Have you ever had a religious or supernatural experience? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:11:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Have you ever had a religious or supernatural experience? (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: ...
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Not Sure
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 77

Author Topic: Have you ever had a religious or supernatural experience?  (Read 6314 times)
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« on: April 08, 2021, 07:42:45 PM »

Facts are and remain the great enemy of the fundamentalist materialist.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2021, 01:24:04 PM »

And confusing anecdotes with facts remains the fatal flaw of the superstitious.
The odds are decidedly not in your favor. Craig Keener’s estimate of 100 million miracles in the last hundred years is such a large number that the odds of all of them being false or naturally explainable is roughly equivalent to the odds that George Washington was not a historical person.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2021, 05:15:52 PM »
« Edited: April 09, 2021, 05:19:39 PM by Kingpoleon »

Craig Keener is a lunatic, and citing him as a source is proof-in-itself that you are not serious about discussing this subject.
Keener is a pretty competent writer. I think it is a decidedly serious problem that, unless we presume odds of miracles are at precisely zero percent, it is highly unlikely that all miraculous claims are false.

“Miracles always relate to the faith. That is why a belief in miracles is not a vacation from reason, a little holiday from the tedious demands of rational responsibility. Not only is it reasonable to believe that miracles can and do happen, it is unreasonable to think they cannot and do not occur.” - Ralph McInerny

“Claims for the occurrence of miraculous events will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There can be no general theory to cover the character of unique events, but the refusal to contemplate the possibility of revelatory disclosures of an unprecedented kind would be an unacceptable limitation, imposed arbitrarily on the horizons of religious thought.” - John Polkinghorne
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2021, 07:13:28 PM »

I have never encountered any evidence that would make me presume else wise
And so you take all accounts of miracles when someone tells you of them as false, as you require your own first person experience to admit not even the actuality of something, but even the potentiality of it?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2021, 10:09:57 PM »

Christians don't become Christians because they see miracles happen. They see miracles happen because they are Christians.

People see what they want to see in the world. Honestly, the fact that there have supposedly been 100,000,000 "miracles"-- none of which have been verified in any scientifically documented or objective fashion-- speaks more to the willingness of Christians to see miracles in their toast than it does to the veracity of those claims.
The University of Virginia has an entire department which has verified a number of a specific type. Bruce Greyson, Peter Fenwick, Raymond Moody, and Edward F. Kelly have all published on this. Jacalyn Duffin undertook another specific group of miracles, medical miracles, and published an academic book on the subject. Jeffrey Rediger, a professor at Harvard Medical School, JUST published a book on medical miracles as well. It is one thing to argue against them - it is another to make assertions in the face of contrary evidence.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2021, 10:46:52 PM »

Half of these people are neuroscientists who examine why the human mind tricks itself into believing it has had a religious experience. The other half are fringe nuts like Ray Moody who are widely ignored and/or condemned by the serious scientific community. Why do you insist on trying to affirm your faith through widely discredited pseudoscience? Just say that you believe without evidence; don't try to convince yourself that you somehow arrived at these beliefs through honest and unbiased inquisitiveness.
This is broadly inaccurate.

Peter Fenwick, Sam Parnia, Edward F. Kelly, and Bruce Greyson have all said they believe the evidence points to an afterlife. Not a single one of them is a neuroscientist who says the evidence is not there. They are not fringe scientific nuts - they are commonly cited academics. There are a number of problems with materialism, both philosophically/logically and scientifically/evidentiary. Werner Heisenberg, probably the most brilliant physicist in history, put it succinctly: “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible! ... Atoms are not things."
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2021, 11:25:32 PM »

I do not trust Craig Keener's word on the efficacy of Christian miracles any more than I trust the word of David Miscavige on the efficacy of Dianetics. If there is ever a consensus in the scientific community that miracles are real-- say, on the same level as global warming-- then I'll get back to you. But cult members can't be trusted to represent their cult using facts.
This is absurd. There is no “scientific consensus” on the existence of Abraham Lincoln, or on the existence of Columbus, or on the existence of matter itself. The idea that a very narrow field such as science holds all the answers to everything and will eventually abolish the humanities is absurd. Now, it is true that 35-40% of scientists are Christians who believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, and this view is becoming more common among scientists. (This is one of two subgroups in America where religiosity is increasing.) What percent have to be Christians for you to affirm that miracles and science are not in conflict?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2021, 01:15:21 AM »

