   In that I stand shoulder to shoulder with Dawkins and Dennett, in wishing to see the day when religions are eliminated from the planet, and exist only as records for historians to study.

I don't hate religion, any more than I hate bacteria.   And I would not be upset to see all living humans evolve past the point where religious thought had any impact on them.

There is a massive amount of evidence that no intelligent entity has had any active role in the evolution of life on this planet.   And by implication, the idea that there is any sort of God becomes a very improbable hypothesis.

What I mean Star, by doing the work, is spending the time to become familiar with the evidence, most of which is molecular, in the DNA of the thousands of species currently alive, and to develop the understanding of probability, to allow an individual to interpret that information; and then put it in the context of cosmology.


I can certainly understand many of the contexts in which religion flourishes.  
There are several of them.
One is where people are taught from a very early age to obey, to accept external authority.
Another is where people are taught to accept the idea of the primacy of consciousness.
Another is where people are too busy with other aspects of life to put the time in to explore these fundamental questions for themselves, and need some ready and workable answers - shortcuts that work.
Another is where individuals feel threatened and want to belong to a group for security.
And we are conscious entities, that design things, so it isn't initially obviously silly to think that something must have designed the complexity we see about us.


And actually, all of those things at another level serve to restrict the development of individual awareness and creativity.


It is not my intention to impose any dogma on anyone.

It is my intention to encourage every individual to use their amazing brains to explore their own infinite powers of creativity and understanding in ways that work for them and everyone else.

It seems to me that a strong foundation of scientific understanding of reality is required.   There is a very old saying - nature to be commanded must first be obeyed.  Science has a great set of tools for learning the rules that must be obeyed, and where and when they can be bent or broken.


I am not asking anyone here to take my word for anything.

I am asking all who read to trust me enough to check it out for yourself.

I strongly recommend reading Richard Dawkins, without giving any thought to any of his critics.   After you have read him, and done your own critique, then is the appropriate time to look at the critiques of others, and make your own judgments of them - not before.

I also strongly commend Ayn Rand - particularly her work on epistemology.

Most thinkers who have committed thoughts to paper are worth reading, even if only for seeing how one or two false assumption can take one down wild dead ends.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Ted, no I did not misunderstand you…read what I wrote again…I understood you completely but only was pointing out that others might not…I was also pointing out that no matter if we are trying to be in a position of higher intelligence or not…sometimes it just comes off that way b/c of the words we choose to express ourselves…so what to do???  We use words in a different way…to open ideas instead of closing them down….

I am glad that what I posted provoked such a response, and I pretty much agree with most everything you stated…but guess what???  I did not have to read those books you suggested to do so…and while others might not appreciate your input, I do…I only suggest to you and all, that instead of depending on another's voice to determine or say what you believe or mean…why not try and figure it out for yourself and put it in your own words???  Create something new and fresh based on principles you adhere to but related in YOUR voice…I don't have time to read all the books you've read nor the inclination…but that does not mean that I want to live, or do live in illusion, and I would expect many would take offense to your insinuating that…and while you might think you are wasting your time trying to present your pov…I don't think that I all…as long as it is your pov…explain it in your own words…find 'your voice'…I think the more we communicate what it is we really believe or don't believe…the closer we get to expressing our own true voice…

Everyone is different in the sense of where they come from and what they have experienced in this life that makes them who and what they are…you and I have reached similiar conclusions in different ways…for our paths are different…but we both see the magical beauty of the dance of being…yes???

I thank you for your contributions to this pod…I resonate with the mystical scientific properties of mind…as well as the magical spirituality of heart…

always, Star…

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I think Dawkins is an important voice in the ongoing conversation between religion and science, and I welcome what he has to say and tend to agree with a lot of what he says. I've read Ruse's essays and newspaper articles with some interest over the years, and while I appreciate the 'intellectual modesty' angle he takes — a principle that goes back to the Greek virtue of sophrosyne or “prudence” —  I find that the “gentlemanly respectfulness” angle that he takes towards the views of his collegues gets under my skin a bit. Alvin Plantinga may be a nice guy, but I have little patience for theology masquarading as philosophy of religion, which is what I think Plantinga is doing. So in that regard, I feel no inclination to start pulling my punches so as to be “respectful” toward what Plantinga does, or what he writes, if someone asks my opinion on the matter. At the same time, we don't have to be dickheads either and start calling each other Flatland Fuckheads or refer to their view as Fundamentalist Scientism (a term that I find deeply offensive, by way of its religious implications. ;-p just kidding. haha.). It's possibly to respectfully, and forcefully, disagree with someone and their views, IMO. Anyway, that's just my take on the matter.

Dawkins addresses the “two domains” theory, which has a long tradition going back to R. Otto and Schleiermacher, in his book The God Delusion and I think he makes some important points in that regard. Dawkins has no background in Religious Studies and little in Philosophy, so I take this into consideration when I read him — I give him a generous grain of salt. I read him as taking what is essentially a rhetorical stance directed primarily at a certain group — the Creationist crowd, who have considerable clout in certain regions in the States, like Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas. There's almost a political angle to all this, and in this sense I don't feel the analogy with Ayn Rand, who lined up with the conservatives.

I don't feel threatened by Dawkins, as I don't feel that his agruments address my particular brand of “spirituality,” for lack of a better term. I don't think he nails the “two domains” idea entirely, since he really doesn't understand the many facets of the role of religion in culture, but I still think he makes some important points with what he does say. So, I tend to side more with what he has to say than with what anything his numerous detractors have to say about him. Maybe, like Dawkins, I simply find a perverse pleasure in antagonising theists. ;-P

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Kela, I'd like to hear more about this…

 'intellectual modesty' angle he takes — a principle that goes back to the Greek virtue of sophrosyne or “prudence”


and this…


gentlemanly respectfulness” angle that he takes towards the views of his collegues gets under my skin a bit.


and this…


 Fundamentalist Scientism (a term that I find deeply offensive, by way of its religious implications


in your own words of course…if you are just going to quote others or provide me links…please ignore this post…*

p.s.  you also peeked my interest with the 'two domains' theory…but you did not tell us what or how it has peeked yours…

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star80,
Your interest “peeked”? Like some sort of climax? hehe. Or was your interest piqued?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

K…that's for me to know and you to find out…lmao…*

I love to use words in different ways…it questions and opens meaning…

Peak, Peek, Pique…


No, you’re not seeing things; this is a three-way homophone. Peak is most often used as a noun, referring to “a high point,” but it can also be used as a verb meaning “to reach a high point” or an adjective meaning “excellent.” Peek can be used as a noun meaning “a quick look” or as a verb meaning “to take a quick look.” Pique has multiple definitions as well, but I’ve heard it used most – if not exclusively – as a verb meaning “to arouse or stimulate.”

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ha ha, and Ted thinks he's misunderstood.

Rand is considered a “libertarian” by today's standards although she denied this. She dismissed these kind of categories and a good analogy for Rand would be Guru ala Adi Da where she considered yourself beyond such things. She thought of herself as an absolute original. And btw, she spoke out against the conservatives. It helps to know the difference here, I guess.

My point was starting with the idea of “selfishness”. Man is by nature selfish. (Where did this start oh kelamuni? The Cynics?).

Dawkins ironically makes the same error in his God Delusion book by assuming Barry Goldwater was a conservative and then quoting him at length. However, and again, Goldwater was a libertarian and not a conservative and he was speaking out against the rise of the evangelical wing in the Republican party in the early 1980's. Republican does not necessarily mean conservative. Moreover, he was also from a southern western State.

This tradition has been taken up by the Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas who at times is a rather doctrinaire libertarian and who caused mass confusion during the Republican debates last year. Again, it helps to know the difference.

The confusion in all this surrounds the idea of “cultural conditioning” which is sorely mis-understood and gives rise in Dawkins case, IMHO, to the Meme theory - but I will save that for another time.

Gaddy 

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Gaddy~

I like the idea of being an absolute original…gol*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Dawkins, as a dogmatic athiest, is just the opposite [though same meme] of sky-god dogmatic believers. But yet, they are in terms of SDI on the same side. As a black moslem believer in Louis Farrakaun, is in the same meme as a Ku Klux Klansman
Now that's real scinece!

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I don't consider the charge that Dawkins is a “fundamentalist” or “dogmatic believer” to be an adequate response to what he has to say.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Kela. What's your point? I don't get it. Can you expand? please.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I think he's saying the information content of characterizations like “fundamentalist” is very low to nil.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Or that such charaterizations miss the mark. In other words the analogy with religion or ideology, that they are a kind of “true believer,” doesn't work for me. They strike me as knee-jerk reactions — rhetorical flourishes, like “flatland fuckhead,” that Wilber and other perennialists used to level against “materialists” before Nietzsche became the threat. It's a kind of in-speak. I think we can do better if we really want to go after these guys.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

thinking that those knee-jerk reactions are b/c whatever is believed is not based on the truth of human experience…but on some conceptual doctrine that has been passed off (or passed down) as truth…and b/c there is no substance or truth to what is believed, there is an emptiness within that must be protected at all cost…and our emotional reactions are needed and serve that purpose very well…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

To Kela,
I have no intrest in going after anyone.
In fact, I think your statemants are “knee-jerk. If you analyze what I said, and not respond to it, knee-jerkly, you would see some logic in it.
Do you have any agenda besides disscussion, I dont, I willingly give my opinion on my ideas, thats it.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

“Understanding what the meme theory is, requires quite a bit of work.”

For every level of increased complexity, there is the increasing challenge of condensed communication. When we come into existence, we start of as one cell, we then fast forward through our species entire evolutionary history in only 9 months. Even if you (Ted) seem to have spent impressive amount of time and energy studying science, it's nowhere near the time it took for all the scientists in history to gather all that information.

There was a time when it was possible for one single person to know “all there was to know”, to read all books in the library. Since the gathered knowledge of the human species (“the library”) is increasing at an accelerating speed, whereas the average life-span of one person hardly increases as all, the gap between “what is to know” and “what individual people know” widens. We passed the point of the “universal genious” a long time ago.

The advice of “go and do the reading for yourself” simply won't work anymore, because there is just too much to read, even for the most intelligent among us. What we can do is use the “shortcuts” of myth, that function as more user-friendly interfaces available to everyone. Just like Windows in my computer makes it possible for me to use a computer, without knowing or going through all the gigabytes of code (raw data) that lies behind it. When I was a kid, computers were black and green tv-looking boxes with lots of letters and numbers on them and everyone using them was a programmer. The computer-revolution of today would not have happened if everybody had to go and “do the programming themselves”.

Of course, it only works if we know that this is what we are doing, if we are fully aware that the “map is not the territory” and learn how to switch between metaphorical systems when they don't serve a particular purpose, instead of saying “I'm a Windows user, Windows is much closer to describing how a computer works than Linux (or whatever) does”. THIS is what I think Integral should be about. People knowing the “code” (scientists and philosophers) need to team up with people good at user-friendly interface systems (mysticists, poets etc) and agree upon a shared goal: To gather and communicate as much of human knowledge and wisdom as possible in the most comprehensive ways (observe the plural) possible, to effectively counteract the fragmentation of human knowledge that alienates us all.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ti-Shu: “THIS is what I think Integral should be about. People knowing the “code” (scientists and philosophers) need to team up with people good at user-friendly interface systems (mysticists, poets etc) and agree upon a shared goal: To gather and communicate as much of human knowledge and wisdom as possible in the most comprehensive ways (observe the plural) possible, to effectively counteract the fragmentation of human knowledge that alienates us all.”

Well said Ti-Shu!  :-)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Jenny

I certainly agree with you in the sense that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.   We are all the beneficiaries of the work done, and the insights made, by many, many people who have gone before us.

No single individual is ever likely to have the number of intuitions required to come up with all the abstract understandings available to us today, much less design the experiments to test amongst the available hypotheses to see which ones work, and which are falsified, keeping in mind the error limits of measurement in every step of every experiment.

So in that sense, yes, I agree with you, no one can do all the work, there is too much to do.


However, there is another sense of “doing the work” that is critical that we all do.
It is vital that we each keep an open mind to the ideas of others.
If we learn something that accords in many respects with our experience, and solves problems that we had open, then it is sensible for us to accept and use it, because it accords with observations we have already made ourselves, and solves problems we had open.

