Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Anyway, doubting the existence of God is, essentially, doubting the existence of your own experience - which includes the very act of doubting. The roots are in Descartes' insight about the self-contradictory nature of someone with a soul doubting his own source of life. What you can doubt, of course, is almost any specific claim about the nature of God, e.g., "God is non-physical" or "God is physical" or "God is in here" or "God is out there", etc. God is a bit like dark matter: We know "God is there" but we don't know exactly "what God is" or how to characterize God, beyond the direct subjective experience of "connection to God" (an inner subjective "pointing" at what if feels like to experience the Divine etc.)."
or to paraphrase:
"Suppose, for a moment, that you were to stumble upon a primitive group of people who have never understood the concept of God. They never know about their own soul, let alone consider the roles of their own soul within the physical body. If you start to teach them about God, you will be introducing them to a whole fundamental realm of Reality about which, previously, they had no clue. They could learn truths that they never even imagined before. I suspect that, with regard to God, we are in a similar position as this primitive tribe. There is some entire fundamental realm of experience/thinking about which we currently have no clue.
"A whole different way of "soul" and "body" (so to speak) that would allow us to grasp truths that we currently can't grasp. Just as we can't explain "soul" without some reference to God (e.g., the soul before it enters the body, during a physical lifetime, after it leaves the body) , we can't (per my hypothesis) really explain "God" without reference to some currently mysterious "soul", let's say - a means of thinking that is perhaps a synthesis of physical finite body and eternal non-physical soul, perhaps, an entirely new dimension of thought altogether for this primitive tribe.
"(Consider an analogy: If "body" and "soul" are "many different physical bodies worn by one eternal soul" then God might be introduced through "reincarnation" or, perhaps, a whole new "primary experience" like "accumulated growth over dozens of lifetimes" .) Once we learn "God" we can "measure the growth and progress of our soul" (so to speak) between "why is this happening to me its not fair" and "that annoying experience is perfect for my soul growth and makes perfect sense" . Perhaps we could also recognize and appreciate various dimensions of insight into experiences that we have never had.
"Our job, simply put, is to invent or discover our connection to "God".
The Pirahas, he said
Believed that the world was as it had always been, and that there was no supreme deity.
Furthermore they had no creation myths in their culture. In short, here was a people who were more than happy to live their lives Without God, religion or any political authority.
Quote:
The book concludes with Everett saying:
The Pirahas have shown me that there is dignity and deep satisfaction in facing life and death without the comforts of heaven or the fear of hell, and of sailing towards the great abyss with a smile.
And they have shown me that for years I held many of my beliefs without warrant. I have learned these things from the Pirahas, and I will be grateful to them for as long as I live.
How anyone could come up with the idea of a benevolent God if they know ANYTHING about the world--especially the natural world--is beyond me.
Look on YouTube and watch lions or hyenas slowly eat a gazelle alive, or review news reports of children in a bus accident while going to a church function burning alive. No humans using their "free will" there. And the cop-outs like God working in mysterious ways, or that he has some plan? I guess someone with an IQ of 50 might be satisfied with that.
And tell me again how a benevolent God would need to be appeased by the torture murder of himself / his son, to "make up" for the failings of creatures he created.
Want the real answer? Religion developed to give humans a sense of security in a world where they had little control and understood virtually nothing. Nature is grossly cruel because it was not "designed" by any supernatural being (benevolent or not); it developed and evolved without any relation to the concepts of what humans see as right and wrong, kind and cruel, fair and unfair.
Religion doesn't even answer the question of creation--claiming some supernatural being who was "always there" made everything, is exactly the same thing as positing that the natural world, in some form, was always there.
"Anyway, doubting the existence of God is, essentially, doubting the existence of your own experience - which includes the very act of doubting. The roots are in Descartes' insight about the self-contradictory nature of someone with a soul doubting his own source of life. What you can doubt, of course, is almost any specific claim about the nature of God, e.g., "God is non-physical" or "God is physical" or "God is in here" or "God is out there", etc. God is a bit like dark matter: We know "God is there" but we don't know exactly "what God is" or how to characterize God, beyond the direct subjective experience of "connection to God" (an inner subjective "pointing" at what if feels like to experience the Divine etc.)."
