It seems almost a universal belief among atheists on the net (with some notable exceptions) that science has explained all of consciousness, reduced "mind" to an illusory nature, a side effect of brain chemistry. Atheists argue this fantasy from the stand point of the soul or the spirit, reducing dualistic aspects of religious thought to only the material realm, thus confirming their naturalism and eliminating what they see as privative religious thinking. The problem is, this is sheer fantasy. The atheist delusion that the whole of science accepts this conclusion as fact and as a matter of course is totally contradicted by the major physicists (Pennrose) and the Nobel Laureates who support many of the new forms of dualism or quantum versions of consciousness.
Atheists argue this issue on two grounds: (1) that there is no data of any kind whatsoever supporting any sort of soul or spirit; (2) that alterations to brain chemistry seem to alter consciousness in many ways. Thus they conclude that brain chemistry is what "mind" reduce to, and there is nothing more than that and there need be nothing more than that. To answer the first point first, what atheists have in mind on the issue of soul is something like Casper the friendly ghost. They seem to think that religious thinking has not advanced sufficiently to get past the vaper notion of a by gone era. But not all religious view points understand things in is way.
"Soul," in my parlance, is a veg term which is given no consistent use in the Bible. What emerges from the Biblical text most often is the idea that "soul" is a symbolic term referring to the over all life of the individual, especially with reference to the religious sphere, the telos of the individual's life goal, the after life. This is not to say that "soul" is what lives on, except in the symbolic sense. In other words, we do not have souls, we are souls. Thus the Bible speaks of a certain number of "souls" going down into Egypt, or we speak of "lost souls" and "saving souls."
It is Spirit that I think of as the thing that lives after death. Spirit is the "life force" in a metaphorical sense. Now this doesn't mean it's a mysterious energy, for I understand "spirit" in the way that Albert Schweitzer did, as mind: Spirit = mind. Mind is an immaterial aspect of brain which produces consciousness, self awareness, and that is what lives on after death. Of course the atheist will argue that the mind is a side effect of brain chemistry, below (page 3) I present a boat load of data to show that this is simply not the case. Mind transcends brain. Of course we should be prepared to assume that mind is produced by brain function, that is "caused" by having a brain; but just being caused by the brain doesn't mean that the mind is reduced to the brain. As for living without a brain, we are talking about a state of after life. Of course we shouldn't expect minds to go running around planet earth without brains while people are still alive, but in the state of after life, where one transcends the material, why not? Some Christians might raise the issue of "resurrection body," but when Jesus was still in the flesh, after the resurrection, he told Mary he had not yet ascended to the father, and implied that his body would be transformed. Paul says he was raised a life giving spirit; he doesn't say he was a life giving spirit immediately upon raising.So perhaps in the state of after life the "resurrection body" is pure spirit? That is to say, the resurrection body is pure mind; being taken up into God's presence the mind coheres through some divine measure we know not of? That seems like the simplest solution to consider to me.
As for the issue of brain chemistry and changing brain function changes consciousness, there is a problem here between correlation and causality. There is a very strong correlation between brain damage and changes of consciousness, but there is no way to prove that this is because the mind is reduce able to the brain. If the mind is dependent upon the brain as a soft ware package is dependent upon hardware, then of course damaging the hard ware would make the soft ware inaccessible, but it would not mean that soft are is reduceable to hardware.
This idea always leaves atheists cold and usually they just ignore it on message boards. But it really does answer all the problems connected with belief in life after death and soul. It is not an entity that lives separately from the body. Its' the symbol of the over all life in relation to God. Mind is spirit, this means there is no Casper like aspect of humans that lives on after death. Mind may or may not live on after death, but as mind and we can ponder "resurrection body" another time. This makes after life something of a physical thing. If we are ideas in the mind of God this is not hard to understand. All God need to do so save our maind matrix is just think about it adhering
.
