Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

Yes, I think you are seeing one of the difficulties here. See my post above for Dr. Pim Van Lommel's take.Dennis

Hey Crash,

quote:

---

The fact that morals are baseless means we need to act more moral, not less. We have an even greater responsibility to our fellow man because there's no deity ensuring universal justice. There's just us.

---

What would this acting "more moral" look like? Why should we feel any responsibilty for anyone? Everyone is doomed, the universe is doomed, what outcome are we striving for? To feel better about ourselves in the here and now?

There is a continuity of experience and to a lesser extent of personality. These would seem more important to me than the physical makeup of the brain - which I regard as being of very low importance. While we do sometimes grant that long term personality change may be enough to consider the person involved "different" I see no reason to adopt any more radical view as you suggest. And sicne we do not grant that small replacements are sufficient to change the idnetity of inanimate objects why should we adopt a radically different view for humans ?Ansd what does your "True Self" add ? What makes it qualify as a "self" if it is not physical identity or memory or personality ? So far as I can tell it doesn't contribute to identity in any meaningful way.Moreover sicne the article you quoted indicated onlt that SOME new cells are generated in some parts of the brain your claim that all cells will be replaced in seven years is false. You do not even have a timescle for replacement of the parts of the brain that are affected - or even evidence that they are ever completly replaced.So far as I can see you have no grounds for your idea that there is the sort of complete change that would justify considering a person completely different (at least not without very unusual circumstances) nor any reason to beleive that there can be a "True Self" which continues identity in any meaningful way. It seems to be just another convenient assumption - but onw which cannot be meaningfully true.On to NDE's. Since I do not grant that anyone undergoing an NDE does see a doctor working on them I can only repeat that blindness makes no difference to my view. I am not ignoring the anecdotal CLAIMS of verification - I simply do not consider them to be significant evidence. I knwo that attempts at controlled experiments ("planting" things to be "seen") but I have never heard of any of them succeeding.The denture case is less significant than it appears - it only mentioned a week after the event and it was not produced by controlled questioning. Therefore we cannot conclude that the patient did not learn of it by normal means and work it into his memory of his NDE (or indeed that the doctor's memory has not elaborated the accuracy of hte patient's account)
http://www.merkawah.nl/literatuur/lommel-lancet.htmlOn to your "big three" I do not beleive that I am taking a reductionistic approach. And I can only repeat that you need to show that supernaturalism has something worthwhile to offer in respect of any of the three. Nor do we know if there is anything truly fortuitius in the nature of our universe nor if it is simply one of many and the weak anthropic principle suffices to explain why the universe we see is one where our existence is possible.If ou want to deal with fine tuning speifically you can start up another thread - or look for past threads. I seem to recall that I have already brought up a seriosu philosophical issue in the "fine -tuning" explanation but I think we would be going to far beyond the topic (and making the posts too long) to go into it here.On the origin of lifeyou are on even weaker ground. Given that we do nt even have a clear definition of life nor a clear boundary between biology and chemistry talkign about an "infuser" of life - wiht its overtones of the discredited idea of Vitalism seems pointless. It is true that current research is looking for simpler predecessors to RNA - but is self-replicating RNA alive ? If not then where does your "infuser" fit in ?As to the differences between humans and modern apes I need only point out to the relative brain sizes - remind you of the range of intermediates. And point out that even chimpanzees are capable of making simple tools that they have some capacity for language and even behaviour that is more like ours than you might think - for instance this article BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimps have 'sense of fair play'I note that you cannot answer the question of how we could judge God to be good without an independant moral standard. YOur answer amounts to simply assumign it or defining God as "good" - without regard to what GOd might actually be like. I don't see how you can suggest that either is a valid grounding for morality nor how speculating that a society might somehow be so "evil" that the only thing to do is kill everyone in it (which I find highly implausible - what could they be doing that is worse than genocide ? how could infants be guilty of anything worse than the killing of infants ?)As yo your other moral arguments I hardly see how it is "making it personal" to point out what you are saying. Let me make it simple - if human values - like love - are sufficent value for human-scale actions then there is no need to require an "Ultimate Value". Thus whenever you insist that an "Ultimate Value" IS needed you insist that human values are not enough. If you greatly care about another person there is nothing pointless in wanting to preserve their life even at the cost of your own.As for your ideals. YOu suggest settign the "ideal" of Mother THeresa against the actions of real people. Yet Osama Bin Laden is surely not regareded as a moral exemplare by the majority of Muslims - selective quotatiosn from the Quran aside - and Woody Allan and Madalyn O'Hare are not regarded as moral exemplars by the majority of atheitsts. YOur choises are clearly designe to skew the argument in favour of your position and only serve to demonstrate your own prejudice.And if you consider Woody Allan's or Madalyn Murray O'Hares values telling then what about Torquemada ? The witch-hunters ? The long history of Christian persecution of the Jews ? Or the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia - after all we already have your word that Islam is an evil religion and that genocide may be OK if the victims are "evil" ? Or how about those devout Christian monarchs Vlad Tepes and Ivan IV Vasiljevich ?And atheism is hardly comparable to a single religion - it is more comparable to a general position like monotheism . So to be fair we ought to add Osama Bin Laden and co. to your list. After all most Christians are considerably wobbly on the issue of monotheism so it stands to reason that the ideal Monotheist is more likely a Muslim or a Jew - how about "Saint" Baruch Goldstein as the ideal from the Jewish side ?I hope this illustrates that choosing "examples" solely to paint a bad picture of those who disagree with you is pointless. Bad examples exist on both sides - what you need is a justification of those examples beyond simply being convenient for your argument. And that is something you do not even attempt to offer.