I find your various exercises in "paraphrasing" to be entertaining and enlightening. I put "paraphrasing" in scare quotes because it is not technically paraphrasing. You are substituting words in order to make a point, and that's really cool, but since these substitutions change the meaning of what I'm saying, it is does not really count as "paraphrasing" because paraphrasing should not change meaning.
However, concerning this particular paragraph, wherein you substitute 'God' for 'qualia' I'm afraid I have to object - not just because it changes the meaning, but because the resulting assertions are, plain and simply, wrong. And the error has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God. The error is due to the blatant non-equivalence of 'God' and 'qualia' (unless you are suggesting that we flat-out define 'God' as 'qualia' - which opens another whole can of worms).
Descartes' cogito ("I think, therefore, I am") works on purely logical grounds insofar as the assertion of the contrary leads to logical contradiction. (Or, at least, he thought it did. Modern philosophers have pointed out a technical problem, but let's just play along with Descartes for the moment.) The assertion "I think" logically (necessarily) implies the existence of the thinker insofar as the word 'think' is a verb, and a verb grammatically implies "that which is done" and "that which does the doing". Thus as a verb, the word "think" implies two things: (1) Some content of the thought (i.e., that which the act of thinking is about) and (2) Some doer of the action, i.e., the thinker. Thus a "thought" without a "thinker" contradicts the grammatical nature of the verb "think".
Anyhowz, the word 'qualia' has logical implications stemming from the meaning of the term that any common use of the word 'God' does not. As I mentioned above, "thinking" implies a "content" of thought - i.e., that which is thought. 'Qualia' gets at a more general concept, namely, experience. Every thought is an experience, but not every experience is a thought. But just as, grammatically, 'thinking' implies some content, so too 'experience' implies some content - that which is experienced. Qualia is the convenient philosophical term for the "raw contents" of experience - that which constitutes the experience. Different qualia constitute different experiences. Thus doubting the existence of qualia (understood as the "contents" or "essence of" experience is, indeed, to doubt the existence of the doubt itself insofar as doubting is experiential. I cannot coherently claim that my pencil doubts the wisdom of buying cheap toilet paper unless I think that my pencil experiences "what it is like to doubt" something.
God is a Being who is, presumably, "not me" and who is, presumably, greater than, or beyond, the contents of my current experience. As such, I can coherently doubt the existence of God in a way that I cannot coherently doubt the existence of qualia. Thus, insofar as this particular "paraphrase" is concerned, not only have you failed to paraphrase me, you have failed to make any interesting point at all. (Unlike your other efforts which, as I said, are indeed interesting.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-02-2017 at 12:01 PM..
1) "GodDidIt!" isn't an explanation - it's simply a refusal to say 'I don't know' and instead substituting an agency for which there is no evidence. As I've pointed out many times, the ancient Egyptians knew nothing of Newtonian mechanics and fusion and so they explained that bright warm orb that crossed the sky each day as the deity Ra. See where "RaDidIt!" got them?
I'm a (progressive) Christian and believe God did it somehow. I have no problem with not knowing the who, the what, the how or the why. I think if God did reveal it to me, my brain would explode. I am ok with my questions, and doubts, and my not knowing.
Quote:
Even if you insist that there must be an agency behind all that is, it does not follow that said creator must be God, the deity of the culture into which you happened to be born. After all, that would be quite convenient, wouldn't it?
I think God is multicultural. I think God reaches out to people where they are, in ways that they can relate to. I imagine God has many different names and forms, depending on who God is trying to reach. God used Christ to reach me. He uses Allah with others, and Vishnu with others, etc.
Last edited by mensaguy; 09-03-2017 at 01:35 PM..
Reason: fixed missing quote tag
... the word 'qualia' has logical implications stemming from the meaning of the term that any common use of the word 'God' does not. As I mentioned above, "thinking" implies a "content" of thought - i.e., that which is thought. 'Qualia' gets at a more general concept, namely, experience. Every thought is an experience, but not every experience is a thought. But just as, grammatically, 'thinking' implies some content, so too 'experience' implies some content - that which is experienced.
Qualia is the convenient philosophical term for the "raw contents" of experience - that which constitutes the experience. Different qualia constitute different experiences. Thus doubting the existence of qualia (understood as the "contents" or "essence of" experience is, indeed, to doubt the existence of the doubt itself insofar as doubting is experiential. I cannot coherently claim that my pencil doubts the wisdom of buying cheap toilet paper unless I think that my pencil experiences "what it is like to doubt" something.