Science and medicine are not perfect, headleable illnese may be misdiagnozed and rare mutations may lead to results that are hard for medical science to explain. none of that suggests the existence of a deity and even if it does nothing indicates it would be the religious deity that humanity would be familiar with.
”Don’t worry, science will explain it eventually.” is a rather sad creed. Scientism is the scourge of a mind convinced that Nothing But Science matters - it is a dogma which makes Ken Ham look like an intellectual giant who, quite frankly, crushed Bill Nye. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, they all make a rather common mistake: they assume science is best because they are scientists. Like Plato, they think everything would be perfect if people just like them ran everything. Like Plato, they are wrong on this count.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2021, 12:23:02 PM »

Experts in the field of history (which is the field of study relevant to the existence of Lincoln) agree that Lincoln exists. However, experts in the field of medicine (the field of study relevant to the existence of medical miracles) do not agree that miracles exist, and would laugh in your face if you suggested that prayer could provide an actual remedy for a person beyond the placebo effect.

What else needs to be said?
Experts in the field of theology (the field of study relevant to the existence of God and miracles) do agree that God and miracles do exist, and therefore they do.

If you insist on bringing in doctors, I am prepared to go there as well. Francis Collins was the director of the Humane Genome Project and has been the Director of the National Institutes of Health for over a decade. He is the world’s leading doctor and has been called the greatest living American. He readily affirms not only the potential of miracles, but that he actually believes in them.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2021, 12:46:32 PM »

Perhaps I should be clearer, as it seems you have misunderstood me. I am not an advocate of faith healing - there are a number of theological problems for it. There is a clear and prescient difference between believing miracles happen and testing God by demanding they happen.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2021, 01:04:21 PM »

Oh I see. So you believe that prayer works as a remedy in certain cases, but these results can't be reproduced in a scientific setting because that would be "testing God." What an airtight system of logic you've constructed.
It seems to me that is the position taken by the respected doctor you made a meme of.

No, I don’t think that prayer works as a pill. I do think that it can, in limited circumstances, cause spontaneous remissions, as I have heard both doctors and patients have said such on multiple occasions.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2021, 01:38:50 PM »

What exactly is the doctor's position outside of a vague belief in the already vague concept of miracles? What exactly does he say about their utility and prevalence?  Or did you, once again, find someone prestigious who on face agrees with you and regurgitate a soundbite?
This sort of attack is unwarranted and remains so. In response to asking for evidential sources, after providing several, you have now accused me of... presenting testimony that agrees with what I said? If that is the charge, I plead guilty.

And, it is important to note that Dule, after falsely claiming that several of the people I cited actually disproved what I said, has still not responded to the point made when citing them or their research.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2021, 02:52:59 PM »
« Edited: April 10, 2021, 02:56:03 PM by Kingpoleon »

You cited Bruce Greyson, a neuroscientist, as evidence that people who study the brain believe in Christian miracles. Greyson's own research describes near-death experiences as accompanied by "auditory hallucinations"-- not the Divine speaking into a person's mind, but their own mind tricking them. He co-authored this paper that repeatedly and explicitly describes these as "hallucinations." Regardless of what Greyson himself thinks on the matter, it is clear that he lacks sufficient evidence to stake his reputation on authoring a scientific article attributing these experiences to supernatural causes.

Medical miracle pushers are very much like Trump's "election fraud" lawyers. They will make extreme and absurd claims publicly, but when it comes to actually staking their reputations and careers on their assertions (for example, perjuring themselves to a court, or putting their names on a peer-reviewed article claiming there is objective evidence for the Divine), they inevitably back down.

