Difference of atheism vs naturalistic pantheism?

[Darth Wong]

All this is quite possible.

As for the continuing progress of science to answer 'why' questions, you could be right. I'm rather skeptical of modern neuroscience/cognitive science though - it could easily turn into a 21st century version of phrenology.

(sigh)

Judge a system of thought not by its ability to provide answers, but by the methods through which it reaches those answers. By your standards, "random guesswork" is the ultimate form of intellectual inquiry, because it can provide answers to anything.

[Surlethe]

All this is quite possible.

As for the continuing progress of science to answer 'why' questions, you could be right.

As I said, depending on the particular "why" question, it is either a complex question fallacy or a question of mechanism which can be answered. For example, "Why does life exist?" could be either, "What purpose does life serve?" or "Through what mechanism did life arise?" The former is a rather blatant question-beg; the latter is a question which can (and, tentatively, has) been answered scientifically.

[Darth Wong]

Religion's answers are only "pass the buck" answers anyway. When one asks "why are we here", Christianity answers "God created us" because "Nobody created us" or "we don't know" are considered totally inadequate answers. But when one asks "Who created God", Christianity answers "Nobody created him" or "We don't know". Same answer, after passing the buck.

[Surlethe]

In some sense, Occam's Razor simply says, "the buck stops at the first opportunity". Really, between any two given descriptions, the only distinguishing factor is number of explanatory terms.

[Starglider]

I'm rather skeptical of modern neuroscience/cognitive science though - it could easily turn into a 21st century version of phrenology.

No, it couldn't. Phrenology looked at arbirary gross features and tried to correlate them with some combination of dubious statistics (e.g. IQ, back when IQ tests were ridiculously biased) and subjective impressions (of 'fitness', 'moral character' etc). It was more of an exercise in numerology than science. No mechanisms were proposed and no useful independently replicatable predictions were ever made. Early psychology was nearly as bad , making up fuzzily defined mechanisms with little support (other than 'wow that sounds neat doesn't it?') which were very difficult to disprove.

Cognitive science does not work like that. We have the capability to disassemble the brain into its basic components and discover precisely how those components work. We are rapidly developing the capability to minutely instrument larger systems (up to comple brains) and map and measure the behaviour of the system exactly. Meanwhile on the theoretical side, progress in neuromodelling and de-novo AI has been slow compared to the hyperbolic promises, but actually rather fast compared to a typical infant field of science or engineering. At the neuron level, the theories are already highly predictive (though not yet completely descriptive) and the experiments easily replicatable. The specificity, replicability and general predictive power of theories dealing with higher levels of organisation are improving every year.

See quote in my sig for why this is one of the leading fronts in the battle against religion. In fact if we learn how to make a drug or device that precisely simulates the feeling of religious reassurance and/or ectascy, I'd cheerfully mass produce and distribute it. It'd be like nicotine patches for smokers, a useful crutch in getting them off their extremely harmful original addiction.

[Vultur]

I'm rather skeptical of modern neuroscience/cognitive science though - it could easily turn into a 21st century version of phrenology.

No, it couldn't. Phrenology looked at arbirary gross features and tried to correlate them with some combination of dubious statistics (e.g. IQ, back when IQ tests were ridiculously biased) and subjective impressions (of 'fitness', 'moral character' etc). It was more of an exercise in numerology than science. No mechanisms were proposed and no useful independently replicatable predictions were ever made. Early psychology was nearly as bad , making up fuzzily defined mechanisms with little support (other than 'wow that sounds neat doesn't it?') which were very difficult to disprove.

Very true; I've seen a lot of "neuroscience" that works that way. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of good neuroscience - just that I personally don't think we'll be able to directly correlate measurable brain activity to the subtler forms of human behavior for a long, long time, if ever.

Cognitive science does not work like that. We have the capability to disassemble the brain into its basic components and discover precisely how those components work. We are rapidly developing the capability to minutely instrument larger systems (up to comple brains) and map and measure the behaviour of the system exactly.

Here's the problem - in a system with complex multilayered emergent behavior, knowing the parts doesn't give you the whole.

Meanwhile on the theoretical side, progress in neuromodelling and de-novo AI has been slow compared to the hyperbolic promises, but actually rather fast compared to a typical infant field of science or engineering. At the neuron level, the theories are already highly predictive (though not yet completely descriptive) and the experiments easily replicatable. The specificity, replicability and general predictive power of theories dealing with higher levels of organisation are improving every year.

I haven't seen much real AI progress in ages. It seems to me to all be "hyperbolic promises", and there's no way it's fast for other fields. Airplanes? Less than 3 decades from the Wright Brothers to Lindbergh.
Space? 12 years from Sputnik to Apollo (of course, we stopped after that.)