Sometimes (often) we come across ideas for which we have no direct observations or experience in our lives with which we can confirm or deny.   In such a case, if we are to maintain integrity in our “chain of evidence”, then it is required of us to do some testing ourselves.
This testing does not require that we do every experiment ourselves, and it does require us to familiarise ourselves with the experimental methods used, and to satisfy ourselves that there are no major logical errors in the methodology or the explanation.   One cannot simply rely on peer review, unless one has already established good confidence in at least one of the peers reviewing.

Thus, for me, to maintain the integrity of my models, I  am required to test things myself, or review the tests myself, before assigning a significant probability to any datapoint (including any abstraction).

That is what I mean, when I say - “to do the work”.
Every one of Richard Dawkins books is packed with information, most pages pointing to powerful abstractions.
I am not going to attempt to rewrite any of them for a post here, so just as I took the time, to read completely through one of KWs books, then go back and do a critique; for me, the same sort of “work” is required in any discipline.


Unless we do each do the work, we can have no confidence within ourselves of the boundaries of our confidence in our models.  We need to “do the work” to know where we have good information, and where we need to direct or attention to filling in the most relevant gaps.


As I see it, possibility space is infinite.  This means that what we can create in reality is infinite.
What actually gets created in reality is finite, as there are limits on space and time, but what options are available to fill that space and time are not limited.

Thus, to me, it seems clear that even if I live for 100 Billion years, acquiring new information, and making new abstractions, at the rate I have over the last 50 years, I will still have infinite domains about which I remain essentially ignorant - over which I am clear that I have no reliable data, no sound probability assessments.


As I see it - the advice - “go do it for yourself”, is really all any of us have.   If we do not do it for ourselves, we can have no confidence in ourselves, and we need that confidence.
It is not saying go and do everything that has been done, that is not possible.
It is saying, before you build any abstractions, check the foundations for those abstractions yourself.

If you were a pilot the instruction would be, learn what all the parts of your aircraft can do, and learn how to distinguish the common faults that can occur with all the parts, and do your preflight checks every time, before you take to the air.   Doing that will give you confidence in your flight, and increase the probability of you having a landing that you can walk away from (the commonly held definition of a good landing).

We are all pilots of our own bodies, our own minds.   Both are potentially infinitely capable vehicles, and both are subject to certain types of failures in certain situations.  Know you machines, know their limits, and work with them.   Knowing the real limits lets us create paths that work in situations where most people fail, because they are not aware of the real limits, and they therefore attempt an impossible path.

Any destination can be reached, and sometimes the path is dictated by the capabilities of the machine.  Sometimes we need to take the log way around, and sometimes the wings on our aircraft let us fly.   If we try to fly across a deep wide chasm with our wings on, the result is not likely to be pretty.   It just works if we have some reasonably accurate idea of what works and what doesn't in particular circumstances.


The real problem is that there is no “code” in a sense.   Yes we have language for referring to certain abstract concepts.  And there is no way for someone to get the concept from the “code” alone - at some level every individual must “do the work” to create those concepts for themselves.

Sometimes that work can be the greatest fun in life.  Sometimes it can appear like hard graft.  Sometimes the experience of looking from hindsight is not at all like that of doing it.   Only once that work has been done does the “code” make any sense.


For me reading Richard Dawkins takes a lot of concentration.  It is a very active process.   Sometimes I reread paragraphs many times and sometimes I back up pages, because I get to a place where I know from the structure of what I have read that I should have a new concept, and I don't, so I go back and try looking from a different context, and see if I can see it from there.



I hope this makes sense.   I hope it provides a context for an alternative interpretation of some of my earlier writing.


Love Peace Power Passion & Prosperity
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Jenny & Star

I certainly agree with you in the sense that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.   We are all the beneficiaries of the work done, and the insights made, by many, many people who have gone before us.

No single individual is ever likely to have the number of intuitions required to come up with all the abstract understandings available to us today, much less design the experiments to test amongst the available hypotheses to see which ones work, and which are falsified, keeping in mind the error limits of measurement in every step of every experiment.

So in that sense, yes, I agree with you, no one can do all the work, there is too much to do.


However, there is another sense of “doing the work” that is critical that we all do.

It is vital that we each keep an open mind to the ideas of others.

If we learn something that accords in many respects with our experience, and solves problems that we had open, then it is sensible for us to accept and use it, because it accords with observations we have already made ourselves, and solves problems we had open.


Sometimes (often) we come across ideas for which we have no direct observations or experience in our lives with which we can confirm or deny.   In such a case, if we are to maintain integrity in our “chain of evidence”, then it is required of us to do some testing ourselves.
This testing does not require that we do every experiment ourselves, and it does require us to familiarise ourselves with the experimental methods used, and to satisfy ourselves that there are no major logical errors in the methodology or the explanation.   One cannot simply rely on peer review, unless one has already established good confidence in at least one of the peers reviewing.

Thus, for me, to maintain the integrity of my models, I  am required to test things myself, or review the tests myself, before assigning a significant probability to any datapoint (including any abstraction).


That is what I mean, when I say - “to do the work”.
Every one of Richard Dawkins books is packed with information, most pages pointing to powerful abstractions.
I am not going to attempt to rewrite any of them for a post here, so just as I took the time, to read completely through one of KWs books, then go back and do a critique; for me, the same sort of “work” is required in any discipline.


Unless we do each do the work, we can have no confidence within ourselves of the boundaries of our confidence in our models.  We need to “do the work” to know where we have good information, and where we need to direct or attention to filling in the most relevant gaps.


As I see it, possibility space is infinite.  This means that what we can create in reality is infinite.
What actually gets created in reality is finite, as there are limits on space and time, but what options are available to fill that space and time are not limited.

Thus, to me, it seems clear that even if I live for 100 Billion years, acquiring new information, and making new abstractions, at the rate I have over the last 50 years, I will still have infinite domains about which I remain essentially ignorant - over which I am clear that I have no reliable data, no sound probability assessments.


As I see it - the advice - “go do it for yourself”, is really all any of us have.   If we do not do it for ourselves, we can have no confidence in ourselves, and we need that confidence.
It is not saying go and do everything that has been done, that is not possible.
It is saying, before you build any abstractions, check the foundations for those abstractions yourself.

If you were a pilot the instruction would be, learn what all the parts of your aircraft can do, and learn how to distinguish the common faults that can occur with all the parts, and do your preflight checks every time, before you take to the air.   Doing that will give you confidence in your flight, and increase the probability of you having a landing that you can walk away from (the commonly held definition of a good landing).

We are all pilots of our own bodies, our own minds.   Both are potentially infinitely capable vehicles, and both are subject to certain types of failures in certain situations.  Know you machines, know their limits, and work with them.   Knowing the real limits lets us create paths that work in situations where most people fail, because they are not aware of the real limits, and they therefore attempt an impossible path.

Any destination can be reached, and sometimes the path is dictated by the capabilities of the machine.  Sometimes we need to take the long way around, and sometimes the wings on our aircraft let us fly.   If we try to fly across a deep wide chasm without our wings on, the result is not likely to be pretty.   It just works if we have some reasonably accurate idea of what works and what doesn't in particular circumstances.


The real problem is that there is no “code” in a sense.   Yes we have language for referring to certain abstract concepts.  And there is no way for someone to get the concept from the “code” alone - at some level every individual must “do the work” to create those concepts for themselves.

Sometimes that work can be the greatest fun in life.  Sometimes it can appear like hard graft.  Sometimes the experience of looking from hindsight is not at all like that of doing it.   Only once that work has been done does the “code” make any sense.


For me reading Richard Dawkins takes a lot of concentration.  It is a very active process.   Sometimes I reread paragraphs many times and sometimes I back up pages, because I get to a place where I know from the structure of what I have read that I should have a new concept, and I don't, so I go back and try looking from a different context, and see if I can see it from there.



I hope this makes sense.   I hope it provides a context for an alternative interpretation of some of my earlier writing.

As I was discussion with a friend (the President of the NZ Recreational Fishing Council) just a few minutes ago, one of the major problems we face is that communication is becoming more difficult not less.   It is becoming more difficult because most people have fewer and fewer experiences in common, and it is too easy to misunderstand each other, for concepts from one domain to simply fail to translate to another.
It is becoming a major threat to humanity - complete failure of communication, in situations where communication is critical.

Love Peace Power Passion & Prosperity
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, even scientist concoct theroies that often turn out to be wrong.
Einstein was ridiculed for the Ether idea, and many other theories. Now they speculate his ideas of the ether may have been correct.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Zak

Absolutely

Everyone makes mistakes.   Many of them.

There are only two circumstances where mistakes are a problem:
1/  We don't survive them;
2/  We don't recognise them.

As Einstein said “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new” - another of those lovely self referential things.

I make no claims to infallibility - quite the contrary.

Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I love you Ted, and appreciate your work and your love for humanity, and I resonate with much of what you say, but to a great degree, I find that you do the same thing with science that Religious and Spiritual belief systems do with their beliefs…

much love and joy…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star

Can you be any more specific about what you mean.

I can think of a lot of ways of answering that, and I don't want to waste time on straw men.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Ted, 

While I do resonate with science, physics, dennet, hawkins, etc…I also resonate with Rumi, the dance of energy, the joy of being…the magic of the real…dare I say the spiritual side of mankind…the heart…as well as the mind…

I cannot explain it, and maybe we are not suppose to be able to…it's a mystery…but there is something wonderful and magical about a starlit night…a sunset…a rainbow…

While I don't believe in absolutes, I cannot bring myself to deny that there is something…this creative force…that seems to know it's own syncronicity…and unfolds the universe so that it can behold itself through human eyes…

it is not just science, and it is not just spiritual…it is energy dancing in various form…

I dunno…I am just free writing…lol*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star

I Love reading Rumi.

I love much of what Jesus said.

I love dancing in the rain, without music.

I love watching the wind on the water.

I am open to the power and experience powered by “holographic” association.    Having knowledge of how it works does nothing to distract or detract from the experience of having it work for me.


The experience does not seem to require the explanation of the universe experiencing itself through humanity, and there is certainly an experience of relatedness that is not present in our ordinary model of experiencing ourselves as “wrong” in some fundamental (based on the context normally supplied by our neural networks).

Yes it certainly is energy, in many interrelated forms.

To me, the “spiritual” side is software - about as “etheric” and “non-material” as you can get.

To me science supports the magic, it just alters the context - that is all.

I love the majesty of sunrise over the ocean, or staring at the stars, or gazing at a rainbow, or sitting on a mountain top and gazing for a hundred miles in all directions.   To me this is an aspect of the experiential - the being of life, as distinct from the understanding the being, (which is a subset of being, the model is not the thing itself).

There is so much I do not know, so much of interest, and the idea that there is intention behind it all just doesn't make any sense to me - there is far too much that can simply be explained by the random.
Syncronicity and connectedness certainly seem to exist, in many ways we understand, and probably in many that are yet to be understood.

It is certainly possible to experience being in a way that is not primarily concerned with how we appear to others, to experience feeling connected in ways that our ordinary experience does not readily allow.   All I dispute is the meaning we ascribe to such experience.

In my experience, every person capable of reading this is potentially infinitely creative.   There is so much power in using both intuition and reason, together, in combination with all that reality makes available to us.  In exploring what is there.   Every person is capable of creating their own “Meaning and significance”.

As I have said many times, I accept the mystic experience.  What I am attempting to make available is a framework that allows easy transition between the experiences of the mystic and those of the scientist, free of contradiction.   It works for me.  Creating it for others is something I have failed at to date.   I seem to fail a lot in life.

I read recently a definition of a expert, as someone who has made all the failures possible in a narrowly defined domain.   That definitely is not me.   I continue to fail in all domains, and every now and then I succeed.   In many areas success has yet to happen.

Love
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

oohlala…ub speakin my language…caro bella amico…

A Heart That Knows Its Mind…

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted: there is far too much that can simply be explained by the random.

Statements like this have always seemed to me to miss one side of a two-sided coin, which is the supporting reason, the underlying law why randomicity works.  If two factors, each independent and unrelated to the other in the domain in question, combine to produce a third, call it an event or happening called the outcome of this random combining in that domain, then that outcome must be underwritten by, an expression of, a deeper law which itself is not “random.”  In my world, 'random' or 'contingent' cannot be separated from 'necessary.'  Law expresses the latter. My 2¢.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

As to law beneath random - that may or may not be so, and it is irrelevant to the issue.