In any case, I've already spent far more time looking into your claims than they deserve. I don't believe that you legitimately think that naming half a dozen fringe doctors constitutes incontrovertible evidence that the Christian god is real. It is clear (to any objective observer, anyway) that you hold your superstitions to a different standard of evidence than you do everything else. Getting bogged down in the specifics of cherrypicked Christian dogma ignores the broader point-- there is no medical consensus that medical miracles occur, and so there is no reason for a member of the public to take such claims seriously. I've never completely closed the door to supernatural occurrences, and if presented with actual evidence I would always take it into consideration. But the fact that you are willing to believe-- lacking the extraordinary proof you'd need to bolster your extraordinary claims-- is indicative of a shocking lack of inquisitiveness, self-awareness, and basic skepticism.
I advise you to read that paper further. “However, the marked differences in attitudes of near-death experiencers and schizophrenic patients toward auditory hallucinations raise questions about the etiology of these hallucinations, specifically about whether in all circumstances internal voices should be classed as hallucinations. ... Regarding them in all circumstances as pathological may inhibit our investigation and understanding of their powerful influence on our world (Liester, 1996). Our finding of a high prevalence rate and predominantly positive attitudes toward auditory hallucinations following an NDE reinforces the need for further research.”

John Eccles, hardly a fringe scientist, published articles and books about what psychology and neurology indicate metaphysically.

For further reference to neurology, biology, and theology:
https://youtu.be/oBsI_ay8K70
https://youtu.be/fOFGKhvWQ4M
https://youtu.be/_H0yoBiBM5s
https://youtu.be/-sPBF1o4a4U
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2021, 02:03:24 AM »
« Edited: April 11, 2021, 02:54:05 AM by Kingpoleon »

Lol! So after three pages of discussing this-- all the time claiming that incontrovertible proof of Christian miracles exists-- you are now treating the phrase "reinforces the need for further research" as a win? Again: Nobody is closing the door completely on the supernatural. I have never said that I know for certain that god/gods do not exist. But the problem here is that you are treating the possibility of miracles as proof of miracles, whereas I am saying that it is silly to stake your convictions on something that is not (yet) substantiated by evidence. The truth is that the very person you named as "proof" that supernatural miracles exist himself said that the evidence is inconclusive! And in fact, the language he uses in that paper repeatedly refers to these instances as hallucinations-- unwilling, clearly, to make any concrete argument that these experiences are caused by something external to the brain itself.

Look, all I'm asking is that you admit that your faith is just that-- faith. You shouldn't feel the need to justify your beliefs using the language of science (which will inevitably result in disappointment). You cannot reason through a belief that you didn't arrive at through reason in the first place-- so why try? Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to believe what you want. The problem arises when you try to make others respect your beliefs as valid, in the same way that we might respect, say, the law of gravity or evolution. Your beliefs are not owed that level of respect, and the more reasonable Christians on this site-- Nathan and Scott, for example-- understand that and don't try to wage a religious war on science's terms. I have no objection to Christians who speak about their faith in terms of their personal experience with how it has improved their life, but trying to quantify supernatural occurrences in the way you're doing is simultaneously futile and oddly self-defeating.
I believe you misunderstood me. I am an advocate of cessation of miracles theologically.

I do not argue that my beliefs, with regards to religion, love, and human rights, are as well established as gravity, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. Unlike those latter things things of knowledge, I would be quite prepared to die to defend the former things of belief. Because of this, I am forced to conclude NOT that belief is irrational or less real than scientific fact, but rather that it is super rational and more real than scientific fact. Kierkegaard comes highly recommended, in my view.

I should be quite clear here: I do not believe in your definition of faith and belief as being without evidence. It is as clear to me that God is real as it is that I love my mother, for I have felt it in my heart. You may attempt to make your heart a slave to your head, but pigs will fly and the moon will fall before such a thing comes to pass.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2021, 09:49:04 AM »


Every argument I've had with theists on this matter has begun and ended in the same way. It begins with the theist asserting that their beliefs are supported by a wealth of irrefutable evidence which, if examined by an open-minded person, clearly points to the existence of the Divine. After a lengthy conversation that inevitably exposes the gaping holes in their reasoning, the theist then ends the discussion with an unrelated appeal to pathos, usually accompanied by some poetic analogies and the not-so-subtle implication that atheists are cold-hearted meanies who are incapable of appreciating beauty. At no point does the theist ever acknowledge just how far the goalposts have drifted over the course of the conversation, or the deep and obvious bias they have demonstrated in assessing their own beliefs. They act as though this last-ditch emotional appeal is a sufficient counter to the arguments presented against their claims-- for their fellow theists, it is probably enough, but it will do nothing to sway the opinion of an objective observer.

