Satire/ridicule can also be about signalling to others (propaganda, even) and dealing with pomposity and establishment certainties.
I don't think people like Jonathan Swift were just about self-confirmation. (Not that I'm suggesting that all ridicule on here is for noble purposes or reaches any particular heights or doesn't just amount to rudeness (on both sides). But those who complain about it should maybe not use it themselves, as with rudeness).
You're right, of course.
If some of the ridicule on forums rose to the genius of Swift, it might seem less boorish.
Any, that's enough. It sunny, and I have a motorbike that is feeling neglected, and Wales is full of sheep that need a little excitement.
You're right, of course.
If some of the ridicule on forums rose to the genius of Swift, it might seem less boorish.
Any, that's enough. It sunny, and I have a motorbike that is feeling neglected, and Wales is full of sheep that need a little excitement.
It's good to see someone unembarrassed about his hobbies!
I don't think BatGirl was just deliberately trying to find a way to make religion look bad - I'm sure it's a genuine heartfelt belief for her.
But I think you may have highlighted important points. First that this is a worst case scenario - and I guess we could find worst case scenarios in all aspects of life; nationalism, politics, rationalism, maybe even science. I guess the counter argument for an atheist is that these are valuable things whereas religion is disposable with no adverse effect.
Secondly, that there is nothing in essence in religion creating abuse of fellow humans - and that without religion the abuse would remain with a different dressing. That's what my natural reaction is - but I was finding it harder to argue in this instance.
The problem is you can't pull the fangs of religion (by not allowing experiences of God) without denying it its essence - then it ceases to be.
I guess if you genuinely believe Religion is a major source of suffering in the world you must act to try to reduce that source. Any notion of a sanitised religion is a non starter. I guess I'm just reluctant to accept what that implies about our motives and roles as posters here and the ever diminishing amount of common ground.
Religion is not a major source of suffering in the world. People's behavior towards others is a major source of suffering in the world.
The logic of some nonbelievers is flawed on this point.
If there is no God, then God could not have caused people to act evilly toward each other.
So controlling behavior came from natural selection.
People then created religion ( a falsehood) as a way to control others and make them suffer.
If you take away the false religion, then people find another method to control others and make them suffer.
Dennett's is rather an extreme position, much criticised, e.g.:
~ John Searle
~ Raymond Tallis
(Searle is an agnostic philosopher, Tallis an atheist neuroscientist).
Yes I am aware he arouses criticism not sure why their stance on gods is pertinent.
On my central contention however I will use a brief version of one of his arguments.
If consciousness is not material in origin how does it command our actions? Thoughts become speech or fingers on a keyboard or flight from a predator. All such actions are mechanical and therefore must themselves be triggered by a mechanical cause. They cannot be triggered by something that does not possess physical energy Something that has no energy cannot move a physical object or we are defying the laws of physics.
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
― Albert Einstein
We experience consciousness but not the 'mechanisms' that give rise to it. It is therefore very difficult for us to make the connection but cut your hand and we have no problem seeing the connection between that and the pain because we can see the direct link between the physical and our feelings.
It's stuff all the way down; 2+2=4* ;-)
*Thanks for that KJ44 I have my motto if I had a coat of arms.
Yes I am aware he arouses criticism not sure why their stance on gods is pertinent.
On my central contention however I will use a brief version of one of his arguments.
If consciousness is not material in origin how does it command our actions? Thoughts become speech or fingers on a keyboard or flight from a predator. All such actions are mechanical and therefore must themselves be triggered by a mechanical cause. They cannot be triggered by something that does not possess physical energy Something that has no energy cannot move a physical object or we are defying the laws of physics.
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
― Albert Einstein
We experience consciousness but not the 'mechanisms' that give rise to it. It is therefore very difficult for us to make the connection but cut your hand and we have no problem seeing the connection between that and the pain because we can see the direct link between the physical and our feelings.
It's stuff all the way down; 2+2=4 ;-)
They are two entirely different concepts (that consciousness is material, or not).
In the hypothesis that consciousness extends beyond the brain, the brain is a receptor and filter for consciousness. Our left hemisphere ( although both work together) filters consciousness, controls input and converts consciousness into language.
There is no explanation that says consciousness extending beyond the brain is not possible.
There is no explanation that says consciousness extending beyond the brain is not possible.
That's a neat reversal of the burden of proof there. To support your premise, you need to provide evidential support for it. You are claiming that someone else has to do the legwork to prove that such a mechanism doesn't exist. Poor form.