What is the issue, to my mind, is - Is there any evidence of intentionality in evolution prior to the emergence of human self awareness?

For me, the answer is a resounding - No.
The evidence is that all lower level processes are adequately explained by random distributions.   To state that another way - there are an infinite number of possible shorter paths to the delivery of an outcome, that any sort of intentional awareness would logically have used.  As the observed path through possibility space is a random walk, we are left with the probability (not certainty) of no intentionality present.

There is a lot of really weird stuff when one goes sub atomic.

QM seems to deal in probability distributions.
The system seems to have the characteristics of a Markov Chain (ie the probabilities for the next actual state relate only to current conditions, and have no memory of prior states).

In large scale, over human times, this gives very predictable behaviour, the smaller the scale of our investigates (in time and or space) the less predictable the outcome.

It is not entirely counter intuitive, and it does take a bit of getting used to.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I disagree that the laws underlying what you call random outcomes are irrelevant to the issue.  You say yourself the issue is intention and that evidence of intention resolves itself as random distributions.  So the issue really does concern what can be said about what can be meant by random processes and outcomes.  In my view, but for laws underlying “random distributions,” there is no “random.”  Law and randomness are two sides of one thing and cannot be separated. 

On a related note, I also disagree there is no evidence of intentionality in evolution.  Of course, much turns on what is meant by intention, but in my mind, any directional arrow in evolution would equate to 'intention' (the etymological meaning of which is 'to stretch,' implying direction).  I see much to support a direction in evolutionary process.  The laws that govern physical process see to it that random interactions, each component of which at each stage of action and interaction is guided by laws, leave a trace of direction: toward greater complexity.

Btw, the memory of any prior state is contained in the being of the present state, in its structure.  That structure is the memory.

As to predictability, much is made of quantum uncertainty—to much, in my mind.  Quantum processes occur and unfold within strict limits.  The order of the world to which these processes give rise is no merely apparent.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

The “intention” I would assume is “survival” - of the living organism. Of course it must be living. And I think you are correct that the quantum jive is probably irrelevant here.  

Now Ted may go into his argument about what is living and what is non-living but I would say that may be where the confusion is. And back we go. The important question is when and why things came alive.

IOW, interjecting Quantum Mechanics is category error.

Gaddy

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Gaddy,

I think I see where you might be coming from.

Have you considered that perhaps questions of “why” only make sense after the emergence of consciousness, and that prior to that “how” is as far as one can go?    From that perspective, using “why” prior to the emergence of consciousness is a “category error”.

From a certain perspective the “when” is a matter of choice.   Where, on the infinite gradient of replication complexity does one draw the line?    Nothing is truly ever self sustaining, all life relies ultimately on some sort of external energy gradient to power it, some sort of matrix within which to exist.  Some life forms have internalised some aspects of it, have some sort of “internal reserve battery”, and ultimately the battery must be recharged.   Once again, there seems to be no limit to levels of recursion or the complexity that can arise.

Love Peace Power Passion & Prosperity
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Gad, yes, “survival” is only really relevant to life, which I take you to mean cellular organization and higher, thereabouts.  Below that level, 'survival' really doesn't mean much.  We therefore must look to another term to describe the complexifying pattern or intention, if you will, we see in processes we observe.  For processes at a given level (atomic, say) or at a given time (like early in our universe), quantum mechanics is in my mind quite relevant because we have no other source of real information about those processes.  It is only later in evolutionary time that notions drawn from chemistry, biology, sociology, etc. come into play.

The above implies there's a limited domain for descriptive words like 'survival.'  This implication runs two directions.  Thus I expect that 'survival' doesn't entirely cover any later developments beyond the survival phase.  What I'm doing here typing on this computer is not just survival.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, part of what I'm saying here, similar to what I said in the consciousness thread, is the idea of “absolute randomness,” like “absolute relativity,” makes no sense.  I cannot even form the idea actually without my entire thought-field going blank.  'Random' and 'law' or 'random' and 'order' are correlative terms.  To demonstrate this further, try conceiving of “absolute order” or “absolute law.”  Doesn't work because these concepts don't make sense.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom,

In a sense, my answer is “And your point is what?”

I do not have absolutes in my model.

They are things that must be conceived of to allow one to go past them.

Like relativity or time.   One must start with the notion of an absolute reference frame, and universal time, and from that deduce that there cannot actually be either thing - neither is in accord with observed reality.


It is a bit like fund managers in the stock market.   Each of them is making decisions based on lots of data - for the most part their decisions are lawful in a sense, and if one analyses the activity, they do (on average) no better than random coin tosses at growing the value of a portfolio.

Another interesting and related idea from leading edge computer science - there are all sorts of possible algorithms one can use to power a search.  The one that uses the least number of machine cycles, on average - is a random search.

There is a great deal that we do not yet understand, and I suspect that will always be so.    In a sense, the amount that we know we don't know must always increase.   If you imagine an awareness as something that starts as a small bubble in an infinitely dimensional space (the bubble being what we know in an operational sense).   As we explore reality around us, and try out possibility space, the bubble expands.  The interesting thing about such an expanding bubble, is that the boundary gets larger (on average over time).   
 If the bubble is what we know, outside the boundary edge is, along all the distinguished dimensions, what we know that we don't know, and beyond that are the dimensions of what we don't know, and don't know that we don't know.
It doesn't matter how many dimensions we distinguish, there are still and infinite number beyond - infinity is like that, it really screws with common sense.

And none of that makes any difference to how we plant rice, or catch a fish, and it can make a difference to how we watch the sunlight sparkle off the ocean waves.

Lotsa love
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, you say you've given up absolutes in your thinking, but I personally see them operating in the backdrop of what you say.  Like your notion of relativity-without-absolute, which implies absolute relativity, or your notion here of randomness-without-intention, which implies absolute randomness.

Just more comments from the peanut gallery.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom,

I accept that you see them, I am reasonably confident they are not there.

I cannot control your perception, just give you hints that maybe there is a different way of viewing things, and you need to do the viewing, or not.  Your call, not mine.

Cheers

Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hello Tom and Ted,

I heard you talk about randomness. This happens to be a favortie topic of mine. in my eyes, randomness isn't so random at all. We know from psychological studies, that most people would get it wrong when they should decide what randomness look like. For example look at this: which row of numbers is more random:

1853624495639490  or   1141672227614111

the left row seems to be more random, right?

wrong. both have the same exact probability. only the right looks more symmetric, and that we associate with order, or intention. ot take the famous Mandelbrot 'Appleman' Fractal: does it not look like someone intelligently designed it? Yet it is based on a simple mathematical equation that produces random (=chaotic) resonses. Chaos can be so beautiful. what do you think.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Christophe,

Agreed, amazing complexity can arise from following very simple rules.
And just because there are rules, does not mean the outcome is predictable, in any sense other than actually following the rules and observing what shows up.

“What a strange strange world we live in Master Jack!”

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Christophe, I agree with your observations.  Any series of random numbers is different from any other series (unless identical).  That difference suggests the obvious, which is what I've stressed above, that 'random' cannot be separated from 'order:' 'random' is but a form of order in which no correlations or patterns in a domain of inquiry are noted.

A more in-depth analysis of random would reveal that random, as I intimated, is largely a comparative correlation (negative) in a limited domain.  Thus coin toss results are not correlated with time and thus relative to time are 'random.'  I doubt the physics involved in any given coin toss is 'random.'  See my point?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

My point was a practical one, rather than a theoretical one.

At some level, we run out of information and ability to determine what is going on, and what is underlying law.  I suspect, that such may always be the case - I suspect that “ultimate Answers” may always elude us (however technologically proficient we become in the next few trillion years).

When we approach such a barrier, we can take a practical approach, and simply measure what is so - statistical analysis.    From that analysis we will be able to find practical outcomes that work.   Such has been the case in every domain studied thus far.   As we push the domain boundaries the rules break down, and that is to be expected, and so long as we stay at the higher level, things work with remarkable precision (in our case 12 decimal place precision).


As to the present state containing structure and memory, there is a sense where, yes, in some domains there are clues, and in others there are not. 

An example: if you just showed up on the scene, and saw me sitting in my seat, it would not be immediately apparent how I got there.  Did I come straight from the bedroom, or via the bathroom, or kitchen, etc.   In reality, I passed through all of those, and also most recently delivered my daughter to school then took the dog for a walk.    If one applied extreme forensic detection to the lingering traces of molecules in the carpet, there is a faint chance that you might be able to figure out the exact order of what I did today, and almost no chance of figuring out what order it did things in on the 8th of August.   Insufficient clues left to be able to distinguish between the many possible paths.

To drop back to a subject from some weeks back, that is about where we are with an exact trail of the evolution of cellular life.   It happened so far back, and there are so few traces left, that we cannot tell exactly where, when or how, and we can have a rough idea of the general sort of things that must have happened, just as you can have a rough idea that on the 8th of August at some stage of the morning I probably did get out of bed, and make my way to the chair, probably using various other utility rooms in the house, and probably walking the dogs.
And even at this short time, just two months away, there will be no detectable evidence that would enable anyone to unambiguously say exactly when and in what order, I made my way through the house from bed to chair (and laptop).  No evidence at all.

And some people expect evidence at that level of events that occurred 4 billion years ago, in environments much less stable that now.

Is expecting such evidence even a little bit sensible?

NO!!!   (He said standing on his chair and shouting at the rain outside!)


We human beings are so attached to ultimates, to being right, that we find it extremely difficult to live with uncertainties - we desperately want to throw in an ultimate - to have a final answer.

I suspect (and cannot prove, except via mathematical induction from Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorem) that no such answer will ever be forthcoming.    I personally am quite relaxed about that.   Other things to do.


Right now - the most important thing to do, is to get on and make www.solnx.org a reality, before so very smart idiot goes and invents AI.

Given that conclusion, I might be an infrequent visitor from now on.

Cheers

Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, I'm not talking about ultimates.  And I'm well familiar with uncertainty and unknowing.  And process and movement and the groping ways of science etc.  I just want to know what you call one of the twins in the two-twins paradox dying first.  Not-just-relative-motion is one phrase that comes to mind (to avoid the “a” word).

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Sorry Tom,

I don't understand your question.

“First” from which reference frame?

The notion of “first” only makes sense when attached to a reference frame (as time is local to each frame).  To detach it is to commit a category error.

Can you at least accept that that is so for me, even if you have not yet got the idea for yourself?

Cheers

Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Yes and no, I guess.  One of the twins dies first, well before the other if velocity approaches the speed of light (or are you saying they die at the same time?).  Death is not “subjective” or frame dependent: it answers the question 'who's moving?'.  It, too, has a bit of a quality of the absolute about it, I suppose.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom,

I like a lot of what you write.  Some areas you have thought about deeply, I can tell that from reading between your words.

If you believe I have any integrity, then believe that at this point, you have no idea what relativity is, what it says, what the consequences of it are.

You keep holding onto the idea of universal time.

It is not a matter of being subjective.

It is not a matter of the observer determining anything.

What it is, is a matter of time being local to every particle, and the transmission of information being done by photons, which are themselves timeless, and therefore impart time to that which they touch.

There is no universal “time field”.  Every particle has its own time.
Particles that have the same velocity are able to experience time in synchrony.

Tom - please - do the work.
Read Einstein.
You can get a free copy here - http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5001
Work through it, question it, challenge it, do not let any paragraph pass until you are complete with it.  It may take you a week, it may take a month, it may take 6 months.

If you are interested in the subject, and wish to have a discussion about it, then take the time to do the basic work.

If not, that is OK, but please don't waste your time or mine writing about it from your current state of knowledge - do the bare minimum, at least - if you want a real discussion.

If you have any questions about any part of the book, I'm happy to help, and I did it by myself, and I suspect all those who have understood it did it for themselves.  I suspect they are a very small number.  Very few who teach it seem to understand it (same goes for QM).

You can contact me directly at ted@fishnet.co.nz or tedhow@gmail.com

Cheers
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, which twin dies first?  What language would you use to describe that difference?

