We have an immortal soul through the eternal recurrence

Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
We have an immortal soul through the eternal recurrence

Max Tegmark in Scientific American's May 2003 issue wrote an article on "Parallel Universes" in which he presents the argument that existences identical to our own recur infinitely over infinite space.  He describes a few different levels of universes, but one of the simplest is that our big banged "universe may in fact be a local space-time "bubble", and that an infinite number of other such bubbles exist.   Anyway, the basic premise of the eternal recurrence hypothesis proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is finite. If either time or space are infinite then mathematics tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times.

 

Assuming this is true, then our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence.  What survives over and over, at each moment of our lives, simultaneously throughout the infinite cosmos is the pattern of our life as we lived it and shall always live it.  In short, if the eternal recurrence hypothesis is correct, then we do in fact survive rigor mortis.  

 

Comments?

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:  Is

Mak Thorpe wrote:

  Is offering some "Escape" a necessary goal of a concept of soul? 

Only those who assert that there is such a thing, would be the ones to ask. There's no reason to assume that there could ever be a supernatural phenomena as a 'soul'.

Not that will ever stop people from conjuring things up in their minds...

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
It certainly wasn't for ancient greeks and other cultures who believe that all history repeats itself verbatim.

What one assumes, or what one's imagination conjures up in their imagination, is not mutally inclusive of reality. Whether what is imaginined is done as an individual, or as a collective of individuals.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Apart from religious impacts, many of those who assume this hypothesis is true might use it to take comfort in the idea that right now, the most wonderful moment of their life is taking place again, in an infinite number of locations, and this will continue to take place throughout time.  

Like an infinite 'Deja Vu' that we have no conscious experience of?

Meh, that's no so comforting, as much as it's inane...

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Some complain, claiming that gravity is not just an idea, it is a "force", a property of the universe. 

I'm not sure who the people are who think of gravity as an 'idea'.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
It's behavior is expressable by a function, and so on and so forth.  All repetitions of the phenomenon of gravity are the "same thing".  It's all gravity.

Okay?

Now, notice that pattern of individual existence is no less so a property of the universe. 

I think that's an attempt to suck and blow at the same time, with this parallel universe thing, with, on the one hand, trying to isolate a 'a parallel universe' from this one, by some boundary, but on the other hand, 'including it' with another one, at the same time. 

In other words, include by the same proportion as you're excluding.

That's a paradox.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Just as surely as a planet of a given mass and velocity will orbit a star at an exact calculatable distance, there is a function that will describe another phenomenon of the universe: your existence.  It too may be thought of a "force"- it is a "force" of your character operating on matter.  The phenomenon is no different except that each instance has consciousness and the hubris that it is truly unique, placing inordinate value on the exact matter that makes up its instance.  From the perspective of our self centered individualistic culture, it is asserted that because all the others are "clones" that therefore each copy is somehow ingenuine, does not shere the same "character", and we should feel just as alienaed from them as we would with utter strangers.  

I think that's just obfuscating the obvious paradox that I just demonstrated...

 

.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:I sense

Mak Thorpe wrote:
I sense your fatigue with the subject, but it is quite incorrect to walk away from this discussion thinking there is no  relation between it and either contemporary or ancient Christian thought.

At this point, I do not doubt that this is analogous to some Christian ideas. But, either way, the concept just does not intrigue me at all. These entities simply have no affect on my reality. Additionally, I am completely unfamiliar with essentially any of theologians and philosophers you've mentioned, so I can't discuss that.

Ergo, I am going to take my leave from this thread. I apologize for leaving after you spent so much time on that last post to me (I did read it), but I really have nothing left to say here.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mak Thorpe

redneF wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:

  Is offering some "Escape" a necessary goal of a concept of soul? 

Only those who assert that there is such a thing, would be the ones to ask. There's no reason to assume that there could ever be a supernatural phenomena as a 'soul'.

 

First, a truism.  If A is asserted, then people ask questions if B (Escape) is an outcome.  Those who never assert A would not ask about B.   The point or value in stating truisms in an argument is completely unclear.  It just takes up space.  

Next you state "there is no reason to assume"....   Right.  Right right right.  This seems like an extremely difficult concept here for atheist posters here to comprehend about current theology.  Christian thought has had about a century to chew on what Kant said.  There are multiple different directions Theists have taken it but folks here seem totally oblivious about it.

They agree there is no reason, no argument for assertions for the transcendent.  Kant, Lao Tzu, and so on and so forth.  Perhaps we should go through why it is ontologically invalid?  Or are you perplexed about why Theism can still stand without Thomas Acquinas' assertion that there were rational proofs for existence of god?  Origen way way before him thought it was nuts, and if you get a list of the prominent theologians of the last century you will find that all of them agree that that endeavor is fallacious simply from the point of view of the rules of logic.

redneF wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
It's behavior is expressable by a function, and so on and so forth.  All repetitions of the phenomenon of gravity are the "same thing".  It's all gravity.

Okay?

Now, notice that pattern of individual existence is no less so a property of the universe. 

I think that's an attempt to suck and blow at the same time, with this parallel universe thing, with, on the one hand, trying to isolate a 'a parallel universe' from this one, by some boundary, but on the other hand, 'including it' with another one, at the same time. 

In other words, include by the same proportion as you're excluding.

That's a paradox.

Again, from the way you are coming at this, I still think you are still stuck on the idea that the entire other universe is an exact copy.  That is not necessary for Tegmark's proposition, or what I am stating here.  Did you read the Sci-Am article?  If we are clear on that point, and you still feel you have detected a flaw in what Tegmark is stating, you are to be congratulated.  At least in type II multiverses, each bubble is indeed isolated from the other.  He describes how in local areas of those other locations, exact copies of our existence would replicate given an infinite number of such bubbles.  Yet he is including those separated phenomena with some mathematics that include it.  

I am not "trying to isolate a parallel universe from this one by some boundary".  As pointed out in the article, plausible accounts state this is a very real possibility that this is the way it is (please reread the type II account if the physics of that is unclear).  So I am "trying" nothing of the kind. Tegmark, not me develops a hypothesis of multiple you's assuming any one of these accounts of an infinite universe is correct.  