24 comments:
I take objection to your "reductionist" terminology in reference to naturalists' understanding of the human mind. It is your assumption that we subtract something from the reality. On the contrary, it is you who insists on adding something that exists only in your imagination. You don't have to tell me that the soul is not like Casper. That is the vision you have, or that you want to project on others, because a ghost is equated with the spirit in the minds of many, and that has long been a common view held by Christians. But not for naturalists, because we are well aware that there are no ghosts. There are no spirits that are separable from the physical body. Our view is not reductionist. Your view adds something more that doesn't exist in the physical world. Something that can't be detected or known. Something that is purely imaginary. And you can quote all the bible verses you want. It doesn't make it real.
ig you think I push an idea of the soul as a little ghost like Casper then you have not read my article. That i the view I argue against. My view od closer to a naturalist, except that I think consciousness lives after death, But it's not a ghost. Please read my stuff if you are going to argue with it.
I understand you argue against it. But it IS the view you are trying to project on atheists.
Np I think most atheist think that is the view of most Christians and they are probably right, if they think that they should. It's not the right view,
"what atheists have in mind on the issue of soul is something like Casper the friendly ghost.
That's what you said. That is projecting the common Christian view on atheists.
"The atheist delusion that the whole of science accepts this conclusion as fact and as a matter of course is totally contradicted by the major physicists (Pennrose) and the Nobel Laureates who support many of the new forms of dualism or quantum versions of consciousness."
You are mistaken about quantum consciousness as a form of dualism. It is purely physical, and makes no claims about any kind of entity (which you might call a "soul") that survives the death of the body. If you want to call that dualism, it does not match the usual philosophical definition of dualism, which is accepted by all Christians, and which definitely is non-scientific, even in the view of people like Roger Penrose.
im-skeptical said...
"what atheists have in mind on the issue of soul is something like Casper the friendly ghost.
That's what you said. That is projecting the common Christian view on atheists.
you denied that atheist think christens believe in ghost-in-the-machine? I think mot Christians do think that
3:13 PM
im-skeptical said...
"The atheist delusion that the whole of science accepts this conclusion as fact and as a matter of course is totally contradicted by the major physicists (Pennrose) and the Nobel Laureates who support many of the new forms of dualism or quantum versions of consciousness."
You are mistaken about quantum consciousness as a form of dualism. It is purely physical, and makes no claims about any kind of entity (which you might call a "soul") that survives the death of the body. If you want to call that dualism, it does not match the usual philosophical definition of dualism, which is accepted by all Christians, and which definitely is non-scientific, even in the view of people like Roger Penrose.
first there's no proof that isnt a spiritual quality. Secondly there doesn't have to be to have afterlife all you need is God. He can transfere physical
consciousness to another receptacle.
3:44 PM
"you denied that atheist think christens believe in ghost-in-the-machine?"
- NO. I said it is the common Christian view. You said it is the atheist delusion. I disagree. It is the Christian delusion. Your argument is with them, not with atheists.
"first there's no proof that isnt a spiritual quality."
- There is no proof of quantum consciousness of any kind. But Penrose was NOT postulating consciousness as a non-physical phenomenon, as would be consistent with dualism, which refers to two kinds of stuff: the material body and the immaterial mind. Quantum does not imply immaterial.
"Secondly there doesn't have to be to have afterlife all you need is God. He can transfere physical
consciousness to another receptacle."
- That IS an afterlife. Christians believe that the soul lives on, regardless of what kind of "receptacle" it may or may not occupy. And that is not what Penrose was talking about.
im-skeptical said...
"you denied that atheist think christens believe in ghost-in-the-machine?"
- NO. I said it is the common Christian view. You said it is the atheist delusion. I disagree. It is the Christian delusion. Your argument is with them, not with atheists.
No I said the delusion is thinking consciousness is just a side effect of brain chemistry.
"first there's no proof that isnt a spiritual quality."