I think you're missing my point, which is staring out at us, IMO, in full radiance from the very middle or axial point of our posts on this matter.  Light speed constancy is absoluteness.  It is something that does not depend, isn't contingent, isn't itself relative, sets the frame of all other frames.  And it creates effects like the one to which I'm pointing: relative differences in clock rates.  The measure of the difference of these effects is one-way, is not bi-lateral, symmetrical, reversible, interchangeable or dependent on a given frame.  You could look at the matter this way: in the twin's paradox where one twin's clock is ticking faster than the other's, on which frame does this difference depend?  This question, naturally, doesn't compute.  Why not?

In my world of language, independent, non-contingent, constant, objective and non-relative go by the name absolute.  Which then, having a place in the theory, properly grounds “relative,” linguistically, observationally and intuitively.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

(You know my first name is Tom also - I am Thomas Edward - known as Ted - we are perhaps far more alike than different).

There is only a problem (“doesn't compute”) if you are wedded to the notion of universal time.

In my understanding (which has evolved since reading Einstein - prior to reading and understanding Einstein I argued in almost identical fashion to what you are now):
Each twin dies when they die in their own frame.
Each event is invariant within that frame (within their own existence field).
Each, in their own time, has a point of death (well actually, even death isn't simple - there will be a point at which awareness ceases, and doesn't restart, and for some time there is a potential to restart, like we do every morning when we wake up - so death is much more process like than point like, but leaving that aside, we can agree on last instant of conscious awareness).

What is at issue is the nature of “first”.
Does the term “first” have any sort of commonsense meaning when applied to relativistic frames (frames moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light with respect to each other).

Einstein does not deal in absolutes.   He just takes the simple observation, that the speed of light is observationally invariant - it doesn't matter which direction we measure it, or how fast we are going, we measure the same number.
He then asks the simple question, how must the universe be for that to be so?
He does a number of elegant thought experiments involving people on trains, and does some very complex maths.

You seems to be making a category error, in ascribing your mental abstractions to reality, rather than determining reality from experiment and observation.

I accept that Tom has the language constructs he describes.
I deny that they are relevant to reality in the way you imply.  I think there is ample experimental evidence against the hypothesis.  Please read Einstein - it really is a beautiful work.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Ted/Tom  ; )

I've read Einstein, and others on relativity, and understand frame-dependent relativistic effects including non-simultaneity etc; we can put that particular doubt aside.  I appreciate my reference to “who died first” brings in a possible confusion, as “first” might be read to imply I'm choosing one of my two relative frames of reference as primary, as an absolute reference.  That's not my intent or my meaning.  What I am meaning to say is that relativist time effects can be compared across frames (this is the meaning of my “first”), so that when twin 1 is 20 years old biologically and twin 2 is 85, they will evidence those biological ages in a way confirmable by each: twin 1 can be heard to say, wow, I look alot younger; twin 2, wow he looks alot younger.

Different frames are not so separate that they cannot be compared or do not interact.  Here is a currently measurable example that approximates our twins paradox.  It's from Brian Greene's introduction to Einstein's Stafford Little Lectures given in 1921.  As cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere, they can interact to create muons.  These muons are very short lived, and by reference to the earth's frame of time should be reabsorbed high in the atmosphere.  But they are detectable on earth.  Why?  Because they travel so fast, their time-clock slows and distance contracts.

Their being detectable on the Earth's surface is evidence that can be measured in the Earth's time-frame and is an effect that would not happen but for relativistic effects.  So the muon's time-frame and Earth's time-frame combine, if you will, overlap, as it were, to allow the muon to interact with matter at Earth's surface.  By analogy, then, “where” the muon dies (analogous to “first” in my twins example) is measurable and communicable cross-frame.

What I'm saying here is there's more to Einstein's relativity than mere frame-dependence because different frames interact and carry effects and information into other frames.  I'm also saying there's a reference by which velocity and acceleration are registered, which “reference” is not, or is more than, any other relative frame against which velocity might be relatively measured.

As to “Einstein does not deal in absolutes,” well, that's an interpretation, but even if it describes Einstein's writings, which in a sense I suppose it does, but not really, it's IMO wrong.  That which metes relativist time and space effects is light speed constancy, or that which gives rise to light speed constancy, but that “constancy” is not itself relative, it does not depend on anything else: it is the source of frames, not itself a frame or frame-dependent.  Brian Greene understands this by asking what happens if you spin a bucket full of water in empty space?  The water, of course, expectedly does what it does: it moves up the wall of the bucket.  Here's Greene's explanation from his book The Fabric of the Cosmos:

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Here's a little more from Greene following from the quote above, emphasis his.  Einstein the absolutist:

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

I am not familiar with Greens's thesis, and haven't worked through the logic of any criticism, so cannot make meaningful comment in detail on it at this time, except to say that it does not appear to have a relativistic appreciation of time.

What I can comment on, is the notion of time.

Going beck to the twins.

I think you confuse two different thought experiments.

Everything depends on the reference frame.
If you are looking from the reference frame of their place of birth, then who dies first depends upon who does the most acceleration.
The one who has gone furthest (wrt the birth frame) will die last (from birth frame time).   If they each accelerate in opposite directions, with precisely the same acceleration, then they will die at the same time, a very long way apart.

If one stays still on the birth frame, and the other accelerates away for some period, then stops and accelerates back again to stop back at home, then that twin will be significantly younger than the other.

If both twins leave home, accelerate out in opposite directions at the same rate, then do the stop reverse and return home (all with matched accelerations), then both will get back home at the same age, and both will be significantly younger than their classmates.

If there were any sort of absolute reference, then it should matter which way the twins go, but it doesn't.  To me, that invalidates Greene's hypothesis, yet it leaves us with a deeper problem.

It seems that time is mediated by light (photons) and that light is itself timeless (photons are like frozen instants of a particle's past) - and there is a tautology in there - a self referential loop that doesn't quite cancel out.  We must be dealing with at least two fundamentally different paradigms, one of being/existence and one of time/interaction - and yet those qualities don't quite capture their nature either.

It is mind bending stuff.

I'm not going to dig too deep right now.
Right now I am satisfied that Einstein's equations work, and have been demonstrated to work in experiment, to 12 decimal places of accuracy over any competing model I have investigated.
So if it is incomplete, it is incomplete in a way that has very little significance to the measurement of the movement of matter bigger than atoms in our region of spacetime.

Given that - there really are some very important things to do right now - like:
Put in place systems that ensure every individual has the materials and energy and technology to provide for their own existence and education and travel and communication - no exceptions.
Put in place a set of technologies that work work with, rather than against, the natural ecosystems on the planet.

It is not sustainable that my son is in China right now, in Shanghai, and he is afraid to go out in the rain, because it is the wrong colour, too polluted.
That is not healthy or sustainable.
We must create a path past the short term greed for profit that drives such pollution on such massive scale that it threatens the very existence of all of us.   Our systems are too centralised, and too interdependent - systemic failure is a very real danger.   Those who promote centralisation for the profit it delivers need to see the dangers, need to pay the price of the insurance policy for the rest of us, if they want to continue to play that game.

Einstein is important, so is QM, so is figuring out what we are; and we need to create the space where we have time to do that without this looming threat to the existence of us all.

That is doable - www.solnx.org is my best effort at a plan to achieve it.  If anyone has any better ideas - please give them to me - otherwise - I would really appreciate your assistance in making it happen.   Assistance in terms both of giving your name in support, and of money.

Cheers
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Ted, yes to everything you say here:

• The one who has gone furthest (wrt the birth frame) will die last (from birth frame time).

• If they each accelerate in opposite directions, with precisely the same acceleration, then they will die at the same time, a very long way apart.

• If one stays still on the birth frame, and the other accelerates away for some period, then stops and accelerates back again to stop back at home, then that twin will be significantly younger than the other.

• If both twins leave home, accelerate out in opposite directions at the same rate, then do the stop reverse and return home (all with matched accelerations), then both will get back home at the same age, and both will be significantly younger than their classmates.

I disagree here:

• If there were any sort of absolute reference, then it should matter which way the twins go, but it doesn't.

I agree it doesn't matter (or by current measurements it doesn't seem to matter) what direction the twins go, at all or relative to each other.  I disagree that direction gets to the heart of what I am calling an absolute reference which is considerably subtler than the old idea of ether.  Rather, what matters is not direction as in that old idea; what matters is simply motion itself.  Any movement at all creates relativistic time effects, and those effects are referable to whatever it is that creates them. 

That something Greene calls spacetime.  I'm not entirely sure I agree with him there, and lean to viewing relativistic effects as created somehow by light, as you note, perhaps in combination with gravity, or by something that gives rise to light and gravity.  Any or all of these, as you say, gives rise to time, the relative manifestation of which depends on nothing but movement.  Movement, for its part, in some mysterious way “registers” in light, or in gravity, or in light-gravity, or in spacetime—or in the holographic totality of everything—to create relativistic effects of slowed clock rates, etc.  Blink an eye and you've generated light-mediated effects.

What I mean by absolute reference is: those effects do not depend on any other frame; they inhere as if a property of motion itself.  But for motion to be the relativistic-effect trigger, because motion is always relative (A moving relative to B), “B” must be, in respect of those effects, either light, or gravity, or light-gravity, or spacetime.  It has to be because the effects invariantly refer only to the speed of light.  Yes at a human level of observation we only perceive motion relative to other objects, but relativistic effects require no comparison at all to specific other objects: remove “B” as the moon, or use Galaxy XY76 as “B,” or use me as “B” and the effects still appear.

As to your project, I appreciate what you're trying to do and wish you good sailing.  The world is quickly approaching many a resource constraint that will put economic functioning on a very different footing from what we've seen.  First up as a constraint is oil, which probably has peaked.  Expect a few more rather steep market declines in the next few years as people wake up to this chilling event.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Sorry Tom,

I just do not get what you are talking about.

You agreed with every example - and every example shows that relativistic effects are relative.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say with ”Rather, what matters is not direction as in that old idea; what matters is simply motion itself”.
It just seems to be some for of the ether argument.
If it isn't what additional properties does it offer?  What predictions does it make?

Later you say ”but relativistic effects require no comparison at all to specific other objects: ”  which is where you are wrong in the most important sense.

Yes we can observe relativistic effects in other objects, and in ourselves with respect to other objects as we accelerate.  And, this is critical, if we were accelerated by some great great ancestor, along with everything around us, and then we lost memory that acceleration - there is no way we could detect it simply from measurement of our environment.

That would be so even if our ancestor accelerated to .999 lightspeed.   We would still measure the same speed of light, and still observe the same relativistic effects if we again accelerated to a new .999 lightspeed as seen from our birth frame.  It really is, all relative.   And even in this third frame, the now travelling at .999999 lightspeed from the initial forgotten frame, light would still have the same measured speed (as measured using our clocks and rulers).

To me, it simply looks like a mind that cannot give up the notion of universal time or universal spatial reference frame.

Answer me this simple question.
Have you ever managed to conceive, and hold that abstraction, that there is no such thing as universal time, and that time itself is local to each and every particle?

If you have managed to do that, and have then progressed to your current understanding, then I will make some detail effort to investigate what you say.

If not, then I make the request that you do so.

If it doesn't work for you, you can dump it, and the only way you can make that call is by trying it for yourself.


Cheers

Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Ted, let me approach this from a different angle.  Let's go back to my hypothetical: two balls A and B moving in empty space relative to each other.  From the perspective of the balls only—the two-frame perspective of frames A and B—one cannot meaningfully describe one ball as moving and the other not, or both as moving, because these descriptions assume there exists a state of rest, which we would have to insert into this two-frame description as frame C, something which would make my assumed empty space less than empty.  From the two-frame perspective, we have only-relative-movement and cannot meaningfully describe movement otherwise.

Movement seems, yes, to have this two-frame, utterly relative aspect that carries real and mind bending effects—I'm not disagreeing with you on that.  But I think that relative-only aspect has limited descriptive power, and therefore a limited domain of application, because it cannot describe one important empirical fact.  That fact is: differing clock rates.

Go back to my hypothetical: if ball A's clock is ticking more slowly than ball B's, then we must (of necessity, it seems to me) insert a further frame beyond A and B to get to the fuller description of the movement we observe, that fuller description being the one able to account for differing clock rates where movement is not just-relative, not symmetrically viewable or interchangeable as between frames, etc.: one clock, and only one clock, ticks more slowly.  This fact is asymmetrical and non-interchangeable.