 

If you were making a specific observation beyond what Tegmark was stating, and that was your point, I didn't catch it.  If you want to discuss the plausibility of Tegmark's article, then that's ok too.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Ergo, I

butterbattle wrote:

Ergo, I am going to take my leave from this thread. I apologize for leaving after you spent so much time on that last post to me (I did read it), but I really have nothing left to say here.

Thank you very much for your time.  Your notes really were very good and I believe that others browsing the web will benefit from your observations.  


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:First, a

Mak Thorpe wrote:

First, a truism.  If A is asserted, then people ask questions if B (Escape) is an outcome. 

You are 'projecting' that that is what people do. And you probably mistake it as something serious when they do. Instead of realizing that dialogue is often merely rhetorical, and just for one's own amusement.

It's called testing a hypothesis...

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Those who never assert A would not ask about B.  

They do during dialogue, in order to test a hypothesis.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
The point or value in stating truisms in an argument is completely unclear. 

Is that how you feel?

I completely disagree.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
It just takes up space. 

Sure, if one feels the same way you do.

But, I like learning the truisms. So, I feel differently than you do, and again, I disagree with your premise.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Next you state "there is no reason to assume"....   Right.  Right right right.  

So, did I state a truism and 'just take up space'?...

Mak Thorpe wrote:
This seems like an extremely difficult concept here for atheist posters here to comprehend about current theology. 

Which atheists have stated that they are having comprehension problems with theology concepts?

Please provide some evidence, otherwise, the only option is too consider what you say, a deliberate lie.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Christian thought has had about a century to chew on what Kant said.  There are multiple different directions Theists have taken it but folks here seem totally oblivious about it.

Probably because those 'directions' lack of merit.

But you'd rather attribute it to some general flaw of 'atheists'.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
They agree there is no reason, no argument for assertions for the transcendent.  Kant, Lao Tzu, and so on and so forth.  Perhaps we should go through why it is ontologically invalid?  Or are you perplexed about why Theism can still stand without Thomas Acquinas' assertion that there were rational proofs for existence of god?  

I'll answer your question in number of responses.

1- Your claim that theism stands, as if it's a sound, well reasoned and established fact, philosophy, theory, et al.

Which it isn't.

In context of 'assertions', it is about as robust a claim/theory as are astrology, numerology, scientology, claims of the boogey man, the tooth fairy, santa claus. That is to say, they're not.

2- I'm not perplexed at all that people give credence to theology, for the simple reason that the fallibilities of the human mind, are well documented, observed, and understood.

3- Making claims that theism 'stands on it's own' simply by appealing to the numbers of people who subscribe to it, is only an appeal to the irrational side of humans. There are lots of people who believe that magic is 'real', and that illusions are 'magic'.

Of course it doesn't mean a thing in actuality to whether or not magic is what 'magicians' would like us to believe it is, which is 'real', and something other than simply the imagination of a human who assumes it is viable and workable.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Again, from the way you are coming at this, I still think you are still stuck on the idea that the entire other universe is an exact copy.  That is not necessary for Tegmark's proposition, or what I am stating here.  Did you read the Sci-Am article?  If we are clear on that point, and you still feel you have detected a flaw in what Tegmark is stating, you are to be congratulated.  At least in type II multiverses, each bubble is indeed isolated from the other.  He describes how in local areas of those other locations, exact copies of our existence would replicate given an infinite number of such bubbles.  Yet he is including those separated phenomena with some mathematics that include it.  

In any event, even if we look at it as parallel universes that are with a/without a boundary from this one, it really doesn't give any 'gravity' to your feeling that this is some indication of an eternal life, perpetual soul, blah, blah blah....

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
If you were making a specific observation beyond what Tegmark was stating, and that was your point, I didn't catch it.  If you want to discuss the plausibility of Tegmark's article, then that's ok too.

Thanks for the invite, but, no.

I've modeled the basic theory in my mind with a number of different scenarios, and it doesn't hold any significant appeal to me.

If his theories give you some indication of a soul, or perpetual existence, or whatever, I guess that's good for you.

For me, it doesn't, but it was simply a mental exercise, which can be fun.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Rednef Refocusing your attention on the subject of this thread.

redneF wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
This seems like an extremely difficult concept here for atheist posters here to comprehend about current theology. 

Which atheists have stated that they are having comprehension problems with theology concepts?

Please provide some evidence, otherwise, the only option is too consider what you say, a deliberate lie.

The concept (singular) was of the ontological fallacy that any proof is possible of any transcendent truth.  Nearly every atheist poster in this thread (if not all) had the mistaken assumption that if they demonstrated I had not proved the relationship, that somehow this would be decisive.  I would think that you would be able to read for yourself, but a search on "ontologoy" or "proof" will turn up more than sufficient evidence that my observation is accurate and fair.  

If anything else prior to the following quote had any specific pertinence to the subject of this thread, you failed to communicate how your general statements had any specific connection.  I'd be happy to discuss them since you make some bold and in my view erroneous assertions, but if you cannot be bothered to establish a thread of logic between them and the topic we are discussing, then I am at a loss on how you can expect anyone to respond.

redneF wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Again, from the way you are coming at this, I still think you are still stuck on the idea that the entire other universe is an exact copy.  That is not necessary for Tegmark's proposition, or what I am stating here.  Did you read the Sci-Am article?  If we are clear on that point, and you still feel you have detected a flaw in what Tegmark is stating, you are to be congratulated.  At least in type II multiverses, each bubble is indeed isolated from the other.  He describes how in local areas of those other locations, exact copies of our existence would replicate given an infinite number of such bubbles.  Yet he is including those separated phenomena with some mathematics that include it.  

In any event, even if we look at it as parallel universes that are with a/without a boundary from this one, it really doesn't give any 'gravity' to your feeling that this is some indication of an eternal life, perpetual soul, blah, blah blah....

Your vague thesis about boundaries is irrelevant to what Tegmark is saying. Really, your understanding of the science and the paradox you assert is simply mistaken.  Again, I suggest you read the article carefully if you haven't already, and you will see what I say is true.  If you feel otherwise, I would be happy to discuss the point further.  Apparently have no interest in discussing the science since you have no response to my points of science such as those regarding boundaries or local space replication.   That's fine, but if you now understand the article and concede the point that your thesis has no bearing on this topic, then say so.