- There is no proof of quantum consciousness of any kind. But Penrose was NOT postulating consciousness as a non-physical phenomenon, as would be consistent with dualism, which refers to two kinds of stuff: the material body and the immaterial mind. Quantum does not imply immaterial.
there a lot of different kimdsf dualism, but your opposition to it is ideological
"Secondly there doesn't have to be to have afterlife all you need is God. He can transfere physical
consciousness to another receptacle."
- That IS an afterlife. Christians believe that the soul lives on, regardless of what kind of "receptacle" it may or may not occupy. And that is not what Penrose was talking about.
Not necessarily Paul talked about resurrection body.
8:05 PM
"No I said the delusion is thinking consciousness is just a side effect of brain chemistry. "
- The delusion is in thinking that a conscious entity (whether you call it a mind or a soul or Casper the ghost or a spirit or some kind of personal being) can live outside the body and exist after the death of the body. Science is completely united in this. Penrose postulates "quantum consciousness" as a physical phenomenon, but not mind/body dualism.
"there a lot of different kimdsf dualism, but your opposition to it is ideological"
- There is a philosophical concept of mind/body dualism. That's what I'm referring to. It is the idea that mind is separate from the body. The concept has been around for a long time, and it is the basis for religious belief in the eternal soul that endures after the death of the body. It is a religious ideology. I am not opposed to it. I just don't believe it, because there is not a single shred of evidence or scientific support support that belief. It is a fantasy.
"Not necessarily Paul talked about resurrection body."
- So what? Paul spoke about the soul being embodied in something, whether it is physical or spiritual. I think many scholars think Paul was talking about a spiritual body. But it doesn't matter. It's still a soul that lives on after the human body dies. It's the religious fantasy of eternal life.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Joe: "No I said the delusion is thinking consciousness is just a side effect of brain chemistry. "
- The delusion is in thinking that a conscious entity (whether you call it a mind or a soul or Casper the ghost or a spirit or some kind of personal being) can live outside the body and exist after the death of the body.
I was refurring to my useof theter because you took it wrong.
Science is completely united in this. Penrose postulates "quantum consciousness" as a physical phenomenon, but not mind/body dualism.
Not true there scientists who believe in life after death. their unity in its ideology not scientific, there is no proof, it's ideology. The foundation of the ideology is philosophical materialism everything to fall in line.
"there a lot of different kinds of dualism, but your opposition to it is ideological"
- There is a philosophical concept of mind/body dualism. That's what I'm referring to. It is the idea that mind is separate from the body. The concept has been around for a long time, and it is the basis for religious belief in the eternal soul that endures after the death of the body. It is a religious ideology. I am not opposed to it. I just don't believe it, because there is not a single shred of evidence or scientific support support that belief. It is a fantasy.
I know all about mind/body dualism. You doing the genetic fallacy, you label it with a label that means ideologically uncool then it has to go. i have demonstrated how life after death can be materialistic so we don't need mind body dualism.
Joe: "Not necessarily Paul talked about resurrection body."
- So what? Paul spoke about the soul being embodied in something, whether it is physical or spiritual. I think many scholars think Paul was talking about a spiritual body. But it doesn't matter. It's still a soul that lives on after the human body dies. It's the religious fantasy of eternal life.
what Paul said works just as well wit physical consciousness and a new body. Your little ideology will not permit you to even consider the idea of spirit, but you have no proof what's out there in the netherworld, In the book God and th new Physics Paul Davies, who was still an atheist at that time, said that physical consciousness' could be transferred from the brain to another receptacle if you could persevere the electrical patters of the firing over synapses. That would be version of afterlife that would not require mind body dualism. Paul says resurrection body is spiritual but it doesn't have to be
I am not saying that's what will happen but it is important see that your categories are not the only one's/ There are alternatives you have not considered.
7:28 AM Delete
"there scientists who believe in life after death. their unity in its ideology not scientific"
- Yes, there are scientists who have unscientific religious beliefs. It's a strange way yo go through life, believing things that are so at odds with one another. They have to shut down half of their brain while they listen to the other half.