Who says that you have to? But if you do, it's more imperative now than ever to actually do something about it, because none of us are going to be here for very long.I mean, feel responsibility, or don't. Why would I care what you feel? The only thing that matters is what you do.

I know this was posed to Crash, but I thought I would give my views as well. Us agnostics/atheists aren't lucky enough to have a written book of tenets, so we always have to play things by ear.

quote:

---

What would this acting "more moral" look like?

---

In my opinion, the more moral person is the one who is looked on more favorably by their culture. I will say that morality is relative, but within each cultural morality there should be consistency.

quote:

---

Why should we feel any responsibilty for anyone?

---

You don't have to, I just happen to want to. I like helping out my fellow man, I enjoy seeing others happiness, and it makes me feel good to protect others. I just lack the need to credit a deity for these feelings.

quote:

---

Everyone is doomed, the universe is doomed, what outcome are we striving for?

---

Happiness derived from being moral and helping others. What is wrong with that? Unlike christians, we agnostics/atheists only have a lifetime to find this happiness so we are a bit more zealous in finding it.

quote:

---

To feel better about ourselves in the here and now?

---

Yep, because this lifetime is all that we are gauranteed.

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

I hope this illustrates that choosing "examples" solely to paint a bad picture of those who disagree with you is pointless. Bad examples exist on both sides

---

Thank you for providing the little spanking. I had really intended that part of my reply for Contracycle, since he insists that the behavior of certain Christians must surely reflect badly on the belief system as a whole. The only thing I would take issue with you on is:

quote:

---

Yet Osama Bin Laden is surely not regareded as a moral exemplare by the majority of Muslims - selective quotatiosn from the Quran aside

---

.Find me an example or two of a Muslim who condemns Osama Bin Laden, and I might believe you here. I think you will be hard pressed to back up this assertion that the majority of Muslims don’t regard him as a moral example. And my quotations may have been selective, (did you want me to quote the whole thing?), but they were extracted from the first page I came to. And I am shocked that you are not shocked. These quotes clearly are an instruction to all believers to kill and punish non-believers going forward to the end of times, so not comparable to your examples of a few instances 4000 years ago when God instructed the Israelites to conquer several regions. So even if they are the only examples I could come up with (I haven’t made any further attempts), since this is the Muslim Holy Book, I would question any Muslim who believes their faith to be the Truth, and is not following these commands to the letter.

quote:

---

There is a continuity of experience and to a lesser extent of personality. These would seem more important to me than the physical makeup of the brain - which I regard as being of very low importance. While we do sometimes grant that long term personality change may be enough to consider the person involved "different" I see no reason to adopt any more radical view as you suggest. And sicne we do not grant that small replacements are sufficient to change the idnetity of inanimate objects why should we adopt a radically different view for humans ?

---

But do you not see that the seeds of my radical thinking are already taking hold? The physical brain, more and more, is considered the one-stop place of behavior modification. Drugs are replacing therapy more and more. Personal responsibility is being de-emphasized. How far can we be from simply giving a brain altering drug or surgery to criminals in lieu of punishment? Unless medical science begins to acknowledge that there is more to a human than just the physical, what will turn back this tide?

quote:

---

Ansd what does your "True Self" add ? What makes it qualify as a "self" if it is not physical identity or memory or personality ? So far as I can tell it doesn't contribute to identity in any meaningful way.

---

I would say it is all of that and more. It is the mental, spiritual entity infused at conception that endures beyond the physical life, taking the experiences, knowledge and wisdom gained in this world to the next world. And as I have said, if humans are strictly physical entities, there is no basis for an Ultimate Morality or an Ultimate Reason.

quote:

---

On to NDE's. Since I do not grant that anyone undergoing an NDE does see a doctor working on them I can only repeat that blindness makes no difference to my view. I am not ignoring the anecdotal CLAIMS of verification - I simply do not consider them to be significant evidence. I knwo that attempts at controlled experiments ("planting" things to be "seen") but I have never heard of any of them succeeding.

​

The denture case is less significant than it appears - it only mentioned a week after the event and it was not produced by controlled questioning. Therefore we cannot conclude that the patient did not learn of it by normal means and work it into his memory of his NDE (or indeed that the doctor's memory has not elaborated the accuracy of hte patient's account)

---

But this is not the exception. Seeing the medical procedure being performed and being able to describe it in accurate detail, and seeing other objects and events are very common in NDEs. Let me also add that I have personally interviewed two gentlemen who both had near death experiences some years ago. Neither had much if any knowledge of NDEs prior to having one, and both NDEs have amazing similarity; tunnel of light, meeting dead relatives, a spirit leader, life review, and one of the most important elements of most of these NDE’s, the ensuing life change. If there is not an authentic spiritual experience going on here, how to explain the marvelous ways in which these folks are transformed by them? Are we to believe that hundreds of people are part of some vast deception?

quote:

---

On to your "big three" I do not beleive that I am taking a reductionistic approach. And I can only repeat that you need to show that supernaturalism has something worthwhile to offer in respect of any of the three. Nor do we know if there is anything truly fortuitius in the nature of our universe nor if it is simply one of many and the weak anthropic principle suffices to explain why the universe we see is one where our existence is possible.