Theists have, in the past, made excellent soldiers, authors, poets, scholars, politicians, philosophers, and artists. But damn, do you guys leave a lot to be desired as debaters.
This is, from beginning to end, a lie. At no point did I suggest that irrefutable evidence existed which proved God’s existence. At no point did you demonstrate complete and utter objectivity while I goggled like a toddler over your bright intelligence. As for this appeal to pathos? It was a reference to Hume, hardly the most prominent Christian thinker in history.

I did point out a number of flaws with materialism, citing neuroscientists and physicists in their field, and you accused me of a fallacious appeal to authority after you had just insinuated that all serious scientists are materialists. You refused to answer any of these points from start to finish and have now ended with insults that are not only immoral but illogical as well. You make your fellow libertarian, Nassim Taleb, look humble and polite by comparison.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2021, 06:03:01 PM »

Also, I did not criticize you for appealing to authority. I pointed out that the authorities you cited were either A) Controversial/discredited fringe theorists, or B) People like Bruce Greyson who do not actually agree with you and whose research you misrepresented. And regardless of how many individual theist scholars you can cherrypick who endorse these extremist views, that will not change the fact that these so-called "miracles" cannot (by your own admission) be replicated in a laboratory setting, which makes them 100% unconfirmed.
I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century. I did not misrepresent Dr. Greyson in any way, shape, or form. He has just published a book in which he explains why he thinks NDEs that he’s spent decades researching prove the existence of an afterlife, if you’re actually curious about his research. He has another interesting paper I will link here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X17301903

Quote
Anyway, I'm honestly sorry that I was impolite during this conversation, and I do tend to get carried away sometimes. However, it's difficult to respond honestly to arguments like yours without a certain degree of bluntness. I'm happy to continue this discussion if you'd like to present more arguments against the deterministic-materialistic worldview that I support, but only if you're willing to hold your claims to the same standard of evidence that you would hold others' claims.
1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5608
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7544

I maintain not only that there is a rather decent case for God’s existence if we begin within your materialistic framework, but the universe is not deterministic. It is probabilistic, and the collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. If a tree falls in a forest and nothing’s around to hear it, it has not fallen until something observes that it has.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2021, 09:03:53 PM »
« Edited: April 12, 2021, 09:18:13 PM by Kingpoleon »

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.

Then why did you begin this digression by citing Craig Keener, a man who has based his entire career on the presumption that miracles occur in modern times? Without any further explanation, this sounds like an absurd viewpoint. So god just stopped performing miracles as soon as cameras were invented? What about all the "miracles" that people claim have occurred since the 19th Century? Are you saying that those miracles are all fake? If so, then why are you so willing to discount all of those anecdotal testimonies while simultaneously accepting as fact the "miracles" that occurred in the past?

To be clear: You brought Greyson into this argument as an example of a serious scholar who believes in "medical miracles" that point to the existence of the Christian god. So far, I all I have read from the man are articles discussing as-yet-unexplained hallucinations, in which he suggests that there might be non-materialistic explanations for these occurrences. That is a much less radical argument than the one you were initially making, and a far cry from the proof you would need to bolster such an unsubstantiated claim. Because of this, yes, I say that you are misrepresenting Greyson's work. Even if the man believes in nonmaterialistic or probabilistic factors in human consciousness, that does not mean he agrees with you that "medical miracles" are real or that the Christian soul exists.

I'll happily discuss his arguments, but even so, this is still one man's opinion. He openly acknowledges at the beginning of his article that the materialistic paradigm of psychology remains the overwhelming consensus.
The first notion is not on the basis of convenience, but upon that of skepticism. I am skeptical of miracles, and for a long time I found none after the second century even remotely compelling. However, after reading biographies and first person accounts from John Wesley, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman, I was forced either to conclude that these three people were delusional, pathological liars, or experienced miracles. I see little reason to believe the first two based upon contemporary accounts and the fact that nobody seemed to doubt it at the time - shocking considering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were hardly more Christian than our own, particularly among the intellectual elite.