It was Hartshorne who said most philosophical and thinking errors arise as a misapplication of symmetry to an asymmetrical fact.

So far as these differing clock rates are concerned, what we can say is that, as between A and B moving relative to each other, the ball to which force was applied will be the ball having the slower clock rate. 

The above statement suggests there is something akin to or equivalent to a base state of rest in the universe, or a base state of energy or such, so that with the application of force to any object, that object will “clock time differently” relative to that base.  The base itself setting the relative scales of time, that base is not itself relative.

Of course, any change in any frame's time clock will show up relatively, as it must in different circumstances of force, as a clock rate different from the comparison clock rate.  This is not however to say that a relative observation excludes a non-relative factor.  This latter is an essential point, it seems to me, to gaining the full description I mention above of explaining that, how and why A's clock rate differs from B's.

Btw, I have managed to conceive of the idea and application of no universal time.  I'm assuming such in my descriptions above of differing clock rates.  Time is relative in that sense.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

To tie some of these observations into the post-metaphysical worldview, allow me a few comments on Wilber's view (read: misinterpretation) of Einstein.

In IS, Wilber says:

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi, Tom, I don't have a very good grasp of Einstein's work.  When Einstein refers to unaccelerated motion as the absolute benchmark, can you help me understand what he's referring to?  I understand 'unaccelerated,' of course, but I'm not clear whether he's suggesting that there is an absolute, universal, 'fixed' state of unaccelerated motion underlying everything or serving as a given objective constant; or whether he's just saying that in any measurement situation, you can take any particular steady rate of motion as your base (say, the motion of a particular observer), and you can use that as a constant against which you then measure relative movements away from that state-of-motion (e.g., various observer-relative rates of acceleration).  Is he suggesting either of these things?  Or maybe something else entirely that I'm missing?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

According to Einstein's theory, there exists a lowest-motion state in the universe below which motion cannot further reduce—a foundational state of motion, if you will, a motion benchmark, Einstein's absolute (which is not absolute relativity as Wilber contends).  In his general theory of relativity, Einstein equated the force of gravity with the force a body experiences accelerating.  My standing here, as I am, is therefore a state of acceleration because I am resisting gravity, I feel it as a force, and that force exerts relativistic spacetime effects (on my clock rate and my distance measure). 

There is a place in the universe, or many places where there is no motion-related force acting on a body.  This “place” I'm describing is related to the physics of spacetime and is not “located” in any particular space necessarily, but rather everywhere by unmanifestation or implication, and in some “places” by manifest circumstance.  One such manifest “place” is anywhere in the universe where all summed gravitational forces (as in deep, deep space between galaxies) net to zero, or next to zero.  In that place, and assuming all velocity used to get there has been reversed to zero (!), a body's clock will tick fastest compared to anywhere else in the universe.  That is the place of base-motion, the place where time is fastest and can go no faster (the analogue to light speed's finite constancy).  In Einstein's theory, that place has no spacetime curvature.  It is motion's benchmark, and the reference by which we can determine whose clock is ticking faster and why.  That “place” is itself not relative to that to which it determines (clocks, eg).

To get a “feel” for this issue, ask yourself the following question.  Assume you're in deep, deep space, just floating.  You can feel no force.  Then you light a small rocket on your person and suddenly you can feel the “force” of acceleration.  Why do you feel any force at all?  Are you not in a gravity-free or gravity-zero zone?

The force you feel is the absolute benchmark motion-reference exerting its influence on you bodily.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Actually, the place of net-zero gravity can only be somewhere at a point where the gravity of your own body sums to zero, the centre point of stillness.  Heard that phraseology anywhere before?   ; )

The foundation is thus inwardly carried—an always-everywhere centrepoint.  It is a property of matter.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Bruce, you can see Wilber's error where he says (jokingly but not) “it's turtles all the way down.”  It isn't turtles all the way down, because at some point of “down” one hits an absolute limit at which point any further relative gaming stops.  Think, for instance, of temperature.  From a naive perspective, it might look as though temperature were only relative—absolutely relative, in Wilber's language.  You say celcius and I say farenheit and it's all relative blah blah.  Well, temperature is not all relative, because any relative distinction exists against the backdrop of an a priori structure set by absolute limits.  The absolute limit in direction of the least is called absolute zero.  It is not meaningful to talk “relative” temperatures below that.  I suspect there also exists in our universe an absolute highest temperature, though I do not know what that would be.

So “temperature” and any relative play of temperature differences all exist in a given frame of temperature that, for its part, is decidedly not turtles all the way down.

The same analysis applies to motion.  There is in the universe a form, as I suggested above, of least motion.  There is also a form of greatest motion, called the speed of light, which one can conceive as that place just outside a black hole where gravity is greatest.  Notice that the place of least motion is the place of fastest time and least extended space, and vice versa, time and space being on a single continuum.

Relative differences in motion, like relative differences in temperature, are therefore framed within absolute limits.  That frame is a priori, given.  My typing right now is a use of the givenness of both motion and temperature.  I can talk about and from these realities but I cannot jump out of them and get behind them, because any such attempt to jump would again be them.  Those who take “myth of the given” language too far—who indulge the fantasy that there exist absolutely no givens in life—IMO don't understand the givenness they are in their being.

Return now to Wilber's quote above in his numbered paragraph.  He's wrong IMO to say “the location of any phenomenon or thing or event or process or holon can only be specified in relation to a set of each other,” because that view assumes a relative-only standpoint and omits accounting for the givenness of location itself, which implies absolute referencing.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Tom,
 
Your last 3 posts lead me to inquire. When you talk of a still centerpoint that is inwardly carried, and exists everywhere by unmanifestation or implication, of course it is familiar in the langauge of meditation. So short of us residing in the deep space between galaxies where there is no relative motion, are you saying we can attain to this same “absolute” state of rest within a body, within a gravitational system as we accelerate through space, through a meditative change in consciousness?
 

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I'm indulging in speculation, of course, but I do find parallels in scientific and meditative descriptions telling.  Those parallels suggest to me that conscious awareness can access—god knows how—the structure that our being is, which is a way of saying yes to your question.  To my mind, presumably what is informs awareness by structuring it.  Thus the structure of what is, which includes all my relativity blah blah above, including the spacetime-light-gravity structuring prior to knowing, is somehow contained in and as the structure of awareness and can be accessed, literally, as such.  This to my mind is the source of, or at least suggestively parallels and is a better description of, the experience of suchness, of that which is absolute, ie, without relative comparison.  Absolutivities are physically everywhere in our universe: one just needs to look for them as I have in Einstein's “relativity.”

In my mind, experience of the absolute aspect does not, per Wilber, drop as from nowhere into the “finite” “material” world.  That style of metaphysics I can personally do without.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Btw, Edward, for a philosophical take on the experiential physics I'm speculating, try this book.  The author arrived, in that book, to the understanding at which I independently arrived in my speculations … a little before me.  Damn.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

And of course my speculations above put the boots to Wilber's view that between science and mysticism is a vast irremedial split.  That split lies elsewhere methinks.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Further speculating (I could go on), the sense of “centre” (good Canadian spelling) probably arises in no small part from gravity and light.  Gravity, of course, creates its own centres in creating places of least gravity in any relative frame.  The gravity created by the earth is relatively zero at earth's centre.  Centreness is therefore a real physical quantity.  Centre implies circular, and circular is that which occurs because of gravity (planets, orbits, cells, selves, etc.).

Light also creates the sense of centre insofar as its measure, coming from and going to me—me-referenced coming and going—is always 186,000 mps regardless my motion.  I as the “centre” of my own motion therefore perceive light's coming and going as from a centre-place called me.  Light, like gravity, therefore “frames” a centre everywhere, for every relative frame.

One can go further to suggest, for light for instance, that the place of light is the place of no separation (space is zero within light's perspective) and no time (time is infinitely fast within light's perspective).  Because matter is light, it is not to me a great leap to suggest light's “perspective” can be accessed via awareness: the timeless, spaceless place of meditative rest.

And now again back to Wilber, he misses the above in part because when he asserts that “science has nothing to do with mysticism” he is largely referencing quantum physics, which is a material play.  You need to go to light and gravity, which are the domains of relativity, errr, absolutivity.  Matter, for its part, is derivative from light or light-gravity or whatever the hell that originating pre-matter stuff is.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

…and for those who may need something a bit more accessible to a 'lay' audience (myself amongst said) this book by UC Santa Cruz Professors, Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner is provocative, on target and a good read!

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Donning my moderator hat:  I'm interested in this discussion, and I want to contribute to it, but it should be moved elsewhere because it is off topic to this thread, and the thread itself is also becoming too long and unmanageable.

I suggest starting a new thread.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Sure, Bruce.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Dave, that book isn't quite on target, at least as I view things scientific.  Quantum physics is largely a physics of matter, though, yes, QED concerns the interaction between matter and light.  What I'm highlighting above is the arena in which matter plays.  The physics of that arena is largely relativity.  Relativity gives the background frame.

You've probably heard that Einstein wanted a unified theory that combined relativity with quantum physics?  His desire looks to me to repeat in scientific contexts the typical concern over dualism in other contexts: how do you get the background and foreground together?  Relativity and quantum physics are in this sense background and foreground respectively (frame or “spirit” and matter if you will).

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

Again, I disagree that there are absolutes.

Measurements like “temperature” are frame dependent.  All temperature is relative to the measuring instrument.

Relative to that instrument, yes there is a zero, and there need not necessarily be any upper limit.   The will be a greatest energy achieved in this universe, with respect to any specific frame, and that will be a practical thing, not a theoretical one.

All measuring scales have a zero point in their frame, which is in a sense arbitrary, in the sense that it is frame dependent.

I disagree that there are necessarily “absolute limits”  certainly there are some frame limits.  Which is not the same thing.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ti Shu, I couldn't agree more with what you said above. “Knowledge” itself needs to be re-considered in terms of “Does it add to the quality of individual and collective life? Since we can't, as you say, know everything, it is time to triage knowledge, to prioritize and sort. And I think you are right on in attributing gifts of poetry and mysticism as being gifts/apptitudes which might function as interfaces between pure science and philosophy. 
  Why must there be such a great divide between the thinkers and the doers? I suspect that many of the Traditionals also happen to be doers (Jungian “extroverted sensers”), an many of the “thinkers” gravitated toward the Moderns or Cultural Creatives. If these sociological groups are to ever work together, instead of against each other, some means of interfacing is certainly needed. 
   Why not, as you imply, use some dreamer/doer/thinker/relater hybrids - jacks of all gifts - to interface, to act as the “Window” between the esoteric and the everyday, between the expert and the everyman. We could, in fact, poetically, or promotionally (PR poetry), call that the “e-window”. Whether that phrase “works” or not, it is simple little catchy/provocative things which sometimes “reach” the unphilosophical folks, who, nonetheless, care about life and meaning and are willing to think (and even feel or contemplate/relfect) about such matters if presented in the right way - not too esoteric. 
  You were preaching the gospel of what I have termed “functional philosophy”. I plan to use a description of functional philosophy in the intro section of my next book project, Christians Thinking Like Energy, in which a “functional” equivilancy, or “Secular Translation of Christian Knowledge (STOCK), is made between modern science's “energy” and the ancient's “spirit”. 
  If old and new can be bridged with a new meaningful myth (myth in the sense that energy cannot possibly cover all that is to a “mind” - as far as we know most energy doesn't have thoughts and experiences -  yet “thinking like energy”, rather, “thinking in a manner similar to the qualities of energy”, seems to mythically and/or metaphorically orient a mind toward energy-like qualities which may help it operate more wholely - possibly, even more “holy”), then why not choose the right metaphor to orient the minds in the most productive direction? 
   I will use your above line of thought to help guide me in my upcoming poetry reading at a local coffee house. The reading will be called The Green Revelation, focusing on the kind of “and”, poetic, thought that needs to support an outward shift from “or”-thought-based competitive and rigidly heirarchial social structures and general mode of collective operation (raping mother earth, etc.). Look at some of the stuff quantum physicists are saying. It sounds like explanations of how events occur at that level of “reality” fit “poetics” as well, or better, than what we generally mean by “cause”. Cause seems to be being replaced with “poetics”.  The old “intelligent design” gave way to a scientific empirical/objective views of reality, but now an emerging “intelligent designing” (in which we are all participating as co-creators), may act as a bridge between the former two, showing how they were both partially “right”, but now in an include-but-transcend sort of way that the new “poetics” will allow. I have long believed that the idea of the tree of life has something to do with a re-integration of the right brain (its depth perception, gestalt perception, ground perception, and dynamic perception characteristics) with the left brain that has been emphasized in the tree of knowledge (of discrete things, including “good” and “evil”). The right brain will add the verb sense to the left brain's noun-if-ication of “reality” during the tree of knowledge phase of civilization. 
   Your “switch of metaphorical systems”(my version of the main switch is from the metaphor of matter to the metaphor of energy) may be the first fruits of the tree of life. Keep on picking the new fruit! 
    Darrell

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi all

I've never heard of Michael Ruse, but I read his entire article and was impressed. He seems to be philosophically sophisticated with a bent towards epistemological humility. Pretty refreshing when compared with the arrogance of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

I was raised in the bible belt and spent periods of my adolescence defending the theory of evolution against the attacks of my fundamentalist fellow students. I have no problem with Dawkins' take on biological evolution. I am unimpressed by his wandering out of his area of expertise and making metaphysical extrapolations, or simplistic models of mental processes.