The "non-physical soul" is the convenient term for the "individual you inside the physical body" that is having the raw contents of what you experience whether that is thinking thoughts or feeling emotions or perceiving perceptions, those are the "raw contents" of experience. Each of those different experiences are experienced only and solely (ha ha) by the "individual you" that is the "non physical soul" inside the "physical human body."
Thus doubting the existence of the "non physical soul" (understood as the "individual you" or "essence of you") that is having the experience (of thinking, feeling, perceiving) is indeed, to doubt the existence of the doubt itself insofar as doubting is experiential. Without a "non physical soul" that is using the "physical brain" to think, such as a pencil having doubts about toilet paper for instance, it is "impossible to doubt" something.
"A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers--including even his power to revolt...It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower."
--C.S. Lewis
...God is a Being who is, presumably, "not me" and who is, presumably, greater than, or beyond, the contents of my current experience. As such, I can coherently doubt the existence of God in a way that I cannot coherently doubt the existence of qualia.
So you know you have a "non physical soul" because you do not doubt your "raw experiences" such as thinking, feeling, perceiving.
But since you think of God as "not you" presumably greater than you, more than the contents of your current experience, therefore you "doubt the existence of God" in a way that you do not doubt the existence and direct experience of of your own "non-physical soul."
do you know everything on the world wide web? no. but you can access it through your "personal computer" which connects to this vast and powerful resource.
are you God? no but you can access God through your "personal non physical soul" which connects to this vast and powerful resource.
your "personal computer" connects you to the world wide web through a cord and sign on and password connection.
your "non physical soul" connects you to God through a cord and sign on and password connection.
I find your various exercises in "paraphrasing" to be entertaining and enlightening. I put "paraphrasing" in scare quotes because it is not technically paraphrasing. You are substituting words in order to make a point, and that's really cool, but since these substitutions change the meaning of what I'm saying, it is does not really count as "paraphrasing" because paraphrasing should not change meaning.
I have used "paraphrase" to show where we are describing the same thing using different words
par·a·phrase
verb
express the meaning of the speaker using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
noun
a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.
some correlations are direct; some are similar
if I had to try and "explain" your term "qualia" it sounds to me like the thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, dreams, visions, ideas, anything "non physical" that you experience individually through the "non physical essence" of you which is the "non physical soul" which inhabits the "physical body." Physical reality can be seen and measured and touched. Non-physical reality is experienced directly by the inner essence of you.
Quote:
The Pirahas, he said believed that the world was as it had always been, and that there was no supreme deity.
Furthermore they had no creation myths in their culture. In short, here was a people who were more than happy to live their lives Without God, religion or any political authority.
The book concludes with Everett saying:
The Pirahas have shown me that there is dignity and deep satisfaction in facing life and death without the comforts of heaven or the fear of hell, and of sailing towards the great abyss with a smile.
And they have shown me that for years I held many of my beliefs without warrant. I have learned these things from the Pirahas, and I will be grateful to them for as long as I live.
For sure read more about the Pirahas. It is fascinating. Their happiness and contentment is directly related to no technology and no desire for material objects. Fly that up the flag pole on any atheism forum and see what sort of response you get.
In addition to no creation stories, there are no stories of any kind
no stories
no story telling
no poems
no plays
no books
no history
also none of the following:
No painting
no art
no colors
no musical instruments
no symphonies
no bands
no musicians
no numbers
no counting
no math (have at it Gaylen! although the researcher tried and was not successful)
no computers
no cell phones
no electricity
no hospitals
no antibiotics
no schools
no universities
For sure read more about the Pirahas. It is fascinating. Their happiness and contentment is directly related to no technology and no desire for material objects. Fly that up the flag pole on any atheism forum and see what sort of response you get.
In addition to no creation stories, there are no stories of any kind
no stories
no story telling
no poems
no plays
no books
no history
also none of the following:
No painting
no art
no colors
no musical instruments
no symphonies
no bands
no musicians
no numbers
no counting
no math (have at it Gaylen! although the researcher tried and was not successful)
no computers
no cell phones
no electricity
no hospitals
no antibiotics
no schools
no universities
It makes no difference. They are a primitive tribe without anything except the basics of life. They are quite content without anything but that, and do not need a god to make their life worth living - no more than need TV, chewing gum and a space -program.