 

Next, you make the point that if Tegmark's hypothesis that there are infinity copies of us in other locations of the multiverse turns out to be the way things really are, it still lends no weight whatever to the "feeling" about the eternal nature of one's character.  Conspicuously absent was any support whatever for this assertion.  I think it does provide considerable weight.  So did non theists such as Nietzche.  

 

Contrary to your wild claim devoid of any support, it is in fact irrational not to feel some connection with others who share the same character as yourself.  My proof to you would rely on psychological norms of human behavior regarding pathological feelings of alienation.  Is this where you would like to proceed with the discussion?  Then my questions to you are:

  • If the Tegmark hypothesis is correct, would you feel any connection with these identical others who share your character?  
  • Can you summarize what the felt connection would be?

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:If anything

Mak Thorpe wrote:

If anything prior to the following quote had any specific pertinence to the subject of this thread, you failed to communicate how your general statements had any specific connection. 

If you say so.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
I'd be happy to discuss them since you make some bold and in my view erroneous assertions, but if you cannot be bothered to establish a thread of logic between them and the topic we are discussing, then I am at a loss on how you can expect anyone to respond.

I simply don't care for you to respond.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Your vague thesis about boundaries is irrelevant to what Tegmark is saying.

That's nice...

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Really, your understanding of the science and the paradox you assert is simply mistaken. 

I wouldn't take your word for it, over mine. That's for certain. 

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Again, I suggest you read the article carefully if you haven't already, and you will see what I say is true. 

You'll probably find this difficult to comprehend, but, I don't find the basic theory that you've described that intriguing at all, whether or not I've taken into account any and all details.

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
If you feel otherwise, I would be happy to discuss the point further.  Apparently have no interest in discussing the science since you have no response to my points of science such as those regarding boundaries or local space replication.   That's fine, but if you now understand the article and concede the point that your thesis has no bearing on this topic, then say so.

You're free to feel, and assert that I haven't understood it at all, if you wish. It wouldn't affect me at all. I'm not here to try and impress anyone.

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Next, you make the point that if Tegmark's hypothesis that there are infinity copies of us in other locations of the multiverse turns out to be the way things really are, it still lends no weight whatever to the "feeling" about the eternal nature of one's character.  

Well, no.

Hypothetically, there could be completely identical copies of myself in the infinite. However, I have no conscious sensation or awareness of it, so the effect on me is null.

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Conspicuously absent was any support whatever for this assertion.  I think it does provide considerable weight. 

You disagree with me.

I understand...

But it's of no concern to me.

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
So did non theists such as Nietzche.  

That's of no concern to me either.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Contrary to your wild claim devoid of any support, it is in fact irrational not to feel some connection with others who share the same character as yourself. 

I've read a lot of posts here from other members who mirror my thoughts almost exactly, without it creating any feelings of some 'connection', whatsoever.

But, I'd love to hear you elaborate on why my lack of feeling 'connected' to them should be deemed irrational. That would be most intriguing for me to read.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
My proof to you would rely on psychological norms of human behavior regarding pathological feelings of alienation.  

All psychological 'norms' are anecdotal, by definition, as there is no 'mean' human. Therefore it's a fallacy that you have any 'proof', and you are quite mistaken if you believe otherwise.

People are like snowflakes. No two are alike.

 

WTF do you think there are SO many different religion 'theories'?

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Is this where you would like to proceed with the discussion?  

Feel free, but you've not managed to interest me so far, with your understanding of psychology.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Then my questions to you are:

  • If the Tegmark hypothesis is correct, would you feel any connection with these identical others who share your character?  

I don't think you understand the fragility of 'connections' between people, and how contingent they are on many factors other than what they share in common.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Can you summarize what the felt connection would be?

Only the one constructed in the mind, and is transient, by nature...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote: mellestad

Mak Thorpe wrote:

 

mellestad wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:

.... If that is not to your liking, or you feel you have worthy arguments that are being ignored then I apologize.  I thank you for your responses but in terms of how I prioritize responses, I work off of a gut feel on who seems the most serious.  Since I am new here I have to work from superficial observations and have been looking at the depth and coherence of the responses.   

 

So you don't respond because my posts are shallow and incoherent.  Ouch, lol.  And your mother was a hamster!

 

If I were asked to arrange a series of orange objects according to their hue and I stated the last one in the sequence was closest to red, by some mechanism of inference unknown to me, you have concluded that I stated that the terminal object was red.  I offered apology in advance that I am new here and that my assessments were necessarily superficial.  Errors on my part will for that reason necessarily be numerous, but  I explained why I must prioritize my time.  Regardless, you assumed bad faith and derogatory intent.

Normally I would not have commented on this passage at all.  Since you have the label "moderator" attached to your name, I will expand, and hope you could receive the following remark as constructive criticism.  If the goal of a forum is to consider concepts, and foster a community where members can discuss them in a civil manner, then attempts to personalize a discussion is counter to either of those goals.  It sells air time if you were a moderator on Angry White Guy radio, but I would hope you do not take your lessons in discourse from that venue.

Don't humor someone here because they are a moderator, please.  I assumed that by calling your mother a hamster it would be taken as a non-serious comment.  That was probably my mistake to attempt levity.  I will make a note to avoid such attempts with you in the future.  (Unless your mother really was a hamster?  Then I guess I owe you an apology.  Oh, there I go again!)

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Are you asserting that these people had divine or supernatural knowledge of quantum events?  Is there some physical way we can feel the existence of these other realities?

 

What I'm getting at is which is more likely, that certain people came up with the idea of cyclical reality in various ways and then some modern scientists come up with the same idea based on quantum theory which is proven my actual testing, but they are not directly related in any way, or that certain people in the past had some sort of extra-sensory (whatever that means) perception of these events and those ideas can be twisted to fit a modern scientific concept?

 

The former strains credulity, obviously, and you'd have a lot of work to show how such a thing would be possible in light of a much simpler and coherent explanation for the (sort of) shared idea.

Now, if so and so in 40B.C. had said something that predicted the results of the double slit experiment you might get more sympathy.