---

What contributory requirement are you placing on the supernatural? It seems an undue burden to say that the supernatural should contribute to our investigation of the natural. If you mean other areas besides empirical science, I thought that was, at least indirectly, what much of this thread has been about. The supernatural is required as an explanation to the beginning of the universe. Even your multiple universe mechanism would be considered supernatural in most instances. But it is problematic in that if it is a finite mechanism, it would require an explanation for another more complex, ordered entity in addition to our universe. If the mechanism is infinite, why do we not see infinite universes co-melding with ours since an infinite membrane would have infinite chances to produce universes at any given point?The weak anthropic principle seems to me much like the man who stands before a firing squad, and a very large number of loaded rifles face him. He hears the rifles go off, but remains unscathed and says, Of well, since I am still alive, this incident does not require further explanation since I am here to witness it. How can we not wonder why the universe is set up so precisely to support life?

quote:

---

On the origin of lifeyou are on even weaker ground. Given that we do nt even have a clear definition of life nor a clear boundary between biology and chemistry talkign about an "infuser" of life - wiht its overtones of the discredited idea of Vitalism seems pointless. It is true that current research is looking for simpler predecessors to RNA - but is self-replicating RNA alive ? If not then where does your "infuser" fit in ?

---

The supernatural may be required to fully explain the beginning of life as well. It seems very unlikely to me that a mechanism will be found that orders self-replicators from non-replicators, complex molecules from simple ones, energy consumption where none existed before, and motion from stillness. And we are looking for yet again another mechanism that would require an explanation or cause. How is it illogical to say that life must originate from a powerful life causing force? Nothing in the natural universe we have discovered so far meets that requirement.

quote:

---

As to the differences between humans and modern apes I need only point out to the relative brain sizes - remind you of the range of intermediates. And point out that even chimpanzees are capable of making simple tools that they have some capacity for language and even behaviour that is more like ours than you might think - for instance this article

---

Yes, I found that very interesting, and it reminds me of the debate over whether or not lower animals have a soul or spirit; dogs exhibit love and affection, dolphins have a pretty advanced communication system, it is all very fascinating. But surely you agree no animal exhibits anything close to man’s reason, his self-reflection, and other cognitive abilities, his ability to do good (even though many times we don’t), and his creative abilities. And again I mention these things seem to travel with us beyond the death bed. But surely the burden of all of this falls on your side; how does the purely physical learn to communicate? How do purely physical forces grow a brain 3 fold in size in such a short time? And the momentum is in place for NDEs to be much better documented in the next 5 — 10 years (Dr. Sam Parnia is in the process of doing another study and there is a Russian study under way); how then to explain a supernatural element to the human race?

quote:

---

I note that you cannot answer the question of how we could judge God to be good without an independant moral standard. YOur answer amounts to simply assumign it or defining God as "good" - without regard to what GOd might actually be like. I don't see how you can suggest that either is a valid grounding for morality nor how speculating that a society might somehow be so "evil" that the only thing to do is kill everyone in it (which I find highly implausible - what could they be doing that is worse than genocide ? how could infants be guilty of anything worse than the killing of infants ?)

---

The question just seems silly to me. How do we judge the standard to be the standard? If there is an Ultimate Beginner to the universe, and there is Good contained therein, then that Ultimate Beginner must be the Beginner of Good, and therefore the contain or be the Ultimate Good. And trying to analyze something 4000 years ago to determine the good in it is speculating, but let me add that if humans live on past the physical, there might be worse things to befall a man than dying. And infants growing up in a society where evil is the norm are likely to do more of the same, wouldn’t you agree? To compare to today, would you agree there are individuals so intent upon doing evil that complete removal from society seems to be the best option?

quote:

---

As yo your other moral arguments I hardly see how it is "making it personal" to point out what you are saying. Let me make it simple - if human values - like love - are sufficent value for human-scale actions then there is no need to require an "Ultimate Value". Thus whenever you insist that an "Ultimate Value" IS needed you insist that human values are not enough. If you greatly care about another person there is nothing pointless in wanting to preserve their life even at the cost of your own.

