(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you disagree that it is possible to train reflexes? Like pressing on the brake for example [even when you're not in the driving seat?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Frag:
"The laws of nature are intrinsically logical; a universe in which they can be broken at random is not a logical universe, which is one of the reasons it's called "supernatural." "Supernatural" includes both "unobservable" and "illogical." Perhaps you're not an Abrahamist and your god obeys the rules of logic and the laws of nature. Of course then she wouldn't be a god by any mainstream definition."

I know what the word means; perhaps I'm not an Abrahamist; perhaps my god obeys the rules of logic and the laws of nature (no, actually it isn't "mine", and if I and anyone else obeys the laws of nature, logically, then so does everyone's god -> God).

How about the complementarity principle? How logical is it that matter can fall into a black hole, but be perceived "not falling" into the same black hole? Apparently quantum logic and relativity play a part - QM and SR/GR are poles apart, so how logical is this black hole whatsit?

Recall that two famous atheists (who were both secretly theists) had big problems with gravity; the more recent atheist/theist refused to believe the postulates of QM, and that black holes could even form...

I admit I have a problem with the concept of "mainstream definition". The idea that God is definable, in some mainstream or other stream, I find somewhat absurd. God is not a definition, nor is it definable with words, since it isn't an idea (remember?). It isn't a "he or she" either; it has no persona other than any we attach to it. This does not mean God is impersonal, but rather God is beyond personality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guarantee you that every physiologically normal human child will flinch from the first few high hopping ground balls they encounter in the game of baseball. Some of them will learn to not flinch from some of those grounders.

I have learned to moderate, all but eliminate in some cases, formerly automatic flinch responses to ground balls approaching and hitting a glove near my head, the sound of a hammer I am swinging hitting a nail, and others I can't recall.off hand. These are familiar events in many people's lives. The deeper levels of training available from meditation and other yogi techniques are reasonably well known and lab demonstrated, if not as widely experienced. If you are claiming that researchers are not convinced that this kind of learning can take place, some kind of misunderstanding by someone is involved.

Except that it's superfluous in this discussion. The issue here is at what levels parsimonious alterations are taking place (either increasing or decreasing, of course) and the mechanisms involved. The claim by the evolutionary biologists is that alterations in the collective species genome are involved in some of the parsimony of behavioral changes (all levels of behavior, including all levels of learning), and the mechanism is Darwinian. The evidence for that is overwhelming: countless observations of the inheritence of behavioral capabilities, tendencies, traits, even specific actions, coupled with the known mechanisms of inheritence.

Hence the inadequacy of upstream/downstream analogies in a discussion of the general situation. The (significantly inherited, btw) setup is full of feedback loops in both development and behavior, as streams are not.

This appears to be another aspect of this arena in which a typical upbringing in dogmatic theism interferes with comprehension, btw. The worldview of top down, overarching control, identification of the key factor as some kind of ongoing controller, is not helpful.

All I meant was that In the reaction to signals, the reflex centers get first crack. The image of the ground ball approaching is processed by the retina and available to reflex response before - upstream - the larger brain gets hold of it.

 

Which is really ironic when you consider how the selfish gene theory explains these mechanisms.

 

No, it isn't.

You fundamentally misunderstand the "selfish gene" theory. You have it fundamentally and completely wrong.

That incomprehension is common, and I have come to associate it with an upbringing in dogmatic theism - also common. If there is another explanation, I'd be interested in it.

 

Yes it is. Dawkins selfish gene theory is exactly like saying goddidit. Only instead of using a schema of a large benevolent deity who intends it all for the best, he uses a schema of a hidden collection of agents working at cross purposes. Which is why he has the selfish gene working hard to replicate itself and advises us to use our intelligence to fight our genetic inheritance, ie destroy what the gene is working for! In other words if genes are handing over their more executive decisions to the "conscious" brain, they are essentially committing suicide by choosing behaviours that modify or eliminate them!

 

Not true, Einstein was not a theist, more of a deist at best. He denied the existence of singularities, and he's probably correct.

 

:facepalm:

 

drudging up an old post, pardon.

No not really. Atheists just don't believe in god(s). That doesn't necessarily mean they think gods don't exist, it just means what it says: no belief in god(s). Simple logic fails to acknowledge claims to which no evidence is provided. That must be what you're talking about.

Lol, of course. Smart smart smart! It's not "disposed of", it's "hey come back when you have more to offer, evidence will significantly help you make a case".

IMO, saying "there is no god" is as presumptuous and logically derelict as saying "yo me and god are tight". Both cases are the smarmiest!