The best critique I've read on the “new atheists” comes from Chris Hedges. He wrote a book on the subject after engaging in a couple of public debates with Harris and Hitchens. This excerpt can be found here:

http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/70

“We live in an age of faith. We are assured we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology, science or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Evil can be eradicated. War has been declared on nebulous forces or cultures that stand as impediments to progress. Religion, if you are secular, is blamed for genocide, injustice, persecution, backwardness and intellectual and sexual repression. Secular humanism, if you are born again, is branded as a tool of Satan.

The folly of humankind, however, is pervasive. It infects all human endeavors. It has not exempted itself from institutional religion or the cult of science and reason. The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists. It comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species.

Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea. Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking. The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits.

We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God. We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility or the illusion that the human species makes moral advances along with the material advances in science and technology. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it for centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic. Religious fundamentalists, who believe they know and can carry out the will of God, disregard their severe human limitations. They act as if they are free from sin. The secular utopians from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens have also forgotten they are human. Both they and religious fundamentalists peddle absolutes. Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication.

The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected, that we are moving throughout history toward a glorious culmination, is malformed theology. It permits wild, eschatological visions to be built under religious or secular banners. It is this belief that is dangerous. And it colors the thought of the new crop of atheist writers. They will tell us what is right and wrong, not in the eyes of God, but according to the purity of the rational mind. They too seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision. They too wrap their intolerance in Enlightenment virtues.”

Hedges is an equal opportunity critic, by the way. He wrote a book on the Religious Right called American Fascists.

peace
joseph

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I find this passage more relevant than the question of whether or not there's some dude with a grey beard who lives in the sky:

Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea. Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking. The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits.
 
This is a good point, and it relates back to what I was calling the virtue of sophrosyne, which is often contrasted with sophia and gnosis. Sophia can also refer to any “technical expertise” or scientific knowledge. So the belief that “science will save us” is no less a belief in sophia than is the belief that we are all evolving to the Supermind where we will all, one day, be in total contact with gnosis, in 24/7 sahaj samadhi. Sophrosyne refers to circumspection, prudence, the wisdom of humility, where “know thyself” means: know that you are not a god. The tradition of sophrosyne was handed down, ironically, through the humanists stretching from Isocrates, to Cicero, to Plutarch, to Montaigne. It was picked up by the Christians, and it serves as a good antidote to unbridled gnosticism.

Whether or not all this applies to Dawkins is open to question (I'm not at all sure that Dawkins is even a “secular utopian,” and so this may be a straw man) but it certainly applies to people like Wilbbie.

The following, though, appears to exhibit flawed reasoning:
We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God. We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest.
 
The concept of “sin” here is loaded. He sounds like a seminarian. I think we can generate a similar idea, one less objectionable, by going back further, to the ancient Greek pagans. It is, after all, this business about “sin” that many people are reacting to when they turn to contemporary forms of gnosticism. And I think it is hardly possible to separate belief in God from those with the religious agenda that Dawkins is addressing.
 
This statement is also problematic:
They act as if they are free from sin.
Well, certainly some people do, but I don't think being a secular humanist makes you, categorically, a secular utopian, who can do no wrong and who has the utmost unquestioned faith in human reason and human progress. That kind of belief is a bit dated.

He states,
The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected, that we are moving throughout history toward a glorious culmination, is malformed theology. It permits wild, eschatological visions to be built under religious or secular banners. It is this belief that is dangerous.
In the case of Wilber this may be true. But while human nature might not be improvable, though that might be debatable, we can certainly improve the lot of humankind, I think, without having to entertain wild eschatological pipe dreams about humankind evolving into the Overmind, or utopian dreams of human progress. He sounds a bit Voegelinian or Straussian here, which, while not as bad as the neo-liberal/neo-conservative/libertarian “american fascist” type, does not make me feel entirely easy.

I think he has overstated the position of contemporary humanists. So his argument appears to be a bit of a straw man. Certainly there were those in the past who placed an unbridled enthusiasm in human progress. But then things like trench warfare and Auschwitz came along. What he says may aply to the ideologues, but I'm not sure Dawkins is an ideologue of that sort.

This dude seems like he has some quasi-religious agenda going on that, while it doesn't make nervous per say, makes me a bit uneasy. He smells bit too much like those dudes I went to grad school with who originally came from seminaries. :-)

I like his book on american fascists, though. In that case, the rhetorical overstatement works. :-)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

K…I did not get past the light and darkness comment…as I find that to be quiet archaic…and misleading…especially scientifically…it stimulates all kinds of triggers on the religious side…evil vs. sin…good vs. bad…and reduces the authenticity and relevance of this quote and overall what he is trying to convey…

The rest of it seems to be on target…I agree…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ok…still taking this juicy post piece meal…as I am multitasking…cooking, cleaning, peeling potatoes and thinking how much starch is doing what to my thighs…gol…reading…writing…but I found this very interesting…

So the belief that “science will save us” is no less a belief in sophia than is the belief that we are all evolving to the Supermind where we will all, one day, be in total contact with gnosis, in 24/7 sahaj samadhi.


oohlala…I love to be turned on in the middle of the day…LOL…will continue on with digesting 'your voice' kela…thnx for this tasty look into the authentic you…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Wow! There are some real gems to find in this loong thread. Thank you everyone for contributing. Just some quick points for now, I'll answer in length tomorrow.

kela: yes, I definitely think there's something political about Dawkins et al.'s arguments.

Ti-Shu: Great point about the spreading of knowledge! Count me in!

Joseph. Interesting text, but I don't like it says about “sin”. Not of sure if we really need this concept to live a life. Thanks for the book recomendation on Hedges, I'll take a look at it.

Fine. And now, time for a Hegel Quote:

“Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and turn suddenly into its opposite.”

Good evening, gentlemen. (and hi Starlight! you're welcome)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Christophe, nice quote from Hegel.  Can I ask its source?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom. The Source is Google, ahahahaha. Truth is I don't know. Check for yourself:

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/georg_wilhelm_friedrich_hegel/2.html

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom,
It's from the Science of Logic. Turn to p. 148 for the beginning of the discussion concerning dialectic, and the passage in question starts at the bottom of p. 149.

This passage shows how Hegel thought that nature itself was dialetical, and a good example of how for Hegel, what we call “dialectical thinking” is really just a phenomenology of processes in history and nature that are already by nature dialectical.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Chris, while I am thrilled that I now have your official welcome mat laid down for me…pssttt…I prefer the red carpet treatment…gol*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star,

You asked:

“Hey Kela, I'd like to hear more about this…'intellectual modesty' angle he takes — a principle that goes back to the Greek virtue of sophrosyne or “prudence” and this… gentlemanly respectfulness” angle that he takes towards the views of his collegues gets under my skin a bit. and this…
Fundamentalist Scientism (a term that I find deeply offensive, by way of its religious implications  in your own words of course.”

Let's ignore the question of “fundamentalist scientism” if you don't mind. It's not as relevant to my position. But I think the other two references are relevant to where I am coming from, and could be seen as at odds with each other. So let's explore a bit.

Basically, I'm in agreement with Jim and Joeseph that intellectual modesty is a virtue we should attempt to embody. (I discuss the issue in my blog here.) The authors they refer to charge Dawkins with not embodying this virtue, that is, they say he is displaying intellectual arrogance by dismissing theists in the outright manner that he does, and by suggesting, by implication, that science can solve all our problems. A more modest approach would be to take an agnostic approach toward the existence of “god,” or “ultimate realities,” since science cannot really answer such questions, and to be more cautious about what it is we think science and technology can do to improve the lot of humankind. The author Jim refers to, Ruse, also claims that Dawkins is being rude and condescending, that is, he is not being very respectful toward his collegues, when he suggests that anyone who believes in god is stupid or silly — basically suggesting that such people are acting and thinking like children. This condescending approach embarrasses Ruse, who also sees himself as an atheist.

On the other hand (and I'm playing devil's advocate with myself here to some extent), in my personal view, playing the “gentleman and a scholar” role is not entirely my kettle of fish, either, since I'm not entirely a gentleman, but a bit of a rogue, too. I find there to be a degree of disingenuousness in all this “respectfulness.” I've seen people smile and listen attentively at department conferences, but then go back to their office thinking privately, “what an assinine theory,” (basically because they tell you in private once everyone else is no longer present). I've made similar comments concerning the “mutual respectfulness” found in interfaith dialogues as well: the participants are all “nicey-nicey” in public, but you sense that privately they could not disagree more wholeheartedly. I'm suggesting a bit more disclosure, a bit more nakedness where our ideas are concerned. I feel that people are generally much to attached to their beliefs and opinions. As for the author referred to by Joseph, I am not entirely comfortable with the conservatism his stance implies — to me it comes off as too easy a way to dismiss any attempt to improve the lot of mankind when someone says it is “impossible or “arrogant” or “idealistic.” I am also not comfortable with his association of modesty and an awareness of “sinfulness.” “Sin” may only be a metaphor here, but for me, even as a metaphor, it goes too far, and is not approproiate, due to the baggage it implies.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Thank you so much for this post Kela…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Kela, I am shocked to hear that you are not a gentleman…gol

Sin like darkness has a lot of baggage…i am in complete agreement…i also like how you said that we need more nakedness…yes…more openness…and i think that the more comfortable we become with our own truths in life experience, the easier it is to be open with them, with others…

It is easy to say that we are wearing masks, etc…but the thing is, most do not even realize that they are wearing them, much less what they represent…they don't understand that their beliefs are not based on life experience but are based on what they have learned through books and doctrines…etc…

we hide behind what we believe…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Kela

I appreciate your comments, especially your explanation of sophrosyne, a term I have not heard before.

OK, you're right on the money about Chris Hedges background. He has a Masters in Divinity from Harvard. Soon after graduating he became a war correspondent in Central America in the late 70s and early 80s, was in Iraq during the first Gulf war and was in Sarajevo during the height of the Bosnian war. He basically spent a couple of decades in the more troubled spots on the globe, and was a vocal critic of the invasion of Iraq.

I'm a big fan of Hedges writings because he provides an effective antidote to the insulation and lack of awareness Americans exhibit in regard to our military adventures of the last decade or so, and to the effects of corporate dominance on civil society, both here and abroad. I first came across his book Losing Moses On The Freeway in the remainder bin at a local bookstore. It's an original look at the Ten Commandments as an example of the common ethical precepts that all civilizations require for a coherent common morality. He does tend to use highly charged terms from Christian tradition such as sin, but not in a conventional fashion. Because of his background he seems acutely aware of the fragility of civil society and how ugly things can get when it breaks down. Thus his style tends toward polemics.