---

I understand, and this might work fine for you and I. But what do you say to the person who doesn’t greatly care for anyone including themselves, because they cannot see the point in caring about anything which does not last? Who thinks that maybe pleasure is the best one can attain, and whatever means are necessary should not be condemned by you or I?I respect your position, and can even see how you have come to accept it. My hope is not that you would adopt mine, but at least come to respect it as well. It is not illogical or unreasonable, and even Hume and others have recognized the importance of keeping an active religiosity for the moral guidance it supplies to society if nothing else. And maybe one reason we don’t find a lot of Creationists on this sight is the lack of respect one can feel when a perfectly legitimate worldview is called an ad hoc assumption, or superstition. Superstitions are easily explained away, theism is not. And I hope I am at least demonstrating that there is nothing ad hoc about these conclusions I have come to. I am sure you disagree and can provide good arguments, but inflammatory language doesn’t become you and doesn’t serve your arguments well.ThanksDennis

You surely can't be unaware that there are Muslims that condemned Osama bin Laden ?Muslim Clerics Condemn Osama bin Laden, Media Don't Tell Us http://healthandenergy.com/osama_bin_laden.htm http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan09.htm From the same author, an article called "OSAMA BIN LADEN: AN ENEMY OF ISLAM" binladen: Enemy of IslamThe Quran is - like the Bible a mixed bag. There are also verses giving Christians and Jews a favoured status over other non-Muslims which is rather odd if a Muslim state would not permit them to live. Picking out the most blood-thirsty parts is nor more reliable for the Quran than it is for the Bible (and with really selective quotation you could depict even Jesus as demanding the death of non-believers "Whoever is not with us is against us", "I come to bring not Peace, but a sword...")As to your radical view that even small changes to the brain completely destroy identity I see no sign of it taking hold at all. None of the examples you offer rely on it. The use of drugs for instance is simply more evidence for the dependence of the mind on the physical brain - they are used BECAUSE they work. The use of drugs and surgery on convicts is still only likely in cases where there is a mental illness that contributed to the "criminal actions" - and that is a situation that has not significantly changed in the direction you suggest for a long time.I still don't have an idea what your "True Self" is supposed to do. If it is just the passive recording device you suggest then it can't be considered a "True Self" in any meaningful sense. No, there is no way in which you can offer somethign that might usefully be consiered a "True Self" that escapes the objections you have raised to supposedlt establish the need for one.As for NDEs you mistake anecdotes for facts. I acknowledge that there are many such claims. But they are still anecdotal and can't be consiered proven. And the supposed common elements of NDE do not seem to be that significant either - either they are common expectations in our society (going back to well before the popularity of NDE reports) or physiological in origin (like the "tunnel of light"). The personality changes are genuine but there is nothing there that requires that the mind is independant of the brain. ANd I really don't knwo what facts would require a "Grand Conspiracy" to explain away - I have not suggested any fraud or deception on anyone's part.Your later comment that new and better studies are on the way is simply an indication of the failure of the field. Certainly there have been attempts at studying them to prouce the evidence you claim. Surely the reliance on anecdotes is because these past attempts have failed. So what makes you think that these new attempts will fare any better ?On to your "Big 3"It is surely not unfair to suggest that IF the supernatural offered a genuinely good explanation of he origin of our universe that it should contribute to our understanding of the natural universe. That is what a genuinely good explanation of the origin of our Universe WOULD do. Agin what you are saying is that the ad hoc assumption you like should be given very special treatment - for no reason at all other than you like it.What you fail to understand about the many-universes scenario is that it not only has some scientific support (in the sense that it is implied by some cosmological models) but also it simply proposes more of the "same". Assuming that our visible universe is all that is is as questionable an assumption as assumign that there is more. What I am NOT doing is assuming a redically different entity - and not one that is more complex or more ordered - or one that will have an unexplained origin (all universes would be generated much the same mechanisms). In all these ways it is clearly better than assuming a God.Moreover you fail to understand my use of the weak anthropic principle. Imagine if the firing squad is shooting at multiple prisoners - one gun to each priosner and that one gun is unloaded. Would it be an odd coincidence that the unloaded gun was the one use to shoot at the sole survivor ? Thats an analogy of my usage. It would be coincidence if we evolved in one of the small proportion of universes where we COULD evolve.As to your arguments that the supernatural may be required in abiogenesis - well it really only indicates your opinion. THere's no solid ground for it or any suggestion that a genuine and useful supernatural explanation might be forthcoming. By any objective standard abiogensis research is more promising than anything you have to offer.As to humanity - why should there be problems with the physical communicating ? All communictation I know of is physical ! If you accept the possibility that mind could be derived from the physical brain I don't see that this raises any new issues at all.On morlaity you ask the question of how we judge the standard to be the standard. Good question. If there is an Ultimate Morality out there how can we KNOW it to be the Ultimate Morality ? And if we can't then how does the existence of an Ultimate Morality help us ? The rest of your stuff goes nowhere except towards the idea that the murder of innocents is a good thing.As to what I say to the person who will not accept that human values are adequate - well you've got a good idea already, have't you ? How would you deal with someone who acts as you suggest and also rejects your assumption of "Ultimate Value" ? Is your argument going to be that we should indoctrinate people to believe in this "Ultimate Value" for reasons of social control ?

quote:

---

I think my general reply above answers your objections as well. Did you write "Slumber"?

---

No, I forgot to credit it to Bad Religion.I'm not sure you have answered any of my points; certainly your citation from the Koran is selective. It's trivially easy to find bloodthirsty passages in the Bible, and what the Bible does not exhibit is any of the modernity and moderation of Islam. Lets not forget its a bunch of fanatical christians who are conquering and occupying Islamic states, not Islamic countries occupying Chrsitian states, ok? You also purposefully ommit the fact that the ovwerwhelming majority of Muslims consider Islamist terrorism to be unIslamic.

quote:

---

Thank you for providing the little spanking. I had really intended that part of my reply for Contracycle, since he insists that the behavior of certain Christians must surely reflect badly on the belief system as a whole.