Given that they do not need a god to give their life meaning, nor those other things, all that becomes optional, not mandatory. We goddless have never pretended that those thing represent some Cosmic meaning; they are simply things we consider to be worthwhile for us. We are now perhaps advanced enough not to feel that those who don't feel the need for them - religion oir technology - must have it forced on them.
That is why the missionary (perhaps) thought he could learn more from them than they could learn from him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
The "non-physical soul" is the convenient term for the "individual you inside the physical body" that is having the raw contents of what you experience whether that is thinking thoughts or feeling emotions or perceiving perceptions, those are the "raw contents" of experience. Each of those different experiences are experienced only and solely (ha ha) by the "individual you" that is the "non physical soul" inside the "physical human body."
Thus doubting the existence of the "non physical soul" (understood as the "individual you" or "essence of you") that is having the experience (of thinking, feeling, perceiving) is indeed, to doubt the existence of the doubt itself insofar as doubting is experiential. Without a "non physical soul" that is using the "physical brain" to think, such as a pencil having doubts about toilet paper for instance, it is "impossible to doubt" something.
"A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers--including even his power to revolt...It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower."
--C.S. Lewis
C.S Lewis was, as usual, wrong, and wrong by using false analogy as evidence.
The true analogy is
"I'm racked with pain."
"Go see a doctor."
"No, I know what it is - it's demons. The Gospels say so."
"It could be a lot of physical things."
"No. It's demons. To say it isn't is like a driver denying the engine of his car." (you see the totally back to front thinking? )'"I'll pray for (whatever in the way of theist -thinking) to heal me."
Whatever the seat of qualia -experience is, material -physical (as yet unexplained) or a 'soul', why should that be any kind of support for God -belief rather than the souls itself being an unexplained physical/material phenomenon of the body?
C.S Lewis is making the eternal error of theism - starting every argument with an assumption that God exists until disproven - to those who rely on faith rather than proof, anyway. It means that all their thinking is screwed from the start.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2017 at 07:08 AM..
I have used "paraphrase" to show where we are describing the same thing using different words
But you are not describing "the same thing." You are not "expressing the meaning of the speaker." You are expressing your own idea using parallel sentence structure and substituting words. These are interesting exercises and I commend you for your strategy in doing this but, for clarity, it is important to understand that you are not saying the same thing. If you strongly believe that you are saying the same thing, then the primary thing demonstrated by your attempts to paraphrase are that you do not understand what I'm saying (especially in the qualia/God case, which was the particular "paraphrase" that I objected to).
'God' and 'qualia' simply do not mean the same thing, so you cannot simply substitute one for another in a sentence and expect the meaning of the sentence to be preserved. You substitution of God for qualia in my sentences is an interesting and enlightening thing to do, but it is not paraphrasing - it is just your way of expressing your own ideas, and that is fine. But you are deluding yourself if you think you are expressing "the same meaning" and, more importantly, you are misleading other readers when you claim that you are paraphrasing my remarks.
BTW: To anyone who ever takes a philosophy class: One of the primary skills you will need to demonstrate is the ability to read a philosopher and explain, accurately, what the philosopher is actually saying. Not what you want the philosopher to say, or what you think he should say, but what he actually says. Once you demonstrate that you understand the philosopher THEN (and only then) can you go on to analyze the philosopher's ideas - say what you agree with and disagree with and perhaps offer ways in which the philosopher could have said things better (i.e., clarify the writer's words). But if, at step #1 you fail to demonstrate that you understand the writer, you will fail the class.
And, on a related note: These internet forums are full of people talking passed one another - one or more people in the conversation completely failing to understand what the other is saying. In most cases, this failure follows from a lack of sincere effort to understand. It seems to me that most people in these controversial forums like politics and religion are frantic about asserting their own point of view, but utterly uninterested in sincerely listening to any contrary views. Their goal is to silence or humiliate those who hold contrary views, not listen or attempt to truly understand the other view. I'm not accusing Tza of this, but I am pointing out that this "pet peeve" of mine is lurking in the background of my mind, and might help explain why I'm going to such lengths to quibble over the correct use of the word 'paraphrase'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