Quote
I find these kinds of arguments compelling, especially the notion that subatomic particles operate probabilistically-- which could potentially both establish the existence of human free will and disprove determinism in one fell swoop. That would be awesome. The issue, of course, is that your claim is inherently unfalsifiable. It is (by definition) impossible to know how an object behaves when it is not under observation, and while I'm happy to speculate, arguing definitively for one side or the other is just futile. Sure, you're free to believe that there is some intangible quality in the observer that creates reality-- but there is no reason to believe that yet. I'm always open to the possibility of these things, but based on the knowledge we've amassed right now, the laws of causality appear absolute. If we were to find an exception to these laws (and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this exception was not based on our own misunderstanding), then that would puncture the deterministic model of the universe pretty definitively. However, no such evidence exists, so I'm forced to conclude that arguments against determinism amount to wishful thinking.
Three questions. So, as a determinist, I assume you don’t concur with Dawkins that life began by chance?

Secondly, what do you think of this, which seems to indicate that superposition goes above the atomic level?

Thirdly, are you familiar with Donald Hoffman’s work on the implications of evolution on neuroscience?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2021, 12:41:42 AM »

I also wish to contend against Dule’s seeming proclamation of his own objectivity. Years ago, I discovered a fascinating hypothesis which suggests that confirmation bias and presupposition is intrinsic and the most powerful influence on our beliefs. After years of research, every piece of evidence thus far assembled supports this hypothesis without exception. This seems to indicate that objectivity and neutrality are rather difficult, if not impossible, to accurately impute in any discussion such as this.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2021, 08:06:52 AM »

Also, am I crazy or are these two comments completely contradictory? Like WTF does this even mean

The odds are decidedly not in your favor. Craig Keener’s estimate of 100 million miracles in the last hundred years is such a large number that the odds of all of them being false or naturally explainable is roughly equivalent to the odds that George Washington was not a historical person.

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.
One is a philosophical point that requires a theological rebuttal. For example, I think the best rebuttal to ID is theological in nature, not scientific or philosophical.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2021, 08:46:28 AM »

I don't know how exactly to respond to this, because I have no idea what makes some miracles more "convincing" for you than others. I do know, however, that Harriet Tubman was struck in the head when she was 13, cracking her skull and possibly giving her a case of epilepsy. It is therefore likely that the "voice of god" she experienced was somehow related to this injury-- at least, more likely than the notion that the divine was somehow speaking through her. As for why nobody doubted this at the time, that probably has less to do with the prevalence of Christianity than it does with the lack of a credible alternative explanation (which modern medicine and neuroscience can provide us with). Regardless, I'm sure you know that pointing out specific instances of "miracles" is simply not convincing for someone who isn't already converted; you have to want to believe in order to take these kinds of stories at face value.
Wesley has several fascinating miracles. Beyond his raising a dead man to life, he also alleges that a mob broke into a house to murder him, and when he ran past them “but they were blinded and could not see me escape, though I could see them on the other side of the room.” (Or something of that sort.) Truth actually alleged that she got her name in a vision from God. “And He appeared to me in a dream and gave me the name Sojourner because I was to travel up and down the land, showing the people their sins, and being a sign unto them. But I asked for a second name, cause everybody else had two names; and the Lord gave me Truth, because I was to declare the truth to His rebellious people."

Quote
Without reading the original research paper and fully understanding their methods, I can't really respond. However, my suspicion on this subject has always been that the act of observing (specifically, the instruments used) may affect the particles in ways that make it impossible to draw solid conclusions.
The observer effect clearly demonstrates that, in order for anything to actually happen, there must be an observer. As things actually happened prior to our existence, who was this observer? In other words, quantum physics is dependent upon there being no mind-independent reality. This is one reason why H. L. Mencken, for example, considered physicists to be modern day witch doctors.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2021, 10:28:26 AM »

The observer effect doesn't postulate that nothing happens without observation, merely that observation alters any perceived outcomes. With no observer, things would still happen, but without the quantum effects of the observer's presence.