---

Actually thats not quite the point. The point is that christianbity is a system of moralism, and perfvesely, thats a very poor way to make moral decisions. This is becuase it is Idealistic and non-rigorous.A little while ago an organisation called Christian Voice posted the home phone number of BBC people involved in the broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera, which is the BBC's most blasophemous programme ever. Inevitably, the BBC people were harrassed. When Christian Voice was confonfronted, their leader said that he had thought that "only christians" would be reading his pages, and he was as disapointed as anyone.In saying that he betrays terrible arrogance, becuase he is deploying the self-serving rationalisation of the "no true scotsman". He excuses "christians" out of hand; doing bad things is not christian, so if a bad thing has been done it can't have been done by a christian.And this also means this unpleasant behaviour is not likely to be disciplined. Instead, the rhetoric of christianity will be ratchetted up, producing even more fanaticism, resulting in an ever higher propability of another christian campaign of intolerance.Religions, as Utopian and Idealistic ideologies, universally suffer from this weakness. Thats also why the millions of muslims denoincing the terrorists are not persuasive to the terrorists - both sides just consider the other to not be "true" muslims. And I'm sure you can see the similarity with all the hubris and self-righteousness of christian sectarianism.Religion inherently panders to and apologises for "immorality" and hatred. That is what it is for, to divide Us from Them and thus to create hate.This is clear when you say:

quote:

---

Find me an example or two of a Muslim who condemns Osama Bin Laden, and I might believe you here. I think you will be hard pressed to back up this assertion that the majority of Muslims don’t regard him as a moral example.

---

Look, do you live in some sort of cave isoalted from the world? Or are you just a hate-filled fanatic? Becuase its trivially easy to find people like this: CBS broadcast an interview with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on September 30th 2001 in which terrorism justified by Islam was denounced. Islam For Today reports:

quote:

---

The strangeness as well as the extremity of the New York attacks has been reflected in the strenuous denunciations we have heard from Muslim leaders around the world. For them, this has been a rare moment of unity. Mohammed Tantawi, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the highest institution of learning in the Sunni world, has bitterly condemned the outrages. In Shi'ite Iran, Ayatollah Kashani called the attacks "catastrophic", and demanded a global mobilisation against the culprits. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, normally well known for its indecision, unanimously condemned "these savage and criminal acts".

---

So what planet do you come from, Dshorrt? A planet of christians who hate anyone who is not a christian, it seems, and which is deaf and blind to anything that threatens that comfortable Manichean view. The chrisitian side of this conflict is much more hate-filled, racist, xenophobic and hysterical than the Muslim side.Islam has been radicalised by national liberation struggles in much the way that there is a brand of christian liberation theology. And as long as the US persists swith its Imperial enterprise, and proprogates outright lies such as your claim that most Muslims see Bin Laden as a morale example, the conflict will grow worse not better.Are you not as a christian supposed to turn the other cheeck? Are you not supposed to forgive? Are you not supposed to treat all me as your brothers? Why then do you continue to propagate racist hate-speech of this ignorant variety? Remember the speck and the log, Dshortt.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-28-2005 05:35 AM

Hey Paul and CC,Well my faith in man and Muslims is somewhat restored by reading your suggestions. I work with a couple of Muslims and they were very hesitant to say anything critical of Osama Bin Laden. At least there are some Muslims who will condemn Bin Laden. But did you not see this part of one of your articles:It baffles the mind to watch American Muslim leaders waffle over condemning Bin Laden as a terrorist who is misappropriating Islamic ideals and incriminating Islam in his campaign of terror. This man has undermined decades of hard work by these very same leaders to make Islam more acceptable in America. The shadow of Bin Laden now looms large on the decades of efforts by these same leaders at building bridges with other faith-based communities. The issue of condemnation stands clearly between American Muslims and the American government. Rather than perceiving American Muslims as a national asset and source for diplomatic expertise that can be deployed in defense of American interests, the establishment sees American Muslims as potential suspects, because they are not confident about where Muslim sympathies lie.The only reason why there is no explicit condemnation of Bin Laden by major Muslim organizations, who have recently condemned American bombing of Afghanistan, is perhaps their fear of losing support with the constituency that they seek to serve. They fear that if they condemn him, even as a matter of self/public interest (maslaha in Islamic law) they will be perceived as taking sides with America in this war between America and Islam.I think I was at least partially right. And CC, I don't hate anybody. I will do what is necessary to protect my family, however. More later.Dennis

Im pretty sure that most of the support for Al Qaida is based on hatred of America. And that hatred is underlined by some genuine grievances.If I were looking for religious support for atrocities I would list "Saint" Baruch Goldstein as a clearer example - but he was Jewish, not Muslim.

quote:

---

The only reason why there is no explicit condemnation of Bin Laden by major Muslim organizations, who have recently condemned American bombing of Afghanistan, is perhaps their fear of losing support with the constituency that they seek to serve. They fear that if they condemn him, even as a matter of self/public interest (maslaha in Islamic law) they will be perceived as taking sides with America in this war between America and Islam.