"You doing the genetic fallacy, you label it with a label that means ideologically uncool then it has to go."
- I didn't say anything has to go. I said I don't believe it, based on available evidence.
"i have demonstrated how life after death can be materialistic so we don't need mind body dualism. "
- You have demonstrated no such thing. Life after death is necessarily non-materialistic, because it depends on something non-physical (the conscious entity that lives after death). If consciousness is physical, then it dies when the body dies. There is no physical entity that is plucked from one body and transferred into another.
"what Paul said works just as well wit physical consciousness and a new body."
- How is this physical consciousness moved to another body? It's a ridiculous idea.
"Your little ideology will not permit you to even consider the idea of spirit"
- A spirit is by definition non-physical. It is separate from the physical body. That's not my little ideology. It's what people have always meant by the concept of a spirit. I don't understand how you can try to make it into a physical thing, especially in light of the fact that science deals with physical things, but you admitted that belief in a spirit is not scientific. That's right, because spirit isn't a physical thing.
"In the book God and th new Physics Paul Davies, who was still an atheist at that time, said that physical consciousness' could be transferred from the brain to another receptacle if you could persevere the electrical patters of the firing over synapses"
- It is conceivable that consciousness could be replicated in a different body. But consciousness is not an entity that can be picked up and moved. It is a process. It is emergent from the electro-chemical activity of the brain. And it requires that the physical brain (along with all the bodily connections that provide inputs) would have to be exactly duplicated in order to produce any kind of continuity of consciousness. That is essentially impossible, because a different body wouldn't exactly match the original one, so the electrical patterns wouldn't be duplicated. Without the original brain, all the stored memory and experience of a lifetime would be lost. Those things could only be replicated by living the same life in the same body.
"There are alternatives you have not considered. "
- What a shame that you refuse to consider a non-religious perspective on reality.
there scientists who believe in life after death. their unity in its ideology not scientific"
- Yes, there are scientists who have unscientific religious beliefs. It's a strange way yo go through life, believing things that are so at odds with one another. They have to shut down half of their brain while they listen to the other half.
That implies that atheism is scientific It's not. Show me a scientific proof that science is the only valid for of knowledge.
"You doing the genetic fallacy, you label it with a label that means ideologically uncool then it has to go."
- I didn't say anything has to go. I said I don't believe it, based on available evidence.
You seem to think dualism is wrong qua dualism. just labeling an idea dualistic proves it's wrong. or makes it wrong? That's ideology not science
"i have demonstrated how life after death can be materialistic so we don't need mind body dualism. "
- You have demonstrated no such thing. Life after death is necessarily non-materialistic, because it depends on something non-physical (the conscious entity that lives after death). If consciousness is physical, then it dies when the body dies. There is no physical entity that is plucked from one body and transferred into another.
Paul Davies when he was still an atheist said that you could transfer the patters of neurons firing over the synapse then you could transfer consciousness from human body to robot or whatever.
"what Paul said works just as well with physical consciousness and a new body."
- How is this physical consciousness moved to another body? It's a ridiculous idea.
God specializes in ridiculous ideas. I got that from a thought experiment from the book God and the New physics, by Paul Davies.
"Your little ideology will not permit you to even consider the idea of spirit"
- A spirit is by definition non-physical. It is separate from the physical body. That's not my little ideology. It's what people have always meant by the concept of a spirit.
Yes I know that. My not to believe in physical after life but that your horror of spirituality is not scientific but ideological
I don't understand how you can try to make it into a physical thing, especially in light of the fact that science deals with physical things, but you admitted that belief in a spirit is not scientific. That's right, because spirit isn't a physical thing.
I think what that example proves is that we don't need to think of humans as possessed of a ghost in the machine. Our physical consciousness can be preserved, assuming of course someone knew how. I amuse God does. so we don't need to think of after life as being a ghost.