To you obviously, but as you've delegated the work required to demonstrate your premise to someone else, perhaps you don't have the confidence to support what seems to you to be the case. Until you've done that, there's no way to differentiate your assertion from baseless opinion.
Yes I am aware he arouses criticism not sure why their stance on gods is pertinent.
On my central contention however I will use a brief version of one of his arguments.
If consciousness is not material in origin how does it command our actions? Thoughts become speech or fingers on a keyboard or flight from a predator. All such actions are mechanical and therefore must themselves be triggered by a mechanical cause. They cannot be triggered by something that does not possess physical energy Something that has no energy cannot move a physical object or we are defying the laws of physics.
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
― Albert Einstein
We experience consciousness but not the 'mechanisms' that give rise to it. It is therefore very difficult for us to make the connection but cut your hand and we have no problem seeing the connection between that and the pain because we can see the direct link between the physical and our feelings.
It's stuff all the way down; 2+2=4* ;-)
*Thanks for that KJ44 I have my motto if I had a coat of arms.
Does this mean you believe you are your body? - (though mostly the brain bit obviously) - and given it's the body moving energy or heat around do you like like Brian Cox consider us all heat engines? I find that a very unusual idea. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
PS.. This is one of the reasons I prefer a philosophical idealist approach to this matter. To be honest I think it's two sides of the same coin (both being monist) as I've said before.. but the difference is I get the opportunity to exist in a real way without the strings attached).
Yes I am aware he arouses criticism not sure why their stance on gods is pertinent.
Just to emphasise that this is a philosophical and scientific issue, not an issue between believers and non-believers (as this thread title would imply).
Searle goes into more detail on the nature of consciousness in this video clip:
So you feel that. 'ridiculing' will somehow change a believers mind on their beliefs?
I do hope so, yes. There's always the possibility a believer who isn't completely convinced will see how ridiculous their beliefs are and change their mind. But I do see how the reverse can be true for particularly bone headed believers who will find their beliefs strengthened by the ridicule of others.
If there was some way to easily and exactly compare our spiritual experiences, I'm sure you'd have had some which most would say fit the category and I'm sure some would want to restrict calling experiences 'spiritual' to a very small set of criteria. Can't be done, so anything really from comfortable self satisfaction after a good days work to full on in yer face absolute oneness (imho).
I agree about the chemistry, but I doubt you're wired differently. ;-)
Good point.
I remember watching a groundbreaking documentary by the BBC on the Great White Shark (my favourite animal on the planet) in 1995 and some of the footage made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Dan Dennett writes clearly and simply, which is how and why I agree with him. I know nothing of Tallis, and I don't like his writing style at all based upon your quote.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is a 2006 book by the American philosopher and cognitive scientist, Daniel Dennett, which argues for a scientific analysis of religion in order to predict the future of this phenomenon. Dennett implies that the spell he hopes to break is not religious belief itself, but the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry.
That's a neat reversal of the burden of proof there. To support your premise, you need to provide evidential support for it. You are claiming that someone else has to do the legwork to prove that such a mechanism doesn't exist. Poor form.
To you obviously, but as you've delegated the work required to demonstrate your premise to someone else, perhaps you don't have the confidence to support what seems to you to be the case. Until you've done that, there's no way to differentiate your assertion from baseless opinion.
Does this mean you believe you are your body? - (though mostly the brain bit obviously) - and given it's the body moving energy or heat around do you like like Brian Cox consider us all heat engines? I find that a very unusual idea. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
PS.. This is one of the reasons I prefer a philosophical idealist approach to this matter. To be honest I think it's two sides of the same coin (both being monist) as I've said before.. but the difference is I get the opportunity to exist in a real way without the strings attached).
Yea but you are one of those splitter, surrender monkey, Thing Monists; I am a Stuff Monist. We are the real thing. ;-):D
Seriously Q I think you probably have understood me correctly there. I would say that you calling other people's ideas unusual takes commendable front not to say nerve.
Yes I am aware he arouses criticism not sure why their stance on gods is pertinent.
On my central contention however I will use a brief version of one of his arguments.
If consciousness is not material in origin how does it command our actions? Thoughts become speech or fingers on a keyboard or flight from a predator. All such actions are mechanical and therefore must themselves be triggered by a mechanical cause. They cannot be triggered by something that does not possess physical energy Something that has no energy cannot move a physical object or we are defying the laws of physics.