But you've been on this forum for a long long time and should know how full of shit that statement is. Fight your dogma goddammit, you're a very bright person. Atheists lack belief in gods, that's not a negative claim. "strong atheists" are as dogmatic as "strong theists". Both are BORING and LAME. lol. Okay not necessarily but it seemed funny so I'm leaving it.

False conclusion from a seemingly intentionally muddled argument. You're very very bright I can tell. Why you fuck with yourself like that? Man I'm SO FUCKING THANKFUL I was born much smarter than my parents and allowed to think for myself rather than the indoctrination that's so common in religious families. While I do see a lot of social value in it, I find it repulsive in the context of my own thoughts. You're capable. Please think this shit through a little more clearly.

We're all just people, coping with shit as best we can. Atheists, theists, etc are what they are because it's how they've learned to view the world and they've learned to "work that angle" to provide them with whatever they've learned to need. You fail because you make no effort to relate. You're bright enough to do it, but apparently your indoctrination constricts your capacity to ponder what actually makes the other humans tick - in preference of your well, apparently utter distaste for anything regarding the word "atheist" - falsely forcing your very limited comprehension of the term into your view of the minds of others. I'd say you sell your sci-neighbors rather short, not to mention yourself.

"relating" to the other humans is a beautiful thing. i'd think that were there such an entity as "god", its preference would be that we lack belief in it if the alternative was that we could relate to one another far more consistently.

 

While the first part of what you said makes no sense, you are correct about the second. The rise of conscious thought means that our instincts can be overcome by will. But these are not "agents" with an agenda, they are passive carriers of successful traits. Conscious thought must be more successful in the long run for humans in the context of their environment.

 

Which is at cross purposes with the gene's desire to survive, after all if we overcome our instincts, the gene that regulates that instinct [never mind that we have no idea if there is one that does] is immediately redundant. Ergo, our selfish gene has outsourced itself into wilfully committing suicide.

Hi wes :wave:

 

howdy sam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So the 'will' to change instincts does not come from instincts. Where does it come from?

 

thats easy
the quantum flux of course

/huffs

 

An instinct, by its very definition (although not always its colloquial usage), is inborn and thus the product of genetics. If it's not the product of a gene, it's not an instinct.

You're once again taking the metaphor too seriously. Your objection only holds water if we ascribe to genes a literal desire to replicate themselves. Obviously genes don't literally desire anything at all, so to accuse a gene of acting irrationally gets us nowhere. Genes simply have particular phenotypic effects -- effects which obviously are not consciously chosen by the gene -- and these effects may or may not be beneficial to the gene in terms of longevity. If a gene causes itself to be obsolete, then it causes itself to be obsolete, and there is no theoretical problem whatsoever with that. It is only the didactic metaphor which has trouble accounting for such an occurrence, not the theoretical predictions themselves.

A gene which causes its carrier to be completely immune to the influences of instinct probably would indeed be detrimental -- which probably explains why such a gene has not developed in humans or any other animal. Humans have the (probably) unique ability to overcome instinct through force of will, but it isn't always easy, and our behavior is still very much guided by instinctual urges.

Another interesting, albeit somewhat philosophical view on the matter is that we don't "overcome" instincts at all, but rather we simply hold instincts which conflict with one another. For example, I can resist the urge to eat chocolate ice cream for dinner for the sake of my health, but it could be plausibly argued that this resistance is in service of an opposing instinct toward preserving my general health. In this view, we are the pawns of instinct every bit as much as any other animal, we simply have more complex sets of instincts and are capable of realizing them in more complicated ways. In the end, of course, it's all down to semantics whether we choose to construe a behavior as triumphing over an instinct or as succumbing to an opposing instinct. However, I think that there is some utility in considering this latter interpretation.

 

The War of the Genes or The Genetic Crusades

 

How instinctive is what we call "falling in love"? Is this innate behavior real love. is it love of a god or a deity? Which one, and does it have a genetic persona?

I know a person (educated and "spiritual" type, said a few things I still think about), who said that this is what many think is really love, but "love is something else".
If he meant "God is really love", then what is the act of loving God. are we loved back?

What about people who "reject real love" in this person's definition and embrace sex, per se, i.e. prostitutes, pornstars, wannabes? Why do so many say they really never enjoy it, after all the grunting and exertion? (Why has Hindi culture explored this dynamic thoroughly, centuries ago, and brought it into a panth, one of "all existential traditions"?)

 

Since you've never read Dawkins, can we safely assume you're lying?

 

So basically the didactic metaphor is of no use for making theoretical predictions and cannot be used for testing a hypothesis. So whats the benefit of it, exactly?

Except the ones who did go extinct? Or does that didactic metaphor fail to predict that theoretical possibility as well?