"In the book God and th new Physics Paul Davies, who was still an atheist at that time, said that physical consciousness' could be transferred from the brain to another receptacle if you could persevere the electrical patters of the firing over synapses"
You:
- It is conceivable that consciousness could be replicated in a different body. But consciousness is not an entity that can be picked up and moved. It is a process. It is emergent from the electro-chemical activity of the brain. And it requires that the physical brain (along with all the bodily connections that provide inputs) would have to be exactly duplicated in order to produce any kind of continuity of consciousness. That is essentially impossible, because a different body wouldn't exactly match the original one, so the electrical patterns wouldn't be duplicated.
God could create that in a resurrection body. Or he could just make it stay together. My point is that no scientific reality disproves God. No scientific reality makes it necessary to abandon Christian doctrine.
Without the original brain, all the stored memory and experience of a lifetime would be lost. Those things could only be replicated by living the same life in the same body.
only if you can't replicate the same pattern
"There are alternatives you have not considered. "
- What a shame that you refuse to consider a non-religious perspective on reality.
I was an atheist, I know that is a Schock to your world view really was. When I graduated high school My former Sunday school class went to the Grand Canyon. The youth minister let me make a talk and told them there was no God and defended evolution I shot down all the guy's arguments. He was mad and embarrassed and hurt. I felt a little bad for him but he did say I could talk about my true beliefs. He didn't know I was a tournament debater.
"Show me a scientific proof that science is the only valid for of knowledge. "
- You know (or should know) perfectly well that this is a question of epistemology. My position that valid knowledge is supported by objective evidence.
"You seem to think dualism is wrong qua dualism. just labeling an idea dualistic proves it's wrong. or makes it wrong? That's ideology not science"
- Again, it's a question of epistemology. Mind/body dualism claims that mind (or soul) is made of non-physical stuff of some kind. I say there is no objective evidence to support that.
"Paul Davies when he was still an atheist said that you could transfer the patters of neurons firing over the synapse then you could transfer consciousness from human body to robot or whatever. "
- Let's get this straight. Davies was an atheist when he wrote the book "God and the New Physics", which purports to offer a "path to divinity" through science. Sorry, Joe, but those are the words of a religionist, targeted to a religious audience. And I don't see the scientific community jumping on the bandwagon.
https://books.google.com/books/about/God_and_the_New_Physics.html?id=JRtnPMMjH7AC
"God specializes in ridiculous ideas."
- Correction: People who believe in God specialize in ridiculous ideas. God doesn't whisper in anyone's ear.
"My not to believe in physical after life but that your horror of spirituality is not scientific but ideological"
- Eternal life is not a horror. It's a fantasy.
"Our physical consciousness can be preserved, assuming of course someone knew how. I amuse God does. so we don't need to think of after life as being a ghost."
- The concept of a ghost is a fundamentally religious idea. Consciousness is a bodily function. In order to preserve it, you need to preserve the body. The SAME body.
"God could create that in a resurrection body. Or he could just make it stay together. My point is that no scientific reality disproves God. No scientific reality makes it necessary to abandon Christian doctrine"
- If God exits, perhaps he could do that. But it's a fantasy. My point to you is that wanting it to be true doesn't make it so.
"I was an atheist, I know that is a Schock to your world view really was."
- So were a great many internet apologists. It appears to be a badge of honor for religionists to claim that they were once atheists. You can claim that you understand the atheists' position. But you don't. You never had a true philosophical/scientific understanding of it. You can echo some of their words, but you never really understood them in depth. You're like a kid who says "Yeah, I tried the two-wheeler, but it didn't work very well. I know my tricycle is better."
MC: God could create that in a resurrection body. Or he could just make it stay together. My point is that no scientific reality disproves God. No scientific reality makes it necessary to abandon Christian doctrine.
A vaguely articulated God with unknown and unmeasurable properties can be claimed to be able to do anything that accommodates the maintenance of Christian doctrine.
God is an unfalsifiable proposition.
A vaguely articulated God with unknown and unmeasurable properties can be claimed to be able to do anything that accommodates the maintenance of Christian doctrine.
