Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[ding]

Most atheists if not all atheists I know believe in good and evil, in morality, in there being value in helping each other, doing good for others. Many are generous people who help others when it's hard and even miserable for them and do it out of the kindness of their heart. It's important to do the right thing during this limited time we're here in this world, it's all that really matters. But I'm sorry, that really has naught all to do with belief in a God, for any of us.

To satisfy material needs and primitive instincts. Right and wrong is a human construct. As such it can be anything humans deem it to be.

 

[ding]

I have known atheists who don't believe inngood and evil and who think there's value in being like animals but they're truly idiots. Living a life without empathy and compassion, it's almost the same as being dead.

Sounds like you are making a religious argument. That you recognize a higher calling for man that the mere satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts cannot satisfy.

Congratulations!!!! You have just proved the existence of God.

 

[john54]

I don't mean to insult them and I don't see how they would feel insulted. It's just a consequence of believing that only the material exists. There's no spiritualism in atheism. Right and wrong have no absolute meaning in atheism. It can be anything society determines it to be for the good of the society whose only aim should be the satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts because that's all there is in life; material needs and primitive instincts. Anything more is like believing in Santa Clause, right?

I don't know if what we are, our consciousnesses or beings or whatever, are ultimately just synapses in the brain, or if there's an as-of-yet-not-understood effect at play, such as quantum, which has some evidence for it. But even if we are just molecules doing their thing, uh so? It's critically important that we be good to each other.

There would seem to be some element to our psychology, an element I wouldn't want to lose, that makes it utterly paramount that we not become evil bastards. Most all of us naturally feel empathy and have a sense of right and wrong.

But it's more than just pleasure. It's a compelling feeling that requires it, though we can ignore it.

 

[john54]

Sounds like you are making a religious argument. That you recognize a higher calling for man that the mere satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts cannot satisfy.

Congratulations!!!! You have just proved the existence of God.

I do recognize a figurative higher calling. Why do you need it to be a God though? Would it be so bad if it was something we evolved?

 

[ding]

I don't know if what we are, our consciousnesses or beings or whatever, are ultimately just synapses in the brain, or if there's an as-of-yet-not-understood effect at play, such as quantum, which has some evidence for it. But even if we are just molecules doing their thing, uh so? It's critically important that we be good to each other.

There would seem to be some element to our psychology, an element I wouldn't want to lose, that makes it utterly paramount that we not become evil bastards. Most all of us naturally feel empathy and have a sense of right and wrong.

But it's more than just pleasur

You've been arguing that man is more than just matter for 15 minutes now. That's good enough for me. My work here is done.

 

[john54]

You've been arguing that man is more than just matter for 15 minutes now. That's good enough for me. My work here is done.

Well run away if you want but just like that extra matter in the early universe is probably going to be understood soon, the wiring in our brains that compel us to be kind and compassionate, have empathy, and act in accordance with deep senses of what's right will probably also be fleshed out by neuroscientists.

 

[john54]

You've been arguing that man is more than just matter for 15 minutes now. That's good enough for me. My work here is done.

If you really don't want it to be all material, would it be all right with you if it turned out to be quantum, the part that compels us to be good?

 

[ding]

I do recognize a figurative higher calling. Why do you need it to be a God though? Would it be so bad if it was something we evolved?

It's your perception of God that is preventing you from accepting the G-word. You can't reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT. So don't. Set it aside. It's getting in your way.

 

[ding]

Well run away if you want but just like that extra matter in the early universe is probably going to be found soon, the wiring in our brains that compel us to be kind and compassionate, have empathy, and act in accordance with deep senses of what's right will probably also be fleshed out by neuroscientists.

I'm good with you seeing it that way.

 

[ding]

If you really don't want it to be all material, would it be all right with you if it turned out to be quantum, the part that compels us to be good?

Didn't I already address this?

The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is physicists who have expressed most clearly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality." If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. Mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

If you really don't want it to be all material

Me? You're the one who has been arguing that you are more than just matter for over 15 minutes.

 

[john54]

Didn't I already address this?

The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is physicists who have expressed most clearly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality." If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. Mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Yes, I read that. I've also read that nothing has been proven yet with regards to whether consciousness is actually quantum. The observer effect experiments inherently can't have their results observed without us observing them and affecting causality, so we don't know whether non-living stuff can also produce this "observer effect" or if it's something unique to consciousness.

You're as eager to tie this to a God as with baryogenesis. What will you do if both get proven to be the results of natural processes?

 

[john54]

Me? You're the one who has been arguing that you are more than just matter for over 15 minutes.

It's the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one's around to hear it does it make a sound" question, which incidentally someone set a recorder up to test and it did make a sound.

It may not be all about us humans.

 

[expat_panama]

I'm not arguing with you or John54 for that matter. I'm just offering food for thought. Honest men can have honest differences of opinions. I'm a huge fan of diversity of thought because that's how objective truth is arrived at; different opinions and ideas fighting it out. But that doesn't mean the men and women who hold those different opinions and ideas have to fight it out or be disrespectful to each other just because they hold different beliefs.

So yeah... we are preaching from the same hymnal, so to speak.