 

I am asserting any such thing?  Certainly not.  If you got a mixed signal on that score, kindly point me to any passage that suggested to you that I was building a case that Origen, the Bible or any other thinker proved the existence of an immortal soul.  I have been very consistent in my assertion that no such proof is ontologically possible.  

These concepts seem extremely unfamiliar to you, and really, I think you might benefit from considering the work of some of the prominent contemporary theologians.  I have made no secret of my interest in Tillich and Barfield, but the others in this school are well aware of the trouble which (I am repeating myself) is not a particularly recent revelation (re fallacy identified by Lao Tsu above).  Maybe you should just look some stuff up on Wikipedia.  For example perhaps my perspective would be less baffling if we explored the meaning of the following statement in the Tillich article:

Such literal statements attempt to define God and lead not only to anthropomorphism but also to a philosophical mistake that Immanuel Kant warned against, that setting limits against the transcendent inevitably leads to contradictions.

If that seems perfectly sensible to you, then it might be useful to consider the passage following that one which discusses what Tillich calls Christian symbols.  It would be an error to believe he is dismissing Christianity as "merely" symbolic in the everyday sense of the word symbol or metaphor.  It is closer to what ButterBattle refers to as his mental image of his wife.  He treats the mental construct as real but knows it is actually a mental approximation that is a crude representation of the entity his wife actually is in itself. 

If you are not asserting such a thing, then I don't see how it is relevant to Christianity beyond pointing out a coincidence, and not even a very good coincidence at that because there are so many ifs, ands, buts and maybes needed to reach that point.

This goes back to the back and forth Butter was talking about.  This only becomes a mixed signal if you follow up with something about how this is compatible with scripture without a heck of a lot of justification.

Again, the kind of linkage from, "What the Bible says" to "Quantum theory and the multiverse" is either coincidental or miraculous.  I don't see any middle ground here because there is literally no non-miraculous way someone from the era could have knowledge of such things.  So, if the Bible or Christianity of the time in general discussed those concepts and you see a non-coincidental link between the two, we're talking about some sort of magical, divine or supernatural event.

 

So maybe answering that question could clear up the last of the confusion.  Can you answer the question with a simple yes or no, to see if there is reason to continue?  In your view, is the linkage between these concepts purely coincidental, or not?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Is the character of transcendent truths a coincidence?

 

mellestad wrote:

 

Mak Thorpe wrote:

 

I am asserting any such thing?  Certainly not.  If you got a mixed signal on that score, kindly point me to any passage that suggested to you that I was building a case that Origen, the Bible or any other thinker proved the existence of an immortal soul.  I have been very consistent in my assertion that no such proof is ontologically possible.  

 

These concepts seem extremely unfamiliar to you, and really, I think you might benefit from considering the work of some of the prominent contemporary theologians.  I have made no secret of my interest in Tillich and Barfield, but the others in this school are well aware of the trouble which (I am repeating myself) is not a particularly recent revelation (re fallacy identified by Lao Tsu above).  Maybe you should just look some stuff up on Wikipedia.  For example perhaps my perspective would be less baffling if we explored the meaning of the following statement in the Tillich article:

 

Such literal statements attempt to define God and lead not only to anthropomorphism but also to a philosophical mistake that Immanuel Kant warned against, that setting limits against the transcendent inevitably leads to contradictions.

 

If that seems perfectly sensible to you, then it might be useful to consider the passage following that one which discusses what Tillich calls Christian symbols.  It would be an error to believe he is dismissing Christianity as "merely" symbolic in the everyday sense of the word symbol or metaphor.  It is closer to what ButterBattle refers to as his mental image of his wife.  He treats the mental construct as real but knows it is actually a mental approximation that is a crude representation of the entity his wife actually is in itself. 

 

If you are not asserting such a thing, then I don't see how it is relevant to Christianity beyond pointing out a coincidence, and not even a very good coincidence at that because there are so many ifs, ands, buts and maybes needed to reach that point.

 

This goes back to the back and forth Butter was talking about.  This only becomes a mixed signal if you follow up with something about how this is compatible with scripture without a heck of a lot of justification.

 

Again, the kind of linkage from, "What the Bible says" to "Quantum theory and the multiverse" is either coincidental or miraculous.  I don't see any middle ground here because there is literally no non-miraculous way someone from the era could have knowledge of such things.  So, if the Bible or Christianity of the time in general discussed those concepts and you see a non-coincidental link between the two, we're talking about some sort of magical, divine or supernatural event.

So maybe answering that question could clear up the last of the confusion.  Can you answer the question with a simple yes or no, to see if there is reason to continue?  In your view, is the linkage between these concepts purely coincidental, or not?

 

The answer is No, if you mean is there a linkage between it and some literal interpretation of the Bible- such as that it had predicted the existence of such a phenomena.  

 

The answer is Yes if the linkage is to transcendental truths that are spoken about in the Bible which I as all Christians believe is the inspired word of God.  Butterbattle characterized the linkage I asserted as an "analogy".  I think that is fair if one would use the word "analogy" to characterize the Newtonian models relationship to the way physics works.  You can't prove this or any more accurate model directly, but such models aren't arbitrary analogies because there is a strong evaluative mechanism.  With models in science, evaluation examines their predictive strength.  Evaluation of religious models relies on their effectiveness in responding to ultimate concerns regarding human values.  Using that measure, I think it is fair to conclude that the approach of religious fundamentalism and literalism is a fundamental failure and is morally bankrupt.  We are probably in violent agreement on that score.  I don't want to minimize the deep disagreements but state this in order to establish where the common ground is.

 

There is more to Christianity and other such religious systems though, and I think it is of mutual benefit for visitors to this forum to more accurately understand where the disagreements lay between atheism and post modern Christian thinking (WP link).  In the context of progression of post modern thought, Christian liberalism in the 19th century took a general approach that encouraged believers to think that the Bible said whatever an individual personally felt it said.  It was German theologians who revolted most violently against this movement because it failed the evaluative measure I stated above in response to German Nazism.  This formed the backbone of the so called neo-orthodox (WP link) movement that characterizes the system that I have been speaking within.   Now, regardless whether this particular school is closer to the truth than others, it would be a mistake to think that Post modern Christianity is some sort of isolated or theoretical movement that has no influence outside of theoretical discussions amoungst theologians.  Bishop John Shelby Spong (episcopal), Rev. Scotty McLennan (Unitarian), Leonardo Boff (Catholic), Michael Dowd (Pentecostal Evangelical) and William Sloane Coffin (United Church of Christ) are a sampling of the notable ministers sharing this perspective.  