See quote in my sig for why this is one of the leading fronts in the battle against religion. In fact if we learn how to make a drug or device that precisely simulates the feeling of religious reassurance and/or ectascy, I'd cheerfully mass produce and distribute it. It'd be like nicotine patches for smokers, a useful crutch in getting them off their extremely harmful original addiction.

Simply because religious feelings are perceived in the brain, that does not make them false. Sight is registered through the brain, and visual images can be triggered by brain injury or other methods - that doesn't mean that sight is false, or the things we normally see don't exist.

By the way, why do you see religion as harmful, even if you are correct that it is false?

[Darth Wong]

Very true; I've seen a lot of "neuroscience" that works that way. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of good neuroscience - just that I personally don't think we'll be able to directly correlate measurable brain activity to the subtler forms of human behavior for a long, long time, if ever.

What "subtler forms" are you speaking of?

Simply because religious feelings are perceived in the brain, that does not make them false.

If they are generated by changes in the brain, then they are baseless, ie- they do not come from an outside source. You have a real problem with this idea of religious ideas being baseless, don't you? You totally ignored previous posts to that effect, even though they were short and therefore should have been fairly easy to answer. That says to me that you have no answer for it, but you don't want to deal with that so you simply skip over it.

Sight is registered through the brain, and visual images can be triggered by brain injury or other methods - that doesn't mean that sight is false, or the things we normally see don't exist.

Actually, the kind of visual images which are triggered by brain injuries or the use of hallucinogenic drugs are false. That's the whole fucking point, moron. If the vision is caused by something in the brain itself, then it doesn't exist in reality.

By the way, why do you see religion as harmful, even if you are correct that it is false?

It's parasitic at best, and promotes harmful psychological control over others at worst. People who care about others will still care about them with or without religion. People who don't care about others will find a way to hurt others with or without religion. There is not a shred of evidence that religion makes people more moral, despite all of the baseless claims that it does. But in all of those cases, religion is definitely parasitic; it sucks labour and time and resources out of human society and gives nothing in return except for its own perpetuation.

[Illuminatus Primus]

All you need to argue religion's harm is show the ridiculous inappropriate distribution of resources to them in the First World and their low return on investment in the form of social benefit and services, despite having highly favorable tax regimes. The opportunity cost argument alone is convincing.

[Rye]

Simply because religious feelings are perceived in the brain, that does not make them false.

Right. If they don't correspond to anything outside of the experiencer's brain, however, that usually does make them false (or at least, it makes the conclusion sensible).

Sight is registered through the brain, and visual images can be triggered by brain injury or other methods - that doesn't mean that sight is false, or the things we normally see don't exist.

Right, but how can we tell the difference between something that we see that isn't real and something that we see that is real? Hallucinations and the like, or, conversely, the absence in consciousness through an operation? We can work out that our senses/mental perception were wrong, repeated false information, or were absent while everything else continued on around us.

By the way, why do you see religion as harmful, even if you are correct that it is false?

Oh man, where to start? In addition to Mike's post, consider the following: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Hebrews 11:1 and "If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believeth." - Mark 9:23. Faith, the whole epistemological foundation of religion, can be used to believe in anything not seen. It counts as proof for its own veracity to its believers, that no amount of reality can cure or dissuade the "true believer" from, no matter how immoral or absurd.

That is an incredibly unhealthy spawning ground for ideology and the inevitable in/out group delineation as these ideas gain social traction. Faith, where mere conviction and mere belief are the unifying virtues, rather than solid argumentation and evidence, will logically lead to more fanatical figures being more powerful, and thus proliferate human suffering better than most other social phenomena. Religion is yet another means to define a tribe, an in-group, and another way to demonise the out-group. It's just about the best thing for convincing something that an immoral act is moral, because of its insidious nature via indoctrinating the young and affecting the wider community through peer pressure.

Consider the story of Abraham and Isaac; consider the "great religions" of modern day, based on that core story. What is the important moral of the tale? It's not that God doesn't require human sacrifice, it's that Abraham is virtuous for believing so hard in God that he was preprared to kill his own son against his own moral compass. Couple this sort of basis with the parasitic behaviour Mike pointed out and religion's the perfect vehicle for authoritarian, mob and evil behaviour, through its socially revered status, and at best is totally superfluous for moral behaviour.

