Spiritual demographics of PowerSwitch

[UndercoverElephant]

One thing is true : You limeys are quite boring, and lazy

[PS_RalphW]

Unfortunately the two fingered salute has nothing to do with long bows. Urban myth.

I am at an intellectual level rabidly atheist in the Dawkins frame. I see religious belief as an attribute of the human mind that evolved to help bind tribes bind together socially. Like a lot of evolutionary changes it is a bit of a blind alley.

That said, I don't go around offending religious people. They are usually well meaning and I enjoy reading the history of religions, and trying to get my head round their beliefs and moral codes. As I said, I nearly married a Jain. Probably just as well I didn't, for both our sakes!

I have met a few people who claim to be religious but I find deeply amoral and even psychopathic. Unfortunately they seem to do quite well in society...

[RenewableCandy]

One thing is true : You limeys are quite boring, and lazy
(that's about it)
Really ?

Looking at your address, I'd say the correct insult here is "Bifstec"(sp?): Limey is the term of endearment used of us Brits by Americans

Hmm now for poll choice...erm, Taoist, please. It's the one set of religious/philosophical writing I've ever read that has really blown me away.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hmm now for poll choice...erm, Taoist, please. It's the one set of religious/philosophical writing I've ever read that has really blown me away.

Aye. The second verse of the Tao Te Ching pretty much says it all.

[Ludwig]

Unfortunately the two fingered salute has nothing to do with long bows. Urban myth.

I am at an intellectual level rabidly atheist in the Dawkins frame. I see religious belief as an attribute of the human mind that evolved to help bind tribes bind together socially. Like a lot of evolutionary changes it is a bit of a blind alley.

I respectfully disagree. I have come to the conclusion that the religious feeling - "numinous feeling" is probably a more accurate term - is a reflection of deep reality and not merely a delusion that helped us conquer the planet.

The numinous feeling is precisely that - a feeling. It is a subjective and personal experience and has nothing to do with being part of a society. On the contrary, solitude is the state in which it is most readily accessed.

[Yves75]

Sorry about these stupid messages
Had a bad drunkenness ...

[emordnilap]

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

Wrong.

WTF's that supposed to mean?

We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good.

Yeee---esss, hmmmm, well, maybe, ok, if you say so perhaps.

it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.

...while trashing the planet.

See: http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

Encourage me to read further than the page you directed me to, Aurora. It's extremely human-centric, notwithstanding the bit about 'take responsibility'. Tell me why you think that's where I should be.

[UndercoverElephant]

Unfortunately the two fingered salute has nothing to do with long bows. Urban myth.

I am at an intellectual level rabidly atheist in the Dawkins frame. I see religious belief as an attribute of the human mind that evolved to help bind tribes bind together socially. Like a lot of evolutionary changes it is a bit of a blind alley.

I respectfully disagree. I have come to the conclusion that the religious feeling - "numinous feeling" is probably a more accurate term - is a reflection of deep reality and not merely a delusion that helped us conquer the planet.

No Dawkinsian will ever accept that as legitimate.

The only hole in the Dawkinsian worldview which can be identified from within that worldview is the complete abscence of a materialistic explanation for consciousness. The key is to try to get them to understand why this explanation is necessarily and permanently absent, rather than just currently missing...

[PS_RalphW]

Ah but I see consciousness as an illusion. It is well known that the human hand starts moving before the brain is aware of the decision to pick up that pencil. Consciousness is a post hoc attempt to rationalise the output of the subconscious workings of the brain. Imagine several 'memes' operating in parallel in the brain's soup. One of them wins the 'argument' and takes control of the arm moving interface. Positive feedback cuts in, the competing memes subside, and the 'decision' is transmitted to the narrative forming part of the brain. This reviews the output of the winning meme and logs it away in short and/or long term memory.

Sometimes, the logging process pops up memories or reloads older memes that then raise the panic level and override the original decision. I find this happens to me a lot.

However, the key is that 'consciousness' is simply a narrative function, which rationalises the 'decisions' taken in the unconscious parts of the brain.

Not that I expect this meme to be accepted by the humans controlled by the 'religion/spirituallity' meme

[Blue Peter]

Ah but I see consciousness as an illusion.

I think that 'consciousness' has at least two meanings:

self-consciousness (which I think is what you were describing);
and the "1st person experience of anything at all" for want of a better term.

It is the latter to which I believe UndercoverElephant is pointing. Since science takes a 3rd-person view of the world, there isn't anywhere for it to put such a "thing" and thus it cannot be explained by science (of which Dawkinism is a subset),


Peter.

[Ludwig]

Ah but I see consciousness as an illusion. It is well known that the human hand starts moving before the brain is aware of the decision to pick up that pencil. Consciousness is a post hoc attempt to rationalise the output of the subconscious workings of the brain.

But how can consciousness be an illusion? An illusion requires something to experience it, and the thing that experiences the illusion must, by definition, be conscious.

Say you are currently thinking about a white rabbit. According to your logic, the thought of the white rabbit does not really exist, because the thing that thinks about it, your consciousness, does not really exist. Yet this is a logical absurdity! You know the thought of the white rabbit exists because you are experiencing it!

Descartes meant nothing other than this when he wrote "I think, therefore I am."

[UndercoverElephant]

.

It is the latter to which I believe UndercoverElephant is pointing. Since science takes a 3rd-person view of the world, there isn't anywhere for it to put such a "thing" and thus it cannot be explained by science (of which Dawkinism is a subset),


Peter.

Precisely. The word "consciousness", when taken to mean "subjective, first-person experiences" or "what it is like to be a human" has no possible materialistic meaning, and consequently no scientific meaning - either in terms of neuroscience or evolution. Saying "it is an illusion" explains nothing at all.

IMO, the only statement about consciousness which is compatible with materialism is "there is no such thing" i.e. eliminative materialism.

Also, I'd describe Dawkins as "scientistic", which isn't a subset of science but an epistemological position regarding all other forms knowledge: there aren't any.

[Aurora]

I see nothing in there about the rest of the world; I could never be that self-centred (except on this board maybe ). That's one of the reasons I said 'humane-ism'.

Wrong.

WTF's that supposed to mean?

We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good.

Yeee---esss, hmmmm, well, maybe, ok, if you say so perhaps.

it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.

...while trashing the planet.

See: http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

Encourage me to read further than the page you directed me to, Aurora. It's extremely human-centric, notwithstanding the bit about 'take responsibility'. Tell me why you think that's where I should be.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

I hope that helps you to join up the dots.

[Andy Hunt]

I nearly married a Jain once.

Was she a plain Jain?

[Andy Hunt]

Scientist: "What do you think, does God exist?"

Atheist: "Does who exist?"

Scientist: "God - does he exist, what do you think?"

Atheist: "Who exactly do you mean when you say, God?"

Scientist: "Well, you know God, the Creator, the Almighty - you know, does he exist?"

Atheist: "Ah, right! I know who you mean now. No - of course he doesn't exist."