 

With that context established, let's return to the specifics of this thread.  You stated that you don't see how the Tegmark hypothesis "is relevant to Christianity beyond pointing out a coincidence".  I think nearly every one of these ministers would disagree with you.  If Tegmark's hypothesis is correct, then this provides an account, valid from the system of science, that asserts that your character is eternal, and is manifested in an infinite number of instances.  The force of your character is eternal and is a property of the universe.  A Christian church could be formed that made constant reference to Tegmark's hypothesis as the inspired word of God speaking through him about the transcendent truth about our eternal souls.

 

I fully acknowledge other interpretations.  Nietzche stated for example that this notion of the eternal recurrence was the main idea behind his opus "Thus Sprach Zarathustra".  Basically, the eternal recurrence is a litmus test for the overman.  The person who has overcome the spiritual shackles of his ego and has lived a life adhering to the highest human values can honestly say that he does not dread the repetition, but in fact embraces it.  In Christian language, such an overman eternally walks in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Tegmark's hypothesis speaks to the transcendent truth of the Christian model of that eternal soul, and so it is far from a coincidental linkage.  

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, that clears

Thank you, that clears things up.  This is the exact point where we break down in the discussion, this is the root of the A to B conversation you started with Butter.

 

I understand why you'd like to think manyworlds justifies ancient beliefs, but unless you can show how a materialistic manyworlds theory can be causally linked to ancient theories (or modern theological ideas) resting on Platonic Idealism I don't see why it would be more than coincidental, literal or not.

The alternative is to claim that these people, rather than arriving at their ideas naturally, were...I don't know, coerced, by some external entity that explained enough to give them an analogous idea but failed to explain enough for them to actually understand the reality of what they believed.

 

There are a lot of steps between thinking of, "Christ as a symbol" to "We're part of a multiverse where quantum events create alternate realities and so, we're immortal, like flies trapped in amber."  Just because you can say the latter idea is similar to the former doesn't mean they are actually linked.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:There are a

mellestad wrote:

There are a lot of steps between thinking of, "Christ as a symbol" to "We're part of a multiverse where quantum events create alternate realities and so, we're immortal, like flies trapped in amber."  Just because you can say the latter idea is similar to the former doesn't mean they are actually linked.

 

Sure.  "Actual linkage" between these two different glimmers of the transcendent is about as meaningful as demonstrating an "actual linkage" between a line of Shakespeare and a line of Whitman.  You either perceive the transcendent in a grain of sand, or you don't.  The nature of the linkage aside, even if we agreed that I could or did establish such a linkage, demonstrating conceptual coherence is not the ultimate measure.  The Newtonian model is beautifully coherent.  In Science, the measurement of how well a model does relies on whether or not its predictions are verified experimentally.   

 

Science makes no recommendations about human values and we should not expect it to.  That is not what it does.  Science is also not incompatible with certain kinds of theistic or non theistic beliefs which do.  I really think attempts to assert that all such beliefs ought to be eradicated in the post enlightenment world on grounds that they cannot be directly proven by science is ill considered and ill informed.  Systems which do inspire people to acts of high moral value are more essential to our culture than any advance of science.  Liberal Christianity, secular humanism and Catholicism failed miserably in response to fascism.  They failed the metric, but there is movement towards better systems that make recommendations regarding human values.

 

For example, nearly all the ministers I mentioned were strongly motivated by those beliefs to be involved in progressive social action.  This is not a coincidence either.  Regarding the merits of neo orthodoxy in particular, it deserves mention that among the ministers strongly influenced by Tillich was Martin Luther King- In fact, he wrote his dissertation on him.  Really, I don't see any practical benefit for atheists to concern themselves with postmoderns.   Maybe you could fast forward through needless clarifications by simply asking posters if they follow any recent theologians like Barth, Bultmann, Tillich or Bonhoeffer regarding literalism.   Besides avoiding wasting time covering the same ground, I would think you could be more gentle with them.  Whether or not you agree their beliefs should be eradicated as well, at least you might agree that they are mostly harmless.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:mellestad

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

There are a lot of steps between thinking of, "Christ as a symbol" to "We're part of a multiverse where quantum events create alternate realities and so, we're immortal, like flies trapped in amber."  Just because you can say the latter idea is similar to the former doesn't mean they are actually linked.

 

You either perceive the transcendent in a grain of sand, or you don't.

Grains of sand on the earth are like stars in the sky, astrology must be right because I sense the transcendent in the beach.

 

It *isn't* harmless Mak, because it isn't based on anything real.  It isn't based on empiricism, it isn't based on anything objective, and it still comes back to the failed idea that intuition is more reliable than science.  The feeling of 'transcendent' is a physical reaction in your brain, it happens to people for all sorts of goofy, objectively incorrect reasons, it doesn't make any of those things real or 'True'.

 

I thought this was going somewhere, but the other posters here seem to have gotten the message before I did.

 

I'm following Butter and Bob, cya around Mak.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Mak Thorpe

mellestad wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

There are a lot of steps between thinking of, "Christ as a symbol" to "We're part of a multiverse where quantum events create alternate realities and so, we're immortal, like flies trapped in amber."  Just because you can say the latter idea is similar to the former doesn't mean they are actually linked.

 

You either perceive the transcendent in a grain of sand, or you don't.

Grains of sand on the earth are like stars in the sky, astrology must be right because I sense the transcendent in the beach.

 

It *isn't* harmless Mak, because it isn't based on anything real.  It isn't based on empiricism, it isn't based on anything objective, and it still comes back to the failed idea that intuition is more reliable than science.  