God is an unfalsifiable proposition.
Atheists seem to want a mug shot of God with a set of fingerprints. Something like that. I think we can have falsification but you to take argument by argument. In other words, you cannot falsify the existence of God but you can falsify the arguments for God's existence.
im-skeptical said...
Joe: "Show me a scientific proof that science is the only valid for of knowledge. "
skep:- You know (or should know) perfectly well that this is a question of epistemology. My position that valid knowledge is supported by objective evidence.
sure but what you mean by "objective evidence" is scientific evidence. That means you will disregard purely logical evidence
Joe: "You seem to think dualism is wrong qua dualism. just labeling an idea dualistic proves it's wrong. or makes it wrong? That's ideology not science"
- Again, it's a question of epistemology. Mind/body dualism claims that mind (or soul) is made of non-physical stuff of some kind. I say there is no objective evidence to support that.
That means philosophical or logical evidence will be disregarded evidence that yields data and is amenable to scientific refutation is acceptable.
"Paul Davies when he was still an atheist said that you could transfer the patters of neurons firing over the synapse then you could transfer consciousness from human body to robot or whatever. "
- Let's get this straight. Davies was an atheist when he wrote the book "God and the New Physics", which purports to offer a "path to divinity" through science. Sorry, Joe, but those are the words of a religionist, targeted to a religious audience. And I don't see the scientific community jumping on the bandwagon.
i was an atheist when I read that book. If it said anything like that, I would have heard alarm bells. Give me e page number?
https://books.google.com/books/about/God_and_the_New_Physics.html?id=JRtnPMMjH7AC
It says that in a book add. it might be a revised edition. it did not say when I read it which was 1975 or so. You totally ignore the point being made.
"God specializes in ridiculous ideas."
- Correction: People who believe in God specialize in ridiculous ideas. God doesn't whisper in anyone's ear.
YES HE DOES sorry to break it to you he has to me
"My not to believe in physical after life but that your horror of spirituality is not scientific but ideological"
- Eternal life is not a horror. It's a fantasy.
I was an atheist; I know you are whistling in the dark
"Our physical consciousness can be preserved, assuming of course someone knew how. I amuse God does. so we don't need to think of after life as being a ghost."
- The concept of a ghost is a fundamentally religious idea. Consciousness is a bodily function. In order to preserve it, you need to preserve the body. The SAME body.
you are begging the question. There could be a core consciousness not dependent upon brain. Or as I said above God could keep the electrical patter together.
5:30 PM Delete
"God could create that in a resurrection body. Or he could just make it stay together. My point is that no scientific reality disproves God. No scientific reality makes it necessary to abandon Christian doctrine"
- If God exits, perhaps he could do that. But it's a fantasy. My point to you is that wanting it to be true doesn't make it so.
so many of your arguments are begging the question.
"I was an atheist, I know that is a Schock to your world view really was."
- So were a great many internet apologists. It appears to be a badge of honor for religionists to claim that they were once atheists. You can claim that you understand the atheists' position. But you don't.
You have to deny my experience because it disproves your BS. It is BS. I was an atheist; you can't change it. I hated religion I argued them constantly I had shouting matches with my parents I gave them heart breaking deny it. I disprove your nonsense.
You never had a true philosophical/scientific understanding of it. You can echo some of their words, but you never really understood them in depth.
Nietzsche
The most notable atheists, those thought to be the great thinkers (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Twain) were not scientific. That you seem to think atheists have to be scientific tells me my suspicion is correct science serves as region for you.
You're like a kid who says "Yeah, I tried the two-wheeler, but it didn't work very well. I know my tricycle is better."
Yes that is apparently the only way you can think about it, hooray for our side!
"That means you will disregard purely logical evidence"
- You are confused as to what evidence is. Logic is used in making arguments. If the logic isn't valid, the argument is worthless. But arguments also require evidence to back the assumptions made. You can use perfectly valid logic with faulty premises, and your argument is still worthless. It is evidence that backs up your logical argument. Logic alone is NOT evidence.