What, for you, is the key difference in credibility between the Christian miracles that you have been discussing this whole time, apparently happening with no clear element of human will, and the practices of shamanism (which you insist on referring to derogatorily) found in numerous cultures, in which it is the power of human interaction with the sphere of the spiritual that creates results as well as the value of performance and self-expression, or in the interaction of science with the forces of creation in such a manner? I find the latter two to be far more interesting and philosophically sound means of realization, personally. Why would the latent power of forces beyond us intercede on our behalf without some sort of manipulation and fundamental understanding of the workings thereof? Why is the idea of "there being no mind-independent reality" incompatible to you with the acknowledgement of the presence of spiritual force of which we as a species occupy a part?
You are correct about the observer effect specifically - I should have cited superposition and wave collapse, which do require an observer. There are a number of metaphysical positions consistent with quantum mechanics, including dualism, theism, idealism, panpsychism, and solipsism, but materialism is not one of them.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2021, 11:31:47 AM »

Based on the overview I just glanced at, it sounds like he's saying something similar to what I've thought for a while-- as creatures evolve to higher levels of intelligence, it's possible that their newfound awareness of their own existence forces them to evolve certain coping mechanisms to deal with the understanding of their own mortality, etc. This makes intuitive sense to me; I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to though.
Hoffman sort of reminds me of William James here. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, James argues that the truth claims of a religion are an improper measurement - instead, they should be measured by their utility. On this note, he places Christianity and Buddhism as the best religions in the world. Advocates of this religious utilitarianism today include Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, and Brian Greene.

Hoffman’s actual point is that we are designed for fitness, not truth, and as such we are not seeing things accurately. All living things - or at least most living animals - are conscious agents, and humans are conscious agents all the way down. He explains it in contrast to physicalism in this video at 42:00-43:30.

Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2021, 03:30:39 PM »

Yeah, but the "observer" in wave collapse could just as well be a coin or a potato, there's no need for an intelligent or conscious being as an observer
It could be, yes. But the fundamental ontology of materialism, resting upon determinism, is seriously undermined by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is fundamentally even more the case because that is still the dominant interpretation, and deterministic alternatives aren’t the growing alternatives.

Richard Conn Henry, a physicist at Johns Hopkins, has previously noted these implications: “Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.”

Further thoughts of his are here.

How do you know that things actually happened prior to our existence? If you really want to go down the solipsistic route that only the observer creates reality, then why not argue that there was nothing before there was man? It sounds as though you are trying to blend quantum mechanics and your own subjective Christian faith into a single entity, in a Deepak Chopra-esque new-age philosophy. And in any case, as Disco pointed out, the problem with observing photons is not that "nothing happens without our observation," it's that the act of observing alters the result of the experiment.
To smear the fact that the discoverers of quantum mechanics openly acknowledged its undoing materialism as New Age Woo is nonsensical.

Quote
It's interesting to me that Hoffman says at the beginning of his video that "fitness" and "truth" are separate things, and then immediately launches into an explanation of how that beetle nearly went extinct because it was insufficiently evolved to distinguish between its fellow beetles and glass bottles. That sounds to me like a direct refutation of his point; truth and fitness are the same thing, and if the beetle had more accurately perceived reality, it would not have had this problem. We see this all the time in the human world with cultists who have extreme beliefs-- refusing to engage directly with reality almost inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass. If you drink some Kool-Aid because you want to travel to a higher plane of existence, you die. If you storm the US Capitol under the pretense of some internet conspiracy theory, you find yourself friendless and in jail.

Now, it's true that living things often operate along "shortcuts" to conserve time and energy. The superficial categorization this beetle was apparently performing is actually quite similar to human categorizations ("All Mexicans are lazy," "Women belong in the kitchen," "Immigrants need to go back where they came from"). We tend to simplify and generalize because that makes things easier for us in the short term. However, the notion that any living thing can be radically divorced from reality and yet still "fit" to live in it is fairly absurd-- as the beetle demonstrates.
It’s a controversial thesis, at least for a materialist, but it is thus far the best hypothesis which begins to solve the hard problem of consciousness. However, for an atheist to claim that fitness and truth are the same category is rather funny. David Myers has decades of research which are now psychologically canonical which thus far proves the benefits of religiosity and regular religious attendance. Indeed, if truth and fitness are the same, then the most psychologically healthy group in the country are West Virginian snake handlers. Above average lifespans after taking into account income and region and way above average psychological health. Can we then conclude that their societal philosophy is the most true?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2021, 04:11:30 PM »

You are beginning with a scientifically accepted principle (subatomic superposition) and, from there, leaping to extreme and unsubstantiated conclusions (nothing exists unless a conscious human observes it) while operating under the guise of scientific inquiry. If that isn't "New Age Woo," I don't know what is.
Things exist without conscious observation, but not without observation. The Hoffman hypothesis, if proven true, would eliminate materialism entirely. Indeed, many prominent physicists agree with me that materialism and quantum mechanics are incompatible.

“Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less "substance" than we might believe.” - Paul Davies and John Gribbin

“My own opinion is that the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory still makes the most sense. In two respects it seems quite congenial to the worldview of the biblical religions: It abolishes physical determinism, and it gives a special ontological status to the mind of the human observer.” - Stephen Barr

“Materialism is not logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” - Eugene Wigner

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” - Erwin Schrödinger

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible due to quantum mechanics.”  - Werner Heisenberg

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck

“I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible.” - William Daniel Phillips

“I believe in God. It makes no sense to me to assume that the Universe and our existence is just a cosmic accident, that life emerged due to random physical processes in an environment which simply happened to have the right properties.” - Antony Hewish

That is six Nobel Prizes in Physics, if you were wondering.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2021, 08:36:58 PM »

Even if the quantum state were proven to have properties that could be construed as truly "random," you still have a number of hurdles to get over before you make your case solid. Namely:

1) Does the existence of subatomic superposition actually affect things on our level of reality? The article you posted earlier would suggest that this is true, but that is far from being a scientific consensus.

2) If the principle of subatomic superposition affects our level of reality, then how does it do this? Does this account for the apparent "randomness" of chaos theory? Or is the result something more perceptible, such as human consciousness itself?

3) By this stage, you have disproven determinism. But because this is all still predicated on the existence of particles, you have not yet disproven materialism. The question now is: Is there a factor outside of the material essence of reality that affects causality?

4) If the answer to #3 is yes, then by this stage you have disproven materialism. But regardless, you are still several massive leaps of faith away from proving that Jesus Christ was the son of God who died for our sins (which I presume is something you believe). Yes, obviously there are individual pieces of evidence that appear to run contrary to determinism (just as there are individual pieces of evidence that appear to support Christianity). But when examining these competing bodies of evidence altogether, it is factually wrong to say that religion-- and specifically the Christian religion-- has more evidence on its side. The difference here is that you are beginning with your conclusion (that Christianity is real) and then attempting to gather evidence in support of that argument, picked from various sources that are frequently in conflict with one another. I, however, am trying to begin with as few assumptions as possible, following the chain of logic wherever it takes me.
The article previously posted does not “suggest” this is the case. There are dozens of studies which show that quantum mechanics applies above subatomic level - that is the largest one documented.

If absolute determinism (wherein contingency is actually zero) is incorrect, then chaos theory would explain a number of things materially. It would not explain a number of problems with the materialist’s explanation consciousness! If we are to grasp that, we must begin by understanding that neural plasticity seems to indicate that purely mental processes or actions affect a purely physical brain and body. This is fundamental to even beginning to explain problems with a reductionist materialism and will be necessary for neurology and psychology.

I apologize - I thought your belief system was that of an atheist. If I had known you were an agnostic, then I will reconsider this chain further. Was I incorrect about your belief system being atheistic?


Quote
(Also, please respond to my earlier question. I still have no idea what you meant when you said you were a "cessationist.")
Essentially, I think lesser miracles require some sort of human miracle worker. If you’re interested in a deep dive, there’s a great deal of theological literature on cessation and continuation available, and many videos on YouTube. But to vastly oversimplify, I require a rather high standard to believe someone is capable of being a miracle worker and am, as such, skeptical of claims of people performing miracles unless those people are apparently capable of such.

I should also point out that from a moderate or absolutely deterministic viewpoint, considering recent research on animal intelligence, it seems highly implausible to conclude that consciousness is merely material. Indeed, if physics necessitates the periodic table and chemistry, then chemistry necessitates life and biology. And if chemistry necessitates biology, then biology necessitates consciousness and neurology. So even determinism seems to indicate that consciousness is fundamental.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 15 queries.