Literalism again. I don't think Blake was attempting to prove some factual validity about astrology or anything else.  Postmodern Christians aren't competing with science regarding establishing factual validity any more than poets are.   Poetry,  literature or music are likewise not based on empiricism or anything objective, but they speak to human values.  Science does not.  I note that all atheistic posters are silent on this crucial point.  Science is no substitute to achieve this basic need, nor do atheists have any answer for it which answers the criteria that it be a system whose premises are empirically verifiable.

 

Lastly, no claim was made that intuition is more reliable than science.  


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:mellestad

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

There are a lot of steps between thinking of, "Christ as a symbol" to "We're part of a multiverse where quantum events create alternate realities and so, we're immortal, like flies trapped in amber."  Just because you can say the latter idea is similar to the former doesn't mean they are actually linked.

 

You either perceive the transcendent in a grain of sand, or you don't.

Grains of sand on the earth are like stars in the sky, astrology must be right because I sense the transcendent in the beach.

 

It *isn't* harmless Mak, because it isn't based on anything real.  It isn't based on empiricism, it isn't based on anything objective, and it still comes back to the failed idea that intuition is more reliable than science.  

Literalism again. I don't think Blake was attempting to prove some factual validity about astrology.  Neither is poetry,  literature or music based on empiricism, but they speak to human values.  Science does not.  

 

No claim was made that intuition is more reliable than science.  

Who is Blake and when did he talk about astrology, and *what* is literal?  I'm confused.  I wrote some nonsense to show that if you are influenced by the feeling of the trancendent, you can justify any notion you wish to.  Somewhere, someone (probably high) felt transcendent about some gum stuck to the bottom of a table.  So what?  It's just a physiological response, like getting an erection or feeling woozy from lack of oxygen or anything else.  It doesn't "mean" anything.

Don't you think you might be a bit biased since you're searching for real meaning to a flight of childhood fancy?  Or do you think that was the touch of a deity?

 

Why can't science speak for human values?  Because it doesn't feel transcendent?

 

If you aren't claiming intuition is more reliable than science, then show me, using science, how these ideas are causally linked.  Show me the input that went into these ancient philosophers that generated a theory linked to manyworlds.  Show me how philosophers who didn't even have the basic knowledge of any modern theologian made a claim that you say rests on the same foundation.

 

Or don't, it doesn't matter.  I have this disease where I can't leave people alone when they don't make any sense.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I missed your edit.  Music

I missed your edit.  Music isn't based on facts?  Go tell a  Julliard graduate that.  Go tell a neuro-scientist that our reaction to poetry isn't science.  Go tell the chair of Harvard's ethics or psychology departments that science can't speak to human values.  Go watch Carl Sagan and tell me science can't fill the 'void' you claim exists.

 

Are you just out of touch with modern science?  I mean, seriously, really?  Does this whole thing come down to, 'argument by theistic hippie'?  I can't believe this tortuous thread comes down to, "I feel awe, checkmate atheist!".  Please tell me it isn't so.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Why can't

mellestad wrote:

Why can't science speak for human values?  Because it doesn't feel transcendent?

 

If you aren't claiming intuition is more reliable than science, then show me, using science, how these ideas are causally linked.  Show me the input that went into these ancient philosophers that generated a theory linked to manyworlds.  Show me how philosophers who didn't even have the basic knowledge of any modern theologian made a claim that you say rests on the same foundation.

William Blake wrote the  following lines.  It is what I was referring to.

To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour. 

The only link that appears to be meaningful to you is one that is causal and empirical.  It is about as meaningful as saying that since there is no causal link between two poets that what they are talking about has no important relationship.

 

Does Science make recommendations about human values?  Noted atheist Sam Harris asks,

How could we ever say, as a matter of scientific fact, that one way of life is better, or more moral than another?  Whose definition of "better" or "moral" would we use?  While many scientists now study the evolution of morality, as well as its underlying neurobiology, the purpose of their research is merely to describe how human beings think and behave.  No one expects science to tell us how we ought to think and behave. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has no opinion.  

This is Harris's characterization of the default view.  It's no good asserting up is down on this point.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, this is a more

Well, this is a more interesting topic.

Science cannot address human values simply because there is no objectivity in human values. We use science to study reality, and our values don't refer to reality. They are just preferences. However, science can address what our preferences generally are and why we have those preferences. So, we can use science to understand reality, so that we do not apply our preferences under false beliefs.

Referring to the "transcendent," "supernatural," etc. to justify our values is pointless. They are misguided, albeit emotionally satisfying, attempts to find justification for the unjustifiable. The best possible reason for following our preferences is already implied in the term; they are our preferences i.e. what we want. I act on what I value simply because I value it.

The very concept of an objective value is logically inept. It is unimaginable how you would succeed in proving that any specific preference is objectively superior to other preferences. Even if it were achieved, why should I subjugate my own preferences to those preferences? I follow reality because it is pragmatic to do so. There is simply no common reality that can be referred to with values.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Go tell a

mellestad wrote:

 Go tell a neuro-scientist that our reaction to poetry isn't science.  

 

Let's not get out of hand on constructing absurd representations about what the other said.  Your response is not to the point. For many postmodern Christians reading the Bible is analogous to what anyone else does when they comprehend the meaning intended by the author of some poetry.  Both agree that the subject matter does not regard factual assertions, nor is the factual validity particularly relevant (eg The restoration of biological life process after being physically dead for days).  

 

So your response about the postmodern perspective is a non sequitur akin to:  "Guess what- Not only did Hamlet not speak to a ghost, he never existed."  Blank look.  Anyone who says this doesn't understand the nature of the truth being communicated.  

 

Why is it ok for people to appreciate Shakespeare in that way, but not the Bible in the identical way?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I missed

mellestad wrote:

 

Are you just out of touch with modern science?  I mean, seriously, really?  Does this whole thing come down to, 'argument by theistic hippie'?  I can't believe this tortuous thread comes down to, "I feel awe, checkmate atheist!".  Please tell me it isn't so.

 

ROFLMAO !

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Well,

butterbattle wrote:

Well, this is a more interesting topic.

Science cannot address human values simply because there is no objectivity in human values. We use science to study reality, and our values don't refer to reality. They are just preferences. However, science can address what our preferences generally are and why we have those preferences. So, we can use science to understand reality, so that we do not apply our preferences under false beliefs.