"i was an atheist when I read that book. If it said anything like that, I would have heard alarm bells."
- But it did ring bells for you. You are treating it as evidence for God, and making the fallacy of argument from authority. The only reason that book appeals to you is because you see it as confirmation of your beliefs - not atheist beliefs but religious beliefs. And as I said before, you have always been a religionist, even when you called yourself an atheist. Davies merits little respect in the scientific community because his arguments are NOT scientific. They appeal to religionists.
"It says that in a book add. it might be a revised edition. it did not say when I read it which was 1975 or so. You totally ignore the point being made. "
- NO. YOU ignore the point. It isn't scientific evidence of God.
"YES HE DOES sorry to break it to you he has to me"
- So you hear God speaking to you? That's a delusion. The voices in your head are of your own making.
"I was an atheist; I know you are whistling in the dark"
- You keep saying that, as if it proves something. I believed in God. So there.
"There could be a core consciousness not dependent upon brain. Or as I said above God could keep the electrical patter together."
- You are talking about possibilities, not reality. Wanting something to be true does not make it so.
"so many of your arguments are begging the question."
- In philosophy, begging the question is defined a assuming the conclusion. That's what your arguments do. You always assume God. But note that I have NEVER presented an argument against the existence of God. I only try to refute your assumptions.
"I was an atheist; you can't change it. I hated religion"
- That proves you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand an atheist's mindset. It's not based on hating religion, which is just your religionist mindset speaking. I am not at war with religion. I don't hate religion. It's all about belief based on evidence. You just don't get that. You never did. It was never your atheist mindset.
"The most notable atheists, those thought to be the great thinkers (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Twain) were not scientific"
- For someone who is so at war against scientific thinking, you take a very hypocritical stance. Your own opus magnum claims to use science to support your your religious beliefs. So you're happy with it as long as you think it works in your favor. And I find it interesting who you choose to designate as the "most notable atheists". Those who haven't presented a strong evidence-based case for atheism, as far as you know.
"Yes that is apparently the only way you can think about it, hooray for our side! "
- Rather than learning to ride the bicycle, you just stick to your tricycle, and labor under the delusion that it is superior.
- But it did ring bells for you. You are treating it as evidence for God, and making the fallacy of argument from authority.
You fear Davies he destroys your world view. a respected scientist who believes in God and argues for God. That frightening for you.. You have no idea what that book means to me. You haven't read it that's pretty obvious.
The only reason that book appeals to you is because you see it as confirmation of your beliefs - not atheist beliefs but religious beliefs.
You have no idea why it appeals to me. you know nothing about me but your world view is flagging.
And as I said before, you have always been a religionist, even when you called yourself an atheist. Davies merits little respect in the scientific community because his arguments are NOT scientific. They appeal to religionists.
Here is how worthkess Google says Davies work is: "His notable contributions are the so-called Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect, according to which an observer accelerating through empty space will be subject to a bath of induced thermal radiation, and the Bunch–Davies vacuum state, often used as the basis for explaining the fluctuations in the Cosmic microwave background ..."
I know why you have to deny that a "real" atheists can find God. Your world view is based the need to feel superior. You get that feeling from the idea that being an atheist is a sign that you are smarter than all those Christians, that makes you special. If a real atheist can be dissuaded from atheism, then it's such a special thing, it doesn't make you smart.
You totally got it backwards about the book. I don't think it's evidence for God. Quite the contrary it's a road block (or rather a hurdle) it shows things that make belief in God outmoded and have to be dealt with to have an up to date understanding of the world. Otherwise belief in God is just contrary to scientific fact. I read it on that basis.
I overcame the book by rethinking the concept of God and incorporating my position vis the book. It is helpful in documenting certain things.
I had my born-again experience in 1979, Easter or there about. At some point in the remainder of the year I read that book. I don't even remember much of it.
Hey I', 67 that was almost 50 years ago,
Post a Comment