I am also ambivalent about the term “Sin”. It does hold a lot of cultural baggage and has been widely abused. I believe it is important, however, to be reminded of the dark side of human nature and our tremendous potential for destruction. The Integral crowd's chatter about “shadow work” seems pretty candyassed to me. As Kathleen Norris wrote, “The American religion is optimism and denial.”

peace
joseph

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Jospeh,

I hear what you say about Sin. I agree that Hedges probably used the word to provoke a certain response, as a polemic. It seems to have worked with me too, so okay Mr. Hedges, Mission accomplished.

I disagree however that, to be reminded of the downsides of unlimited progress, we have to go back to the archaic concept of “Sin”. Kant talked about the radical evil in human beings without talking like a priest seminarist. It's just not necessary IMO. Or take Habermas who talks in favor of defending the Life World against the mindless (capitalist or other) systems. Same thing, no priest language.

For example, we could look at sin as a cultural taboo, in a Freudian sense. There are some things/activities that are No-Go areas, and everybody who crosses the taboo is considered a sinner and gets in serious trouble. It's like breaking the Law, the law of Heavens or the law of Oklahoma. :-P
Of course, prohibitions and Taboos rise a lot of interest. It is very likely that it becomes the Focus of the Libido, and some people just won't be happy until they crossed the line, eh. Or take Eve and the apple. It was just too damn interesting to pick this fruit and taste what it is like.
The alternative to this illegal behavior is to repress the desire and to be content with the life of a bourgeois citizen, who detests sin and hates the sinner. (While at the same time the repressed daemon runs amok in the shadows). America, know thyself!

Alright. One last word to Dawkins. I think he is smarter than his books, and the Hegelian move that I hinted at above might be in the back of his head. Maybe. But still I prefer to read a Michael Ruse articlel over any kind of Dawkins text. More often than not, he's just plain boring. His writing style and boasted self-image I find disgusting, but maybe  that's just me.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Joseph,
I'm in the process of reassesing Hedges. I think that you're right that he is an important alternative voice among Christians, and in that sense his voice is welcome and important.

Rather than coming from a point of view of conservatism of the type we find in universities in the South (where thinkers like Voegeline are important), I now think that Hedges may be coming from a point of view not unlike that of Jacques Ellul. I'd need to know more about his background and the sources he uses in his books to verify this; right now it's not much more than a hunch. He's

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Here's some more stuff on Chris Hedges.
Why I am a Socialist.
American Fascism
Creationism
Blurb on Atheist Fundamentalists
Response from an Atheist
Another Response from an Atheist
Long Review of the Debate with Hitchens

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Kela –

You wrote: I'm suggesting a bit more disclosure, a bit more nakedness where our ideas are concerned. I feel that people are generally much to attached to their beliefs and opinions.

I agree. But I also know that people can be honest and naked about their ideas with either the “respectfully gentle” or “roguish” approach. And that disingenuousness can hide within both “gentlefolks” and “rogues.”

And it seems to me that when people begin any interaction with an overattachment to their own beliefs and opinions, as they often do, then discussion, dialogue or debate – whether roguish or gentle – rarely changes anyone's thinking. People usually find themselves more deeply entrenched in their own opinions after a debate – especially when the style of debate has provoked defensiveness.

And this is why I think there is value in seeking “common ground” or areas of mutual interest or concern among different parties, not to be phony and “nicey-nice,” nor with the goal of persuading another of the “rightness” of any stance, but to create a space in which we might loosen that tight grip on our opinions and actually listen to the other.

Mary

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Mary,

You write, “People usually find themselves more deeply entrenched in their own opinions after a debate – especially when the style of debate has provoked defensiveness.” That may be true, at times, but it may also depend on the person. I've been demolished in debates and then changed my mind as a result. I have a somewhat plastic mind though, and tend to morph over time, like Zellig.

I've given up on the ecumenical approach of “seeking common ground,” after having explored that approach for many years. I feel that it can sometimes arise from a need to get past a life of confrontation (like having parents who argued) or from a sense of fragmentation or from a sense of confusion over the morass of beliefs that are available. There can be a superficiality to eirenic approach, I find, and I sense that its purposes are largely propaedeutic, by which I mean it's really more of a a preliminary stance that preceeds a deeper sense of dialogue. It is useful in many situations though, like negotiation.

In person, that is in personal dialgue, I'm much less of a rogue than in print. There's the little matter of people's feelings to consider. Occasionally, though, I will really go for the jugular at a conference, or at least I used to. This may have stemmed from a personal need to be more honest and open and “authentic” to my opinions, rather than a need to be confrontational or wrathful for the sake of being so. As I say, I feel that the eirenic approach can be a bit insipid to my taste at times, and then I feel the need to shake the tree a bit.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Kela –

I clicked on the link to your blog hat you provided in your post above, but could not access it even though I was logged in to Gaia – have you changed your profile settings recently? It might be a Gaia blip, because I have accessed your blog in the past … 

Wondering,
Mary

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Mary,
It seems to work for me. The blog should be public. The blog post is called “On Sagehood and the Love of Wisdom.”

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey Mary, I had read that entry some time ago, but tried the link given, and it is working just fine…so maybe you should report the problem…although Matthew is on vacation right now…so…*shrugs…

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Kela, what is your essential point? Besides flexing your knowledge, a very human thing to do, BTW.
If you flex your knowledge, give me somthing to grab onto besides your ego!

Tell me somthing, I DONT KNOW!

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

“Spiritual Secrets of the Ages Revealed. The Final Paradigm revealing the Hidden Spiritual Science that all the Masters from Buddha, Moses, Jesus, to Muhammed wouldn't or couldn't reveal.”
 
Right. And you're calling me arrogant? lol.
 
You want to know something you that didn't know, Zak? How about this: you could use a dab of that intellectual modesty we've been talking about in this thread. ;-) There I told you something that apparently you didn't know. :-)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hey you, five minutes for “roughing”.

And put your helmet on.

:-) 

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

haha. ya, i hear ya, gaddy. sorry zak.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

wow K…u really r a gentle man…kisskiss*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

gaddy - now ted may go into his argument about what is living and what is non living but i would say that maybe where the confusion is. and back we go. the important question is when and why things came alive
ted - have you considered that perhaps questions of why only makes sense after the emergence of consciousness, and prior to that how is as far as one can go? from that perspective, using why prior to the emergence of consciousness is a category error

so where did matter come from? that consciousness is of matter is obvious.the difference between living and non living is trivia vis a vis that question. the movement from matter to consciousness is paltry against this back drop. which is not to say that of itself it is paltry at all, even a bit. its that its missing the point. the issue of what is important or not has more to do with issues like should i add more honey to my juice or is it tea time. in this case, ie 8—–))

i think. to think that matter is dead is arrogance. the mommy of arrogance. what is death? can anything end, even to the extent reason is available to us it is inconceivable. what is the position of science on this - that matter is indestructible? - evolution and time, the bang, the silly fact that matter is tangible implies that the universe is finite. 15 billion years, endless streams of space and there is nothing infinite about the universe! the grand paradox, it isnt surprising the dialectic of anything lands in the opposite. there is nothing random, theres opposites. or a shot in the dark

ted, the fact is the levels of abstractions you talk about are all at the same level. which is the level of thought, of matter. abstraction is theory, little to do with creativity. i do believe as tom says, you have gone beyond even though you refer to it this way. there is a space between thoughts that is non degenerative space, which is not relative. individual space that systems have no access to. still at the mercy of establishments. (emerging) consciousness being the most dependant thing in the universe in holonic talk. potential for self destruction is also potential for olmolungring. iam just tripping, since i have it from a reliable source,  i cannot reveal, that it is the only thing purpose can be tagged to. funnily nothing random about randomese, as this direction shiftily heads towards increasing order. ad infinito

i was thinking of non degenerative space, in the context of sustainability, which seems to be your chief interest, as mine. where ecological initiatives seem to miss the beat, is the cost, the degeneration of the individual seem to be underestimated. pick any product in a supermarket in any location, it is compromised. it hurts, the effect and the story of it. IMHO the organisational mind is buried in congenital idiocy. not very nice to the individual

me no cynical. just impulsive….

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Vali

Trying to get complete before parking discussion, and it isn't working.

It seems very clear to me that abstraction and creativity have the same root, which resides in the holographic nature of our storage and retrieval system.

I suspect, that while the last eight words of the last sentence can be read by anyone, perhaps less than a thousand on this planet, at this time, would have anywhere near a match for the levels of abstraction that I have attached to those words.

I suspect that while what I have written is about as clear, concise and truthful as I can be, it is devoid of meaning for most people, as for most people the levels of abstraction and meaning required are not present.

Have you read Phillip Pullman's story - Northern Lights - Lyra has a truth teller, a symbol machine, where each symbol has an infinite depth of meaning.   I suspect all language is like that.

It is not sufficient merely for me to speak truth, I need also be responsible for how that truth is heard.


It is too big a problem for a post like this - perhaps it is the one I must solve first.


As to the universe, I agree what is material is finite, yet what we can do with it has infinite potential.   Only a finite number of things can be bought into reality, and the possibility space from which they may be generated is itself infinite.   It is an odd juxtiposition of the finite and the infinite.

It seems to me that the universe has experienced about 10^220 quantum states thus far in its existence - a fairly large number.


Do you think any computer program is running when the computer is switched off?

With the computer off, there exists the potential of a computer program, and none is running.

With sand on a beach, we have the potential of a pentium processor, and it takes a great deal of engineering to turn sand into a CPU.


From my perspective, no different with life.
From the instant of the first inflation of the stuff that would eventually condense into matter, there was the potential for life to develop, and there was no life.

There was no pentium processor on Earth for the entire 4.5 billion year history, until just a few short years ago.

There are now some very complex software systems running, on some very special sand.

And in our heads, exists a grey goo with some even more special properties, evolved slowly over millions of generations by a process of evolution by natural selection.   And I strongly suspect (based on a lot of circumstantial evidence) that the first of those goos to become reflectively self aware did so about 10,000 years ago.

Prior to that, there was no self aware consciousness - just lower order pattern - very complex, and subtle, and of a lower order.

Sand is complex, and a pentium processor is more so.

That is as I see it.  You are welcome to share that vision.
So many have shared their vision with me, Einstein, Rand, Kant, Jesus, Rumi, Wittgenstein, ………….

Cheers

Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

hi ted

as to the universe i agree what is material is finite, yet what we can do with that has infinite potential

has infinte potential in theory, isnt this exactly the limitation of abstraction? the infinite potential is subject to the matrix of the finite, since its genesis is material which is finite as you agree

teatime ? :)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

which is to say the matrix of the finite which by definition will perish, makes infinite potential an illusion

are you taking my cookie away before i can eat it?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

I've often wondered what could possibly be meant by “is finite.”  Capturable?  Something I can describe entirely without any further or future qualification whatever?

We have no evidence the material universe is finite, that present descriptions are entirely complete, perfect and exact—perfectly completely exact.  We have no evidence the progress of scientific understanding will end: “that's it boys, we've reached the end of inquiring and finding.  Shut down the collider”

If scientific investigating will not end, is its subject not equally endless?

Apart from this speculation, show me hard evidence of finiteness please.  Lay it out in complete terms.  Not-one-iota-missing-or-changeable completeness please.

Further to this note I'm striking, some mathematicians think they got it clean, got the orderly, tidy language of clarity.  But the problem of mathematics is its beginning notion “one.”  Assuming “one” exists, sure, all other numbers fall into place, and mathematical tidiness is assured.  But what is one?  We say “one ball.”  What is a ball?  Is a ball the oneness the phrase “one ball” implies?  Is a ball just a ball (that ball-oneness) and nothing else entirely whatever?  Does saying “ball” describe the ball with entire complete exactness?

This notion of “one,” it seems to me, lies at the root of notions like “matter is finite.”  I personally don't see finite and I personally don't see “one.”

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

Finiteness has only to do with boundaries.

The phsysical universe in which we exist does appear to have boundaries,
It does appear that it is not even conceptually possible for anything to explore those boundaries, the circumference alone appears to be expanding faster than light.

Consider the pentium processor inside the computer you are using (assuming it is not a Mac).  It is about the size of your thumbnail - very finite.  Etched into its silicon substrate are lines of metalisation, and lines of doping.  If you were to place it under a very powerful microscope and focus you intention on following every one of those lines, you could not do it in a single human lifetime.  There are that many of them, with that many twists and turns, in 3 dimensions (they are multilayered devices).

Obviously very small and very finite, yet not available to complete definition by a single human mind.