Referring to the "transcendent," "supernatural," etc. to justify our values is pointless. They are misguided, albeit emotionally satisfying, attempts to find justification for the unjustifiable. The best possible reason for following our preferences is already implied in the term; they are our preferences i.e. what we want. I act on what I value simply because I value it.

The very concept of an objective value is logically inept. It is unimaginable how you would succeed in proving that any specific preference is objectively superior to other preferences. Even if it were achieved, why should I subjugate my own preferences to those preferences? I follow reality because it is pragmatic to do so. There is simply no common reality that can be referred to with values.

 

You may be interested in Sam's last book.  He takes aim on the default view basically as you restated it, and he summarized in the quote above.  You may be interested to know that he makes the claim that Science does in fact establish what is objectively superior regarding questions of meaning, morality and life's larger purpose.  I am not kidding.  His book is: "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" (link to amazon where you can look inside).  

 

I read quite a bit of it and came to the conclusion that folks shouldn't write outside of their field of expertise.  Even secular philosophers will rip him to shreds, along the lines you stated on why such an enterprise is logically inept.  

 

Any system, including pragmatism has premises.  In your system, the good is that which is utilitarian.  Whether or not I came close enough to the premise underlying your perspective, I think you would not assert that there is any empirical or objective mechanism for establishing that your ethical system's premise(s) are superior to all others.  

 

My system does not pretend that the Bible is making factual assertions contrary to science.  It does make recommendations concerning human values, but I am told that because its premises cannot be empirically verified, that my system is invalid, whereas exception is made for other ethical systems whose premises are equally vulnerable to this objection.  


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:You may be

Mak Thorpe wrote:
You may be interested in Sam's last book.  He takes aim on the default view basically as you restated it, and he summarized in the quote above.  You may be interested to know that he makes the claim that Science does in fact establish what is objectively superior regarding questions of meaning, morality and life's larger purpose.  I am not kidding.  His book is: "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" (link to amazon where you can look inside)

I've already read and heard some Sam Harris on this topic. I can't say that I agree with him.  

In "The End of Faith," he even makes the tired old fallacy of equivocation argument that moral subjectivism is internally inconsistent because it claims that morals are "absolutely" not "absolute." 

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Any system, including pragmatism has premises.  In your system, the good is that which is utilitarian.

Well, at the most fundamental level, I am a moral subjectivist. I do enjoy subscribing to utilitarianism to judge actions and virtue ethics to judge the moral agent, but only as general guides and tools. Neither system is perfect.

Deontological ethics is stupid.  

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Whether or not I came close enough to the premise underlying your perspective, I think you would not assert that there is any empirical or objective mechanism for establishing that your ethical system's premise(s) are superior to all others.

That's correct, I think.

I would not assert that any of my values are objectively superior to anyone else's.   

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Literalism

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Literalism again. I don't think Blake was attempting to prove some factual validity about astrology or anything else.  Postmodern Christians aren't competing with science regarding establishing factual validity any more than poets are.   Poetry,  literature or music are likewise not based on empiricism or anything objective, but they speak to human values.  Science does not.  I note that all atheistic posters are silent on this crucial point.  Science is no substitute to achieve this basic need, nor do atheists have any answer for it which answers the criteria that it be a system whose premises are empirically verifiable.

 

Lastly, no claim was made that intuition is more reliable than science.  

I'm sorry to digress on the current direction of the thread.  Back to the original article.  I want to break it down in simple terms to check my understanding and remove semantics from the equation.  For this reason I'll use a John Travolta like tone:

" Ok, so you got like this 'Hubble volume' that's like what we can see, right?  So like, space is infinite or something, so you can like fit a whole wack of 'Hubble volume' universes because like infinity says that if everything could happen, it will happen. Alrightttt!

That means that there's like infinite copies of myself somewhere out there like farrrrr man, IT BLOWS MY MIND!!!

Ok, so there's like all these dudes out there that are just like me in every aspect man, but we like don't know about eachother or ever come in contact cuz we're like farrrrr.  So... here it comes man.... if I die.... my soul is immortal because these dudes are still alive... WOW eh? did I just blow your mind? I'm like immortal or something because all those fly cats out there are still alive.  Cuz we like all share the same soul man, FAR OUT!"

Now in regards to your postmodern Christianity as you describe it, I fail to see how you differ from an agnostic?  You're saying the bible is a fairytale, trust and understand scientific method but you hold to the belief that something is out there simply out of egotism.  There has to be something because we're so damn special.  You're saying you can't know the nature of God, and look to theoretical physics for proof of a God of gaps.  I see no logical value in such a belief system.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to ignore most of

I'm going to ignore most of this, because that doesn't seem to bother you.

 

So, you think the Bible is only valuable as an aesthetic, and it is equal to Shakespeare, no more, no less?  Just a book and you're happy it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling?  Because,

mak wrote:
Why is it ok for people to appreciate Shakespeare in that way, but not the Bible in the identical way?
means that.  Back to mixed signals.  If you appreciate Christianity or the Bible as art but past that you are 100% secular I'd be fine with you saying that.

 

Is that the case?  If it isn't, why the heck would you say something like this?  My experience is telling me you're not going to agree though, maybe you'll drop some big names to show me how I'm not thinking about this in the proper nebulous way.

 

Again, you're very confusing.  Or confused?  Either you appreciate Christianity from a secular/philosophical point of view or you buy into the woo.  If you see it as great art, just say, "I see it as great art, nothing more".  You don't need to say something mysterious sounding and then pontificate about theologians for pages.  I have a hard time believing this was your message from the start.  Especially when you say in one post, "I'm a theist!" then in the next post you say, "Religion is just art!"  Fine, then everyone is a theist, but now we've diluted the word so much it is meaningless.

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:So, you

mellestad wrote:

So, you think the Bible is only valuable as an aesthetic, and it is equal to Shakespeare, no more, no less?  Just a book and you're happy it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling?  Because,

mak wrote:
Why is it ok for people to appreciate Shakespeare in that way, but not the Bible in the identical way?
means that.  Back to mixed signals.  If you appreciate Christianity or the Bible as art but past that you are 100% secular I'd be fine with you saying that. 