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
― Albert Einstein
We experience consciousness but not the 'mechanisms' that give rise to it. It is therefore very difficult for us to make the connection but cut your hand and we have no problem seeing the connection between that and the pain because we can see the direct link between the physical and our feelings.
It's stuff all the way down; 2+2=4* ;-)
*Thanks for that KJ44 I have my motto if I had a coat of arms.
puting the mind-body problem to one side, conservation of energy was Joules & co. einstein was on about matter-energy equivalence.
Comments
You're right, of course.
If some of the ridicule on forums rose to the genius of Swift, it might seem less boorish.
Any, that's enough. It sunny, and I have a motorbike that is feeling neglected, and Wales is full of sheep that need a little excitement.
Religion is not a major source of suffering in the world. People's behavior towards others is a major source of suffering in the world.
The logic of some nonbelievers is flawed on this point.
If there is no God, then God could not have caused people to act evilly toward each other.
So controlling behavior came from natural selection.
People then created religion ( a falsehood) as a way to control others and make them suffer.
If you take away the false religion, then people find another method to control others and make them suffer.
So the fault must be in natural selection.
Yes I am aware he arouses criticism not sure why their stance on gods is pertinent.
On my central contention however I will use a brief version of one of his arguments.
If consciousness is not material in origin how does it command our actions? Thoughts become speech or fingers on a keyboard or flight from a predator. All such actions are mechanical and therefore must themselves be triggered by a mechanical cause. They cannot be triggered by something that does not possess physical energy Something that has no energy cannot move a physical object or we are defying the laws of physics.
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
― Albert Einstein
We experience consciousness but not the 'mechanisms' that give rise to it. It is therefore very difficult for us to make the connection but cut your hand and we have no problem seeing the connection between that and the pain because we can see the direct link between the physical and our feelings.
It's stuff all the way down; 2+2=4* ;-)
*Thanks for that KJ44 I have my motto if I had a coat of arms.
They are two entirely different concepts (that consciousness is material, or not).
In the hypothesis that consciousness extends beyond the brain, the brain is a receptor and filter for consciousness. Our left hemisphere ( although both work together) filters consciousness, controls input and converts consciousness into language.
There is no explanation that says consciousness extending beyond the brain is not possible.
It seems more likely than not.
That's a neat reversal of the burden of proof there. To support your premise, you need to provide evidential support for it. You are claiming that someone else has to do the legwork to prove that such a mechanism doesn't exist. Poor form.
To you obviously, but as you've delegated the work required to demonstrate your premise to someone else, perhaps you don't have the confidence to support what seems to you to be the case. Until you've done that, there's no way to differentiate your assertion from baseless opinion.
Does this mean you believe you are your body? - (though mostly the brain bit obviously) - and given it's the body moving energy or heat around do you like like Brian Cox consider us all heat engines? I find that a very unusual idea. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
PS.. This is one of the reasons I prefer a philosophical idealist approach to this matter. To be honest I think it's two sides of the same coin (both being monist) as I've said before.. but the difference is I get the opportunity to exist in a real way without the strings attached).
Just to emphasise that this is a philosophical and scientific issue, not an issue between believers and non-believers (as this thread title would imply).
Searle goes into more detail on the nature of consciousness in this video clip:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Can-Brain-Explain-Mind-John-Searle-/158
Partly, perhaps, but certainly not all. As a teacher you really should know that.
Just seen your reply to kimindex and I'll try to improve the quality of ridicule if I use it in future. Hope you enjoy(ed) your bike ride.
Good point.
I remember watching a groundbreaking documentary by the BBC on the Great White Shark (my favourite animal on the planet) in 1995 and some of the footage made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Awesome. :cool:
Dan Dennett writes clearly and simply, which is how and why I agree with him. I know nothing of Tallis, and I don't like his writing style at all based upon your quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon
Thanks gm and precisely.
*doffs cap* :cool:
Yea but you are one of those splitter, surrender monkey, Thing Monists; I am a Stuff Monist. We are the real thing. ;-):D
Seriously Q I think you probably have understood me correctly there. I would say that you calling other people's ideas unusual takes commendable front not to say nerve.
puting the mind-body problem to one side, conservation of energy was Joules & co. einstein was on about matter-energy equivalence.
I think the believers have to put up with a lot more stick on here though, to be fair.
Thanks noted.
Yes, there is something wrong.
Of course only people who don't have an opinion can have a valid opinion.