Now consider what one can do with such a device.  All the different things.  It could be used to process all the text ever written by humanity (it could probably accomplish that in less than a year).   It can do anything that any computer anywhere could do, yet it cannot do everything.   Every task takes a finite time, and that imposes limits.

Similarly for us.  What we could potentially do is infinite, unbounded.  What we will actually do is bounded in space and time.

I have a great deal of evidence that the progress of scientific understanding cannot ever reach completion.
There are two entirely separate reasons for that.
1 - this universe imposes limits on the energy and time available.
2 - possibility space is not simply infinite, it is infinitely dimensional (each dimension of which is infinite, and many dimensions of which have their own infinitudes of sub-dimensions).

I think it is entirely possible that a human level intelligence could probe the mysteries of a single grain of sand for billions of years and still have mysteries left to explore.

Finite does not necessarily mean small.


How many thumbs do you have on your right hand?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Vali

Finite, and even lawful, does not necessarily mean fully deterministic.

What is the limitation of abstraction ?
I guess it depends upon how one defines abstraction.

For me, it is the side effect of storing and retrieving information as an interference pattern.   Associations form as a result.  Some are real, some are not.   In ordinary situations, this abstractive/associative process is amazingly accurate.  The further we push it from the “ordinary” the less reliable it becomes, until at the extreme margins it fails more often than not.

It is a very interesting realm to investigate.

Cheers
Ted

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

wow K…u really r a gentle man

ya, but i can also be an arrogant douchebag. such is our duality.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

i happen to love a man that is able to be in touch with all his facets and own them proudly…but i hate that label…can't we just say that sometimes u b a badboy?  gol…that way i can keep my illusions of you…LOL*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

How's this for a thought? “There are no athiest in the foxhole called the right brain?” The gestalt and associative qualities of that mode of thought tends to see relatedness in all things, at least once the right brain is listened to by the more analytic left brain. The ten thousand things (Taoism) of the left brain are brought together by the gestalt thinking of the right. The result is not monism or monotheistic, nor is it polytheistic, because a whole (gestalt) is sensed according to the contribution of the right brain. The end result of the intra-brain conversation more like Mathew Fox's “panenthiesm”.  Perhaps there are no “athiests” in the foxhole called the right brain hemisphere! 
   In my blog writings, and elsewhere, have consistently promoted secular translations of theological concepts, and will be doing that even more in my next book writing project. In my first book “The Marketing of Virtue: Allsberg Rising”, I equated “whole-mind activity” with “God”. 
  How else would you “know” or “experience” God except from opening up your mind and allowing it to think in a whole sort of way? God is simply too big for a part-mind thought or mode of thinking. And if the only way we “know” God is to be whole-minded, then how do we know (or why would we need to know) if God is anything other than the wholeness to which we switched while praying to God, etc.? For all practical purposes, God is the wholeness, or the “whole-mind activity”. 
   More recently, I have been embracing the metaphor of “energy”, as in “thinking like energy”. This is just another door to whole-mind activity and to “God”. Accessing whatever it is, and using it, is much more important to me than precisely identifying it. Once identified, “God” seems to be put in a left brain box which ironically limits access to “god” . Catch my poem below for another way of saying the same thing. 


Flight of the Bumbling Be

Thank you, Lord
for this precious gift;
the gift of not caring if you exist.
Does the fat bumble bee care
if the scientists can explain
his aerodynamic invalidation,
his nonexistent reason why he can fly?
You fly in the bumble bee.
You fly in this bumbling be. 

I am so awkward at being the me you make,
so fat with sin, 
that I shouldn’t be able to lift off 
from this worldly place, this pollen pad
where appetite coats my legs heavily
and my wings are way too small.
But I do fly,
I don’t care if you exist.
I am carefree.
You fly me.



copyright 2005 Darrell Moneyhon

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

So M~

When Abram first heard God in his own head, he was listening to his right brain?

Is that where people experience schizophrenia?  In their right brains?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

tom, that there isnt a fossil out of place in 15 billion yrs of evolution is hard evidence, harder than anything i can imagine. that the big bang and the expanding universe is traced to a point of origin is mind blowsily finite. that a tree occupies a precise location, and that it is in the type of space that allows such locality is eerily finite.

if iam getting lyrical, blame it on moneynot. that your able to touch yourself in the same place twice, or in any place once, should by all accounts be inadmissible. if not for the finite ( visual, courtesy moneynot) or just that there is time is finite. i think ted would agree

ted, you cant park the discussion so quick. besides you cannot be substituted by einstein, rand, kant, jesus, rumi or wittingstein :)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Valli, define a “tree,” to reference one of your “finites.”  Give me the very words that constitute a full definition.  A full definition, in my books, cannot be added to, cannot be supplemented in any manner whatever—ever—will never be changed or modifed—ever—is full, final, complete, perfect, absolute.  In such a definition, we will have demonstrated finiteness, no?

Ok, let's have it.  The perfect, complete definition of a tree.  (Keep typing Valli!  Let's see that perfectly delineated separation of thing called “tree”!  Type, man, type!)

Btw, don't mind Ted, he's just upset we don't agree with him in toto.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Tom, is your point that you cannot define a tree without defining everything that is not a tree?

I love the movie MindWalk…when I see a tree today, I cannot see a tree without seeing everything that is interconnected with the tree…(that's a lot a seeing, gol)*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Yah, Star, including that and more.  When people say something “is finite,” they imply, to my mind, that the thing to which they point is fully graspable in awareness or knowledge, 'finite' being a mental referent.  The only evidence I can see to constitute such 'grasping' is a definition.  Notice the word 'finite' in 'define.'

Absent such demonstration as a full, complete definition, what I see is an unsubstantiated assertion.

I'm thus asking Ted and Valli to demonstrate finiteness by giving me a full description of a finite thing.  Any thing'll do.  I mean, why start with something as complex as a tree.  Give me a full definition of an electron.

(Good luck.)

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

sorry Tom…u won't get an argument from me…i tend to think along the same lines as u…i am a systems theorist…that wears her individuality like some tight jeans…gol*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

What's that story about Einstein.  Someone came into his office in Princeton excitedly extolling the virtues of the new particle accelerator and how it will open up new avenues of discovery and scientific advance and what this will mean for scientific knowledge blah blah.  Einstein looked unmoved by this excitement, and replied in hushed tones,

“I just want to know what an electron is.”

That was the mature Einstein speaking.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

and hey, if Einy couldn't figure it out, who will?

i love what he said about this illusion being persistent…that cracks me up…*

oh but wait…are you saying that Einy then was 'more' mature than Einy somewhere else?  hmmmmmmm…was he angry?  LOL

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom

LOL - that is not it.  I am not upset that people do not agree with me.

I do sometimes experience frustration that required abstractions are absent.
It's kinda like having a paint pallet ready to paint a landscape, but it doesn't contain any paints with any blue pigments.   It is simply not possible to paint a landscape in true colour without blue pigments.

You seem to be confused Tom.  Your definition of the “Perfect desription” only ever exists as the thing itself.
A map is not a city, it is a map - useful for the purposes of navigation, but not of taking up residence or living life in.
Stop complaining that a map is a map and not a city.

Maps are maps.
Ideas are maps of reality, not reality.
Some ideas are real rough sketch maps, some are much more detailed, and they are all maps.

No definition is ever complete full and absolute in the sense you imply, except the thing itself.

You really do have an attachment to this notion of “absolute”.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, are you saying that the definition of a thing is not absolute, but the thing is?  i'm cornfused…

i realize that what you are saying is that we absolutely have to have blue pigments ot paint a landscape…but then that is not absolutely true…who says i have to paint it a certain color?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star

I was very careful to say “It is simply not possible to paint a landscape in true colour without blue pigments.” - note the word true - I anticipated your objection ;)

I am saying that a definition, any definition, is a model, in a brain (in the case of humans, or whatever matrix is involved in whatever non-human awareness) - it is not the thing itself.  It is a map of the thing, a more or less gross simplification.

All maps are useful for their appropriate purpose, and you don't drive you car on a map, you drive it on the road.   If the map was identical to the road in all respects, you couldn't put it in your car, your car would need to drive on it, it would, in fact, be the road.

Every description is inadequate to describe the thing, or it is the thing.

And I use models all the time, at many levels - we must, we have no other choice.  And they can be very powerful, and they are most powerful if we always keep clear of the distinction between the thing and the model, and the limitations of the particular model being used.

In so far as thought tries to comprehend reality, it is a model.
In so far as thought is simply thought, it is complete as itself.

Does that help?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, yes that last bit made sense, however…putting true in front of something does not help…let's say a two year old is coloring a landscape…pink…to that two year old that is a true landscape…and to someone color blind…well I rest my case…

What is true for you may or may not be true for me and others…obvious by the many truths of our day…gol…

Ted, have you forgotten that I love to color outside the lines?

I live my own truths…love and tskisses…*

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Star

Thanks for reinforcing my case elsewhere - yes, a two year old, perhaps with distinctions of gray alone, cannot see any difference between the colors.
The distinction is of a different type.

Colour blindness renders part of the spectrum gray scale - due to sensor error.

There is a great deal of variation and gradation in the way people perceive light.
And we can build sensors for spectral analysis that are much more sensitive than our eyes, and our eyes and amazing machines for seeing difference.

We all have our own operational hypotheses - and sometimes we defend these rather than being open to possibilities not previously considered.

Truth is a very colourful concept for me, a wide range of energies and intensities - it ceased to be a binary a very long time ago.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Ted, what is the evidence that the thing itself is finite?  If anything we can say about a thing is mappingstuff (good German term) and thereby imperfect in the manner you mention, what does that leave for evidence of the thing-itself's finiteness?  I only want to know because you and Valli said the thing is finite.  It's the is that sticks with me.  Sounds like you're talking about the thing, not your map.

If there is no evidence outside the mappingzone (nother German term), then saying “it is finite” is but to say “my map is a finiting of a somethingness the totality of which I haven't much of any idea,” or something.  No?

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Tom,

Use the pentium example.
I can take a ruler, of arbitrary yet agreed dimensions, and measure the processor.  I can give it a specific form in space and time.
It is not open and unbounded in spatial dimension, and is therefore finite.

Have I described everything about it?   Most certainly not, only some very superficial characteristics, in accord with the spatial nature of my chosen ruler.

Is my map of the processor at 2.2cm x 2.2cm x 0.65mm accurate - yes within the accuracy of the tool used (note these are guestimates for illustration of an argument and not actual measurements).
Does it completely describe the thing - no - it just gives limiting dimensions.


Can we measure the limiting dimensions of the universe in which we exist ?
No - we cannot directly do so.
Can we infer anything about the probability of there being, or not being, any such thing?
Yes, there are many indirect measurements of things we can make that are in accord with the hypothesis that the universe is bounded, and expanding.

Just as my map can say that a road is 200km long, yet the map is only a few cms.  So can my map of the this universe contain limited information (with quite broad error bars) about the size of the universe within which we find ourselves.

I see no contradictions in that.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

woah ha !

Ok, let's have it.  The perfect, complete definition of a tree.  (Keep typing Valli!  Let's see that perfectly delineated separation of thing called “tree”!  Type, man, type!)

tom, now your getting lyrical. or are we having a brawl? i can never tell. did i start this ? 8–) we need a referee…

whats with the definition anyway. finite is limited, thats all. you have a body there are things it can do, there are things it cannot do, thats limited. i think things are like that

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Hi Vali

I'm trying to ease my way out, and it isn't easy.
I like doing this too much.
Unfortunately this doesn't bring any money in directly, and I haven't perfected any indirect means yet either; and for the next decade or two money is still required.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Darrel,
I love the way you focus on the verb (thinking like “energy”), instead of the noun (thinking like “matter”) and that wonderfully “blasphemous” poem made me laugh :-D ! At the end of the day the bumble bee didn't ask for permition to fly before there was a consistent theory explaining how it is possible. Reality is what it is, another way of saying that is “I am what I am” (from the Bible) or “what survives, survives” (theory of evolution). We can't change what “is”, only our understanding of it and what we “do” with it.

Re: Is there an atheist schism?

Heres one for you rudimentary philosophers.
You want to settle  how we came alive, answer this first:
Is man the originator of thought ?