---

But there ARE. Your premise is mistaken; certainly the Muslim Council of Britain has condemned him outright. Many many islamic leaders have claimed that he perverts Islam. Furthermore, your depiction of Bin Laden commanding a massive popularity is completely fictitious. He is an Islamic nobody; if the US had not made such a villain out of him, he would not be such a hero. And to be perfectly honest the more time passes the more doubt accumulates as to whether "al qaeda" even exists at all.But as long as the USA supports Israeli terrorism, the USA is going to be seen largely as an enemy by the Arab world. The support that Bin Laden received in relation to 9/11 is becuase people were happy to finally see a blow struck on their behalf; to see someone giving America a taste of its own medicine. This is very very different from saying that Bin Laden has authority AS A RESULT of Islam.And thus we find ourselves in the ironic position that you, specifically, agree with Bin Laden about what Islam means. You and he both read the Koran to say that a Muslim should be out killing unbelievers. The hugely, massively overwhelming majority of Muslims do not share this view at all.You are making yourselves afraid the bogeyman.

quote:

---

I think I was at least partially right. And CC, I don't hate anybody. I will do what is necessary to protect my family, however.

---

Will you accept the same is true of the Mujahadeen? Will you accept the same is true of the Iraqi insurgency? Will you accept the same is true of Bin Laden?This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-28-2005 09:36 AM

Hey Paul,

quote:

---

As to your radical view that even small changes to the brain completely destroy identity I see no sign of it taking hold at all. None of the examples you offer rely on it. The use of drugs for instance is simply more evidence for the dependence of the mind on the physical brain - they are used BECAUSE they work. The use of drugs and surgery on convicts is still only likely in cases where there is a mental illness that contributed to the "criminal actions" - and that is a situation that has not significantly changed in the direction you suggest for a long time.

---

What if this small change was in a part of the brain heavily involved in cognitive processes? Couldn’t several small changes here theoretically involve at least an identity shift, if the brain is the producer of identity?Another example of this paradigm taking hold is the move away from personal responsibility evidenced in the tobacco lawsuits and the McDonald’s lawsuit. If indeed man is a victim of the chemical reactions in his brain, these lawsuits make perfect sense. If, however, my contention is true, and there is a True Self that makes up the free will of a man, among other things, then these lawsuits should be viewed in a different light.You say the mind is dependent upon the brain, and I agree. I think I have been saying that all along. So certainly drug therapy that works and is safe should continue. But the danger I see is the ever increasing move away from more traditional therapy. Drugs might help an individual to feel better short term; but what about the long term causes and effects? These are much harder to identify and treat, but shouldn’t be ignored unless we want to end up with a population of drugged out zombies.

quote:

---

I still don't have an idea what your "True Self" is supposed to do. If it is just the passive recording device you suggest then it can't be considered a "True Self" in any meaningful sense. No, there is no way in which you can offer somethign that might usefully be consiered a "True Self" that escapes the objections you have raised to supposedlt establish the need for one.

---

I have not suggested at any point that the True Self is passive in any way. It would be the initiator of thoughts and actions in a human, the free will, the conscience and consciousness, and the soul that passes to the next life. If it is not physical, in what way does it not escape every objection I have made to a purely physical self?A large amount of corroborating testimony is plenty of evidence to establish the fact that something is happening after flat-line. Then you have to look at the possibilities: any explanation of a purely physical nature seems to be less and less plausible as you examine more and more of these cases. Drug induced hallucinations tend to be random and non-specific, whereas NDE experiencers offer very clear, precise descriptions. Low oxygen levels, likewise don’t explain the clear, precise, and sometimes extended periods of consciousness. Check out: http://members.lycos.nl/Kritisch/SurvivalNDE.htmlOnce again, it becomes a package deal, and to brush off one case as anecdotal does not explain the volume of cases (hundreds daily, by some estimates) with similar testimonies and numerous veridical experiences.What exactly would you expect to see here? Since we have no understanding of anything before the beginning of the universe and is undetectable by physical means, what do you expect the supernatural to contribute? I think you mean to say that is what a good natural explanation would do.Ad hoc would imply I am explaining away a theory I don’t agree with. What theory exactly are you offering that I am supposedly explaining away? And how is it an assumption if I continually couch it in theoretical terms? Your inflammatory phrase may give you a kick, but is out of place, not applicable, and annoying.

quote:

---

What you fail to understand about the many-universes scenario is that it not only has some scientific support (in the sense that it is implied by some cosmological models) but also it simply proposes more of the "same". Assuming that our visible universe is all that is is as questionable an assumption as assumign that there is more. What I am NOT doing is assuming a redically different entity - and not one that is more complex or more ordered - or one that will have an unexplained origin (all universes would be generated much the same mechanisms). In all these ways it is clearly better than assuming a God.

---

So what cosmological model do you like? You have attempted to tap-dance around my statement which still holds: either there is a universe producing mechanism, or our universe appeared out of nothing. If there is a mechanism, it must be either finite (requiring a cause) or it is infinite (which leads to several theoretical problems). The only other model I am aware of is Hawking’s imaginary numbers theory? What am I failing to understand? And better than assuming a God in what way? For science? Again perhaps. For constructing a worldview? Even you have agreed that a worldview which includes God is more convenient, to use your word.

quote:

---

Moreover you fail to understand my use of the weak anthropic principle. Imagine if the firing squad is shooting at multiple prisoners - one gun to each priosner and that one gun is unloaded. Would it be an odd coincidence that the unloaded gun was the one use to shoot at the sole survivor ? Thats an analogy of my usage. It would be coincidence if we evolved in one of the small proportion of universes where we COULD evolve.