Thanks for ur thoughts & I'm grateful for the interchange. Please understand that I'd never want anything I posted to sound like I wanted to "fight it out or be disrespectful".

 

[DudleySmith]

I don't know if what we are, our consciousnesses or beings or whatever, are ultimately just synapses in the brain, or if there's an as-of-yet-not-understood effect at play, such as quantum, which has some evidence for it. But even if we are just molecules doing their thing, uh so? It's critically important that we be good to each other.

There would seem to be some element to our psychology, an element I wouldn't want to lose, that makes it utterly paramount that we not become evil bastards. Most all of us naturally feel empathy and have a sense of right and wrong.

But it's more than just pleasure. It's a compelling feeling that requires it, though we can ignore it.

Google up 'Is Religion Hardwired Into The Brain'?' It obviously is, and it serves a very real survival function, another reason sensible atheists can be fine with advanced theologies like Christianity and also have no problems with banning pagan cults that are obviously harmful and stupid. No need to conflate them all with the worst examples.

Do you think it is just dumb luck that the West adopted Christianity to some extent, but that played no part in its advances and current prosperity relative to the rest of the planet? Do you not see the decline in that religion's belief and the current slide downward? The WASP work ethic in particular and the moral and legal framework it ideally promoted is actually a measurable economic fact. It's decline is also having a measurable economic and social impact for the worse.

The rise of 'rational constructionist' fads has only mass murders and slavery as 'solutions' to all economic and social problems, i.e. some choice between mindless hedonism and Marxist dystopias, both of which are really just distinctions without a difference in end results for the mass of humans.

 

[ding]

Yes, I read that. I've also read that nothing has been proven yet with regards to whether consciousness is actually quantum. The observer effect experiments inherently can't have their results observed without us observing them and affecting causality, so we don't know whether non-living stuff can also produce this "observer effect" or if it's something unique to consciousness.

You're as eager to tie this to a God as with baryogenesis. What will you do if both get proven to be the results of natural processes?

Actually I am sharing my perception of God. Which is "Mind." "Consciousness without form." I thought I was being clear. The physical world is composed of mind stuff. It's the constant presence of mind which created a life breeding universe so that beings that know and create would arise.

My perception of "Mind" or "Consciousness without form" or God, if you will, is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness, infinite goodness and every other extant reality of existence. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They don't exist. They only exist as the negation of the attribute that does exist. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.

What's the perception of God that YOU looked for? Because that's where you erred.

 

[ding]

It's the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one's around to hear it does it make a sound" question, which incidentally someone set a recorder up to test and it did make a sound.

It may not be all about us humans.

I never said it was about us humans. It's about beings that know and create. I suspect where ever intelligence arises it will share common attributes with humans because those attributes are requisites for the logical complexification of living things progressing to beings that know and create such that the universe is made manifest and becomes self aware.

 

[john54]

Actually I am sharing my perception of God. Which is "Mind." "Consciousness without form." I thought I was being clear. The physical world is composed of mind stuff. It's the constant presence of mind which created a life breeding universe so that beings that know and create would arise.

My perception of "Mind" or "Consciousness without form" or God, if you will, is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness, infinite goodness and every other extant reality of existence. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They don't exist. They only exist as the negation of the attribute that does exist. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.

What's the perception of God that YOU looked for? Because that's where you erred.

Sounds like you're a pretty out-there Christian...not that that's the worst thing. Its better than literalism, I think. But why do you need the christian bible for any of this? You have
1. A hypothesis about mind and the universe which may or may not have merit, that has nothing to do with the Bible
2. You think it's related to these traits you're denominating as infinite that has nothing to do with the Bible


Why even call it God? And even if you want to, why give undue credit to the Bible, an ancient primitive attempt at explaining where light, earth, the sky and ocean come from by people who knew of nothing else, and an early b- attempt at constructing a moral framework (it doesn't even condemn pedophilia and gambling).

You're coming up with better ideas at least than Christianity. Why give those ancient writers credit for hypotheses you're making based on at least some scientific basis? They're your ideas, not theirs.

 

[ding]

Sounds like you're a pretty out-there Christian...not that that's the worst thing. Its better than literalism, I think. But why do you need the christian bible for any of this? You have
1. A hypothesis about mind and the universe which may or may not have merit, that has nothing to do with the Bible
2. You think it's related to these traits you're denominating as infinite that has nothing to do with the Bible


Why even call it God? And even if you want to, why give undue credit to the Bible, an ancient primitive attempt at explaining where light, earth, the sky and ocean come from by people who knew of nothing else, and an early b- attempt at constructing a moral framework (it doesn't even condemn pedophilia and gambling).

You're coming up with better ideas at least than Christianity. Why give those ancient writers credit for hypotheses you're making based on at least some scientific basis? They're your ideas, not theirs.

I'm a Catholic. There's nothing blasphemous about what I wrote. It's your perception of God, religion and the Bible that is in error. My beliefs are 100% consistent with all three and are based upon all three. Only a young child would equate God to Santa Clause like you do. God is a little more complex than that.

 

[ding]

Thanks for ur thoughts & I'm grateful for the interchange. Please understand that I'd never want anything I posted to sound like I wanted to "fight it out or be disrespectful".

I never took it that way.