Lastly, consider philosophy when it splits from religion and its benefits. 3rd century BC, you have Epicurus developing a secular morality and declaring that gods do not concern themselves in human endeavours. 1st century AD, you have Jesus (supposedly a ground-breaking moral philosopher) telling us that to reject him is worthy of eternal punishment and that it is better to give all your problems to god, forgive anyone of anything they did to you and to even think about sex with someone else or violence is as bad as adultery and murder in real life. Totalitarian thought control vs ethical hedonism. I'm sorry, but religion is dirge and whenever it becomes more powerful, human misery increases.

That's why I'm an antitheist.

[TithonusSyndrome]

All you need to argue religion's harm is show the ridiculous inappropriate distribution of resources to them in the First World and their low return on investment in the form of social benefit and services, despite having highly favorable tax regimes. The opportunity cost argument alone is convincing.

The only pragmatic counterargument one could field is that the elimination of religion would leave a giant vacuum in the lives of those who've been programmed to rely on it, and then all bets would be off as to what they'd do. Not only is this a weak argument whose implications of anarchy aren't well-founded, but even if it were so, it just points to the fact that much room for improvement remains, not that the status quo must remain undisturbed at all costs.

[Darth Wong]

All you need to argue religion's harm is show the ridiculous inappropriate distribution of resources to them in the First World and their low return on investment in the form of social benefit and services, despite having highly favorable tax regimes. The opportunity cost argument alone is convincing.

The only pragmatic counterargument one could field is that the elimination of religion would leave a giant vacuum in the lives of those who've been programmed to rely on it, and then all bets would be off as to what they'd do. Not only is this a weak argument whose implications of anarchy aren't well-founded, but even if it were so, it just points to the fact that much room for improvement remains, not that the status quo must remain undisturbed at all costs.

That argument is sort of like the argument for not altering the rotten foundation of a house because if you suddenly get rid of the foundation, the house will collapse. Obviously, one is not talking about instantaneous elimination.

[Alyrium Denryle]

By the way, why do you see religion as harmful, even if you are correct that it is false?

Because at its best it is superfluous and at its worst it is horrific. Think about this for a moment. Given no religion moral behaviora has and does develop on its own purely because humans need to live within social groups. But in these societies, morality will be based around social consequences and about interpersonal relationships. Reciprocal altruism, pleasure, pain, suffering and prosperity. They will be based around experience and living good lives.

In a religious society, you get this. But independent of the religious beliefs, but attached to the same social mores you put moral force behind arbitrary rules that serve only to hurt people, control them, and cement the power of the priests.

[Metatwaddle]

Non-overlapping magisteria just means that the methods of science (repeatable, testable observations or experiments accumulating empirical data, from which general principles are inductively derived) are only applicable to certain sorts of things (generally the physical world). Carl Sagan came up with the concept; I believe he mentioned three magisteria (science, religion, and art).

This is a minor nitpick compared to the flaws in your arguments that others are ably pointing out, but you're wrong (again). Stephen Jay Gould, an agnostic, developed the non-overlapping magisteria term, and he never mentioned art. Sagan was an atheist who thought that the "physical world" was all that there was, though he didn't think that science was the answer to everything.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The only pragmatic counterargument one could field is that the elimination of religion would leave a giant vacuum in the lives of those who've been programmed to rely on it, and then all bets would be off as to what they'd do. Not only is this a weak argument whose implications of anarchy aren't well-founded, but even if it were so, it just points to the fact that much room for improvement remains, not that the status quo must remain undisturbed at all costs.

That would be a sensible argument if we grant the absurd religious pretense that religion = spirituality, that religion = morality, that religion = values, that religion = ideas. Once, religion was basically 100% of the values and socialization that people had, and we've steadily chipped away, replacing with psychology, education, civic responsibility, a sense community history, etc. No reason we cannot keep going; we could even teach kids about a gamut of religions and philosophies. Unfortunately, its still taken for granted that religion = values, morality, and spirituality. Because they know knowledge that you can feel those feels and have purpose without having to wake up every Sunday, get yelled at about jerking off and guilt-tripped into giving money to the boy-rapists will sink their shitty ship.

[ray245]

The thing is, many people still fear the idea of death itself (me included), that your existence will be nothingless after you are dead.

The thing is, instead of wiping out religion and personal belief as a whole, we should find ways where religions and etc will not come into conflict with education, politics and etc.

Perhaps it will be better if Abramic religion was not a orgainsed religion, like many of the eastern asia's religion.

Far eastern buddishism for example, does not come into conflict with any scientific concepts...except issues regarding the afterlife so to speak.

[Darth Wong]

The thing is, many people still fear the idea of death itself (me included), that your existence will be nothingless after you are dead.

Of course we fear it. It's a very disturbing concept.

The thing is, instead of wiping out religion and personal belief as a whole, we should find ways where religions and etc will not come into conflict with education, politics and etc.

