Morality Without Deity (page 11)

cofty

John_M you are way off regarding nihilism. I am rushing out will explain later.

cofty

John_Mann if you listen carefully to Sam Harris' talk you will see that he is explaining that there is no "ghost in the machine".

Consciousness is a property of our brains. We have a sense that we are somehow separate from the rest of us as if we were something ethereal that inhabits and controls our own minds and bodies.

This is the illusion that he refers to.

In no way does this lead to nihilism.

John_Mann

In no way does this lead to nihilism.

Of course not! Because is already nihilism. You know that! You're an intelligent man!

Sam Harris supports eliminativism and that means consciousness is just an illusion. It's not just elimination about some especific spooky sense of transcendence but the whole Self is just an illusion. In this talk he's clearing refuting reducionism and promoting eliminativism.

Don't fool yourself cofty. You know by killing God you kill yourself too. If God is an illusion so are you. There's no point arguing about "differences" between illusions.

I know in your mind you'll never accept that you are just an illusion, and this will bring a lot of pain in your soul.

I know that not so deep in your mind, when you think about your own death, automatically comes a steady sensation that someway somehow clinical death is not the end.

Don't let bad experiences with false prophets (JW's and Pentecostals) fill your soul with revolt against God.

John_Mann

We have a sense that we are somehow separate from the rest of us as if we were something ethereal that inhabits and controls our own minds and bodies.

This is what the "High Priest" of Atheism Daniel Dennett called "Zombic Hunch" and he admitted to feel it too.

I'm very surprised you admit to sense that too.

You say that this sense is just an illusion but you must agree that this very sense is a paramount in ours minds.

If you pay attention to this sense you'll notice that it's not just an instinctive mechanism. Because we can sense it when we are not in real danger and we can think about it and extrapolate it to a lot of other senses, like morality.

Did you never considered this sense can be a real thing? Why do we have this intricate sense and not just a simple instintictive fight-or-flight response in danger situations?

... the conviction that there is a real difference between a conscious person and a perfect zombie — let’s call that intuition the Zombic Hunch — leading them to the thesis of Zombism: that the fundamental flaw in any mechanistic theory of consciousness is that it cannot account for this important difference.

... and many other philosophers of mind don’t just feel the tug of the Zombic Hunch (I can feel the tug as well as anybody), they credit it. They are, however reluctantly, Zombists, who maintain that the zombie challenge is a serious criticism.

Daniel Dennett, The Zombic Hunch: Extinction of an Intuition?

Ruby456

what an interesting conversation re this sense that you two - cofty and John Mann are talking about

Whitehead describes this sense very well - it is the space/pause between fight or flight - or a hesitation when an organism decides to weigh up whether or not to flee or stay and fight. In ourselves we can recognise that we can spend quite a while in this space/pause/hesitation.edit: it involves the whole person - can you imagine all one's senses coming together to make a decision

David_Jay

@John_Mann,

There is a Jewish proverb (not in Scripture) that teaches us: "Pray as if everything depends upon God, but act as if everything depends upon you."

God is not present unless you, John_Mann, make God present. While in lesser religious concepts that might mean to make an idol so others can see your god or even to preach before others on a street corner while handing out tracts so others can read about your concept of god, the Jewish concept is that if you pray for justice, for food, for life, then you are responsible to become God for yourself and others to make sure everyone has justice, food, and life.

In other words, "killing God" so to speak cannot in turn 'kill us.' Having no belief in God isn't what is making the world less and less religious. What is making the world less religious is the promotion of the idea that morality is about belief and not about action. The view of Cofty and others similar aren't as destructive a force in the world as the promotion of the idea that morality is determined by the God you BELIEVE in and not the justice you perform.

Even Jesus stated that it is not the amount of people you convert that will save you, but the type of service to the needy that you perform that will decide your eternal fate. (Matthew 25:31-46) Does not the New Testament ask: "If the uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not this uncircumcision be overlooked?" (Romams 2:26) If then the unbeliever brings about more redemption into the world, more justice, more provision for the wanting than the believer, why would God reward the believer over the doer?

Do not condemn the man who does not believe in God but nevertheless brings justice into the world. Condemn, rather the man who prays to God and then remains motionless in his belief and does not bother to bring about that for which he prays. How much or how little you believe was not the issue regarding the hungry, the naked, the thirsty, the stranger, the ill or imprisoned that Jesus spoke about.--Matthew 25:44-46.

John_Mann

In ourselves we can recognise that we can spend quite a while in this space/pause/hesitation.

Exactly, and this ability (among several others) is derived from the sense cofty mentioned: that we are more than just matter, something in us is very ethereal and detached from matter.

Ruby456

I wouldn't call this ethereal in myself as my space/pause/hesitation is occupied by things linked to concrete issues - a bit more like what David Jay describes

I'm, afraid I don't support anything that is detached from matter - for me thoughts are material, imagination is material etc

John_Mann

I'm, afraid I don't support anything that is detached from matter - for me thoughts are material, imagination is material etc

I know what you mean but thoughts are immaterial. Immateriality doesn't mean something is metaphysical. Computer software is immaterial for instance. That's why materialists prefer the term physicalism.

What materialists/physicalists disagree with theists is that some immaterial properties in our minds are produced by something metaphysical (soul).

Theists defend that this soul is not just immaterial but immortal and independent from the physical body. And is active even after the death of the physical body (and some immaterial properties of the mind that are dependent on the body) .

The theistic view I support says that soul is not our whole minds but is attached to our minds and give it the property of consciousness (and Qualia for example) . We believe this entity (soul) was infused (directly by God) in Homo sapiens not so much time ago (about 4000 bC). Before that Homo sapiens were not conscious but they had a very sophisticated mind able to develop writing and civilization, you can read more about how this is possible in the psychological thesis of Bicameralism by Julian Jaynes.

Ruby456

how is software immaterial? I would have thought software is very material - but what do I know

Morality Without Deity

Share this