---

But then shouldn’t the prisoner who is left standing ask the question why was my gunman holding an unloaded gun? Was I meant to be left, or was it an accident? Will I face another gun shortly? Surely the unloaded gun screams for an explanation.

quote:

---

As to your arguments that the supernatural may be required in abiogenesis - well it really only indicates your opinion. THere's no solid ground for it or any suggestion that a genuine and useful supernatural explanation might be forthcoming. By any objective standard abiogensis research is more promising than anything you have to offer.

---

So what theory do you like here? This statement just seems to be throwing the supernatural out a priori. How do you anticipate the problem of simple molecules begetting complex molecules will ever be overcome by purely naturalistic means? Nothing I am aware of is promising here. When you say solid ground, or objective standard, you really mean to say naturalistic. So how is it useful to define the investigation of a worldview as containing only the natural and then claim there is no evidence for the supernatural. This is like going to a GM factory and looking for evidence that Ford exists and declaring there is no evidence that a company called Ford ever made a car.

quote:

---

As to humanity - why should there be problems with the physical communicating ? All communictation I know of is physical ! If you accept the possibility that mind could be derived from the physical brain I don't see that this raises any new issues at all.

---

All communication requires the mental as well. There is the forethought to set up the communication system, then the forethought of the message; where exactly in the physical is this happening? Brain cells are in the business of producing proteins. I don’t accept the possibility that mind can be derived from a physical brain, and I don’t see any evidence to convince me such is the case. No more than your radio is the announcer’s voice you hear or your TV is the baseball player you are watching is the physical brain your mind.

quote:

---

On morlaity you ask the question of how we judge the standard to be the standard. Good question. If there is an Ultimate Morality out there how can we KNOW it to be the Ultimate Morality ? And if we can't then how does the existence of an Ultimate Morality help us ? The rest of your stuff goes nowhere except towards the idea that the murder of innocents is a good thing.

---

It is simply what follows from an Intelligent Beginner of the universe. If God created the universe and there is Good contained therein, God is the initiator of that good and therefore the Ultimate Good or Ultimate Morality. It is the only possible grounding for morality other than what you have proposed, which is not ultimate. At the point morality becomes properly grounded, at the least, some absolutes could flow from the Ultimate Morality. And I see that you will not answer my question, do you believe there are some people so evil that total separation from society is the best option?

quote:

---

As to what I say to the person who will not accept that human values are adequate - well you've got a good idea already, have't you ? How would you deal with someone who acts as you suggest and also rejects your assumption of "Ultimate Value" ? Is your argument going to be that we should indoctrinate people to believe in this "Ultimate Value" for reasons of social control ?

---

Perhaps that would be better than indoctrinating people as to the truth of naturalism, but no, I don’t think an educational system should be in the business of indoctrination at all. But let’s educate people to the truth of what we know; and we don’t know that God does not exist, we do not know that life started by purely physical means, we do not know how the universe started, and I think a well rounded education would include the possibility that there is something beyond the universe that is intelligent and is the First Cause initiator of these things. Let’s teach what we know, but be honest about what we don’t.I agree some may reject any notion of morality Ultimate or otherwise, but it would seem to me that some would be more inclined to consider morality if humans have an Ultimate Value.ThanksDennis

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only reason why there is no explicit condemnation of Bin Laden by major Muslim organizations, who have recently condemned American bombing of Afghanistan, is perhaps their fear of losing support with the constituency that they seek to serve. They fear that if they condemn him, even as a matter of self/public interest (maslaha in Islamic law) they will be perceived as taking sides with America in this war between America and Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

But there ARE. Your premise is mistaken; certainly the Muslim Council of Britain has condemned him outright. Many many islamic leaders have claimed that he perverts Islam. Furthermore, your depiction of Bin Laden commanding a massive popularity is completely fictitious. He is an Islamic nobody; if the US had not made such a villain out of him, he would not be such a hero. And to be perfectly honest the more time passes the more doubt accumulates as to whether "al qaeda" even exists at all.

​

But as long as the USA supports Israeli terrorism, the USA is going to be seen largely as an enemy by the Arab world. The support that Bin Laden received in relation to 9/11 is becuase people were happy to finally see a blow struck on their behalf; to see someone giving America a taste of its own medicine. This is very very different from saying that Bin Laden has authority AS A RESULT of Islam.

​

And thus we find ourselves in the ironic position that you, specifically, agree with Bin Laden about what Islam means. You and he both read the Koran to say that a Muslim should be out killing unbelievers. The hugely, massively overwhelming majority of Muslims do not share this view at all.

​

You are making yourselves afraid the bogeyman.

---

Did you not see that this quote comes from Muqtedar Khan in one of the articles PaulK suggested?

quote:

---

Will you accept the same is true of the Mujahadeen? Will you accept the same is true of the Iraqi insurgency? Will you accept the same is true of Bin Laden?