It's not possible to design a religion which incorporates "supernatural" beliefs and yet cannot possibly interfere with secular life under any circumstances.

Perhaps it will be better if Abramic religion was not a orgainsed religion, like many of the eastern asia's religion.

What makes you think Abrahamic religion is organized? There are thousands of splinter groups; individual factions may be quite organized, but the Abrahamic religions as a whole are a mess.

Far eastern buddishism for example, does not come into conflict with any scientific concepts...except issues regarding the afterlife so to speak.

Yeah, and guess which ones you used to justify the need for religion.

[Surlethe]

Simply because religious feelings are perceived in the brain, that does not make them false. Sight is registered through the brain, and visual images can be triggered by brain injury or other methods - that doesn't mean that sight is false, or the things we normally see don't exist.

You are correct: simply because religious feelings are perceived in the brain does not necessarily mean they are false. However, you're continuing to ignore the mechanism for determining between models; given two models, which one is superior? The one which describes religious feelings as a simple neurological phenomenon, or the one which describes religious feelings as neurological phenomena induced by an otherwise undetectable deity and otherwise identical to simple neurological phenomena?

By the way, why do you see religion as harmful, even if you are correct that it is false?

When you've seen it tear families apart, you'll come around and agree that it's harmful.

[ray245]

The thing is, instead of wiping out religion and personal belief as a whole, we should find ways where religions and etc will not come into conflict with education, politics and etc.

It's not possible to design a religion which incorporates "supernatural" beliefs and yet cannot possibly interfere with secular life under any circumstances.

Unless we could seperate worshipping of gods and the notion of an afterlife.

Just believing in an afterlife and nothing else, as compared to beliving in things like the great flood, creation and etc can solve us lots of problems though.

[Darth Wong]

The thing is, instead of wiping out religion and personal belief as a whole, we should find ways where religions and etc will not come into conflict with education, politics and etc.

It's not possible to design a religion which incorporates "supernatural" beliefs and yet cannot possibly interfere with secular life under any circumstances.

Unless we could seperate worshipping of gods and the notion of an afterlife.

Just believing in an afterlife and nothing else, as compared to beliving in things like the great flood, creation and etc can solve us lots of problems though.

Bullshit. The idea of an afterlife itself can easily interfere with secular life, because people start taking actions in life based on what they believe about the afterlife. And since the afterlife is invariably presumed to last for much longer than the physical life, it is often deemed to be more important.

[K. A. Pital]

And since the afterlife is invariably presumed to last for much longer than the physical life, it is often deemed to be more important.

Indeed. Apart from demotivating people from embetterment of their earthly conditions, it can also motivate them to do whatever God X demands to have a better afterlife. So it's quite dangerous.

[ray245]

And since the afterlife is invariably presumed to last for much longer than the physical life, it is often deemed to be more important.

Indeed. Apart from demotivating people from embetterment of their earthly conditions, it can also motivate them to do whatever God X demands to have a better afterlife. So it's quite dangerous.

So it is an impossible task for anyone to seperate the notion of following a god's wish from life after death?

Personally, I don't worship any god or gods. But I choose to believe in an after-life, no matter how ridiculous it is. Maybe it is just me...choosing to belief in an after-life without any connection to the notion of god interfering with day to day life. That you do not need a bible to define the after-life for you.

My belief in after-life is this, that there is an after-life, but no one can be sure what is it about. That the fact that the after-life is full of unknown and etc. It is not dicated by any story about gods and etc.

Yeah...this is a pretty strange belief but...at the least, I do not need to go to a church just to prove you are loyal to god or anything. Nor do I need to follow the principle set up by any god or gods.

[K. A. Pital]

You subscribe to deism or agnosticism in that case, which doesn't make any descriptions of said afterlife - might be irrelevant since it's totally nondescriptive; however, any, even vaguely descriptive afterlife or deity would impact the way people act.

[Rye]

I wouldn't call it deism if he has no deity. I'm not sure what the term is for someone who believes in an afterlife but not gods, and I know a lot of such people.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I wouldn't call it deism if he has no deity. I'm not sure what the term is for someone who believes in an afterlife but not gods, and I know a lot of such people.

I just call 'em "stoned slackers". There's endless possible permutations of religious, "spiritual" or all-around supernatural beliefs that can be cribbed from the big memes these religions saturate the collective consciousness with, and for dopey slackers getting permafried 24/7 and entertaining themselves with flights of fancy that all start with "what if, like, the universe is a big...", and in the drug culture, the notion of Occam's Razor is completely unheard of and would probably come as an offense to their ears.