---

Your anti-American bias is showing here. No, no and no, and since this is way off topic and I don't really think you don't see the difference, why don't we just agree to disagree?Dennis

If Canada had invaded us in the 90's to "liberate" us from a Clinton presidency, would you have let them, or would you have taken up arms to repel them?If you agreed with the goal of their mission, which would have been to liberate us from policies that you disagreed with, might you not have resisted their invasion anyway, knowing that your family would be likely to be hurt or killed if they succeeded in their aims?Or are Iraqis supposed to be so happy to be free of Saddam that they should just let themselves be killed, accidentally I'm sure, by American bombs and bullets?

The idea that some small physical changes could produce mental changes sufficient to be considered a change of identity is possible in principle - but it is hard to see how it is plausible and I still do not see how proposing a "True Self" would solve the problem if such a change did occur.Moreover I don't see how a hypothetical "True Self" can affect the cases you refer to. Especially since you give no details (tobacco for instance is known to be physically addictive).Your comment on drug therapy simply shows that your arguments on that from are beside the point. The interesting question is how the effects of drug therapy are explainable in the dualistic view you propose. If you consider that depression, for instance, can be caused or alleviated by drugs we really do have to ask what is left that would require a non-material component - and what sort of thing it needs to be to explain those.YOur latest version of your "True Self" makes it pretty much equivalent to the mind. But we come backk to the split-brain experiments - do we have two "True Selves" one in eah hemisphere ? If not, then how can we explain the effects of the operation ? And if memory is part of the "True Self" how can physical damage to the brain cause memories to be lost ? Or - worse - the capability to form long-term memories ? All these are better explained by accepting that the mind is to a very large degree the product of the brain and that it is the brain that is responsible for these functions.As to NDEs at present I do not accept that patints do have experiences when their EEG is flat. The evidence I mention above is of higher quality than any I am aware of for the NDE claims. There is nothing irrational in choosing the side with stronger evidential support."Ad hoc" does not mean that you are invoking anything to REJECT a theory. It simply means that you are coming up with things on the spot. Rathewr than have a model which makes predictions or anything that could be considered evidence you are just saying "God did it" or the equivalent. But all you are doing is making an assumption - wioth no real evidence.On cosmology I am not ties to a specific model - why should I be ? I'm not forced to take a stand. Last I heard Hawking's ideas are in eclipse. Eternal Inflation is interesting and the Ekpyrotic Universe is a fascinationg idea. But I wouldn't say that either of them are more than informed speculations. But they are better than "God did it" in that they assume less and have some theoretical support (and are therefore more likely to be true). They are also better in offering some hopes for testability.I must admit that it is hard to think of something that a nebulous idea like the supernatural could contribute. But if it contributes nothing then there is no reaon to assume it. If you can't think of anything it could offer then that simply underscoores that it is a useless assumption that adds nothing to our understanding.YOur comments on my example for the Weak Anthropic Principle are simply extending the analogy to the point where there no longer is an analogy. Just accept that in the example it is entirely random which gun is unlaoded and which prisoner is lucky enough to be shot at by that gun. What happens afterwards is completely outside the scope of the example and should be ignored - it is irrelevant to the real point. The real point is that you have to recognise that our ecistence in this universe is NOT statistically independant of the fact that this universe can support our existence. Given the former the latter inevitably follows.As to abiogenesis rejecting the supernatural a priori would require that I refuse to listen to your case ort dismissed it without considering its merits. Since you do not HAVE a case that is impossible. And if you want to produce "non-natural" evidence it is up to you to do so and say why it should be considered evidence. If you can't do that then it isn't my fault. You can't complain that I am being unfair for not giving your position credit it does not deserve. I didn't rule out the NDE evidence because it assumes the supenratural - I reject it because there is stronger evidence pointing to a contradictory conclusion.As to the question of whether the mind is the product of the physical brain we have strong evidence that so much of the mind is the product of the brain that it is highly implausible that any supposed non-=physical component could be a complete mind. So long as your worldview can't explain that evidence - not even as well as I can explain Van Lommel's "denture" case then I am afraid that your worldview has a serious problem.While you may not accept the idea that the mind is derived solely from the physial brain I won't claim that it is proven. But I will repeat out that what evidence we do have points that way.Finally your claims about Ultimate Morality. It does not follow from the assumption of an intelligent creator of theuniverse that there is any Ultimate Morality. There is just no logical connection between the two claims. As to your question - which I confess to missing - I do not see that it has any relevance. There may be people so dangerous that it is prudent to seperate them from society but what does that have to do with "Ultimate Morality" ? But if you mean anything else then you must explain rather more than you have said.And I can't think why a low-probability speculation should be considered an important part of a well-rounded education. Certainly it has no value in teaching cosmology form a scientific perspective. And I can think of a number of philosphical subjects I would consider more important in that field. So where does the idea of a creator usefully fit ?As to the idea that people would be more likely to consider morality if they beleived in an "Ultimate Value" I suggest that anyone who lacks the human-scale values I have referred to would be unlikely to consider a remote "Ultimate Value" of any greater importance. Something with even less impact on their immediate lives - none at all in fact - would be very easy to ignore.