I see.  You think the value of Shakespeare is that it gives you warm fuzzy feelings and no more than that.  I cannot convince you with logic how much you are cheating yourself.  You will not grasp truths of any significance regarding human values through science.  

 

I don't think that art is at all secular, it is fundamentally about getting at the same transcendent truths.  That is why Jesus's favorite mode of communication was through metaphor and parable.  

 

The difference is that artists make no specific recommendations about human behavior, nor stand united as a coherent group against tyrannies like naziism or the cruel oppression of the poor in Latin America, or racism in America.   They fail the metric.   They have no system of thought that does, but postmoderns do.  There are no systems of art whose members march united as a group to bring about social change.  Disciples of Tillich, like Martin Luther King do.  You cannot say that about other world views with coherent systems- like that of  quantum physics or a philosophy of ethics.  

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm sorry to

Ktulu wrote:

I'm sorry to digress on the current direction of the thread.  Back to the original article.  I want to break it down in simple terms to check my understanding and remove semantics from the equation.  For this reason I'll use a John Travolta like tone:

" Ok, so you got like this 'Hubble volume' that's like what we can see, right?  So like, space is infinite or something, so you can like fit a whole wack of 'Hubble volume' universes because like infinity says that if everything could happen, it will happen. Alrightttt!

That means that there's like infinite copies of myself somewhere out there like farrrrr man, IT BLOWS MY MIND!!!

Ok, so there's like all these dudes out there that are just like me in every aspect man, but we like don't know about eachother or ever come in contact cuz we're like farrrrr.  So... here it comes man.... if I die.... my soul is immortal because these dudes are still alive... WOW eh? did I just blow your mind? I'm like immortal or something because all those fly cats out there are still alive.  Cuz we like all share the same soul man, FAR OUT!"

That's funny as hell Ktulu. Almost sprayed coffee all over my keyboard reading that.

Take it down to the basics, and it almost sounds like something out of a Marvel Comic book plot.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:That's

harleysportster wrote:

That's funny as hell Ktulu. Almost sprayed coffee all over my keyboard reading that.

Take it down to the basics, and it almost sounds like something out of a Marvel Comic book plot.

Smiling  I wonder about Mak.  He seems like a very intelligent individual and I really enjoyed the article mentioned in the OP.  What I seem to have an issue with is his leap of faith.  I understand it must resonate with his beliefs but the conclusion he draws out of the article is non sequitur.  That's my whole premise.  If you're willing to make the leap of faith to an immortal soul, why do you need a multiverse to support that theory? You can just as well imply that the UNIverse is enough since in a multiverse you would still need something that transcends the universes in question.  So if something transcends the multiverse why not transcend the universe?... very interesting article otherwise.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
The gap is the absence of recommendations on human values

Ktulu wrote:

Now in regards to your postmodern Christianity as you describe it, I fail to see how you differ from an agnostic?  You're saying the bible is a fairytale...

I am not an agnostic because from the point of view of neoorthodoxy, God's existence is a given.  This does not characterize all postmoderns- Christian atheists who follow Altizer (link) for example do not believe that God (conceived as the traditional father member of the trinity) exists. 

Fairytales make no claims about being the inspired word of God.  Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Some fairytale such as C.S. Lewis's Narnia tale come close to communicating the same spirit, and simply because some literature is written by people with no particular religious beliefs do not disqualify it from being inspired by God.

Ktulu wrote:

... trust and understand scientific method but you hold to the belief that something is out there simply out of egotism.  There has to be something because we're so damn special.  You're saying you can't know the nature of God, and look to theoretical physics for proof of a God of gaps.  I see no logical value in such a belief system.  

 

If you read back to ButterBattle's description of his perception of his wife (link), his characterization is pretty close to the epistemological model I believe is valid.  If I summarize accurately, Butter believes that his wife actually exists from a perspective of pragmatism but makes no assertion that he can logically prove she does in fact exist.  He doesn't take it as a leap of faith in the sense popularly associated with  Kierkegaard,  because Butter believes that such an act is as unnecessary as it is intellectually dishonest.  Battle and I differ on whether the answer of pragmatism or the leap is the best response.  In your language, is his belief in his wife's existence one of "egotism"?  If so, then I can go along with the statement as well, although I have strong reservations if your semantics involve the more commonly used senses of the term, because it is more a leap away from egoism rather than a leap that a self filled with egoism makes.  As for the assertion that the motivation is one of feeling "damn special", neither my nor butter's belief in an unprovable "other" is motivated particularly by the sense that we are special.  Really, this positing of an other beyond the reach of our epistemological bubble is a generic philosophical problem.  Your attempts at levity achieve little in disproving or even grappling with the issue in any sort of meaningful way.  If you want to pursue the discussion, I think you might find it not as simple as you seem to assume.

 

Regarding your subsequent statement, show me where I make any assertion that it is the business of religion to answer any questions whatever that science does answer or theoretically could answer in the future.  Really, this has been the generic reaction of nearly every atheist poster.  Reread any of my responses regarding why I and postmoderns believe that any sort of proofs of transcendents is fallacious from both a logical and ontological perspective.  Or do you want to examine more closely what I meant when making reference to Kant or Lao Tsu?  It is a category error that biblical literalists habitually make, and it is a crucial one.  Far from any attempt to rationalize Christianity with the motivation of making it more pallitable to those who refuse to check their brains at the door,  I and many other postmoderns assert that Christians who believe otherwise are in fact worshiping false gods.  That is, the belief of so called Christians in the validity of any of these proofs turns themselves into idolators.  Theologically speaking, if these proofs are the basis of their faith, I believe it makes them un Christian.  

 

Am I concerned about a gap I that science doesn't fill?  You bet, but contrary to the God of Gaps that biblical literalists futily grasp at in desperation- the Gap I refer to is seen every day in the way people mistreat each other.  The teensy gap that science does not answer is the only one I have mentioned in this thread:  Science makes no recommendations regarding human values.  It has no answer, nor will it.

 

 

Ever.  That is not a God of Gaps.  On the contrary, nearly all postmoderns regard God in the manner that existentials refer to "Being" itself or "Becoming", Lao Tzu also characterizes this notion in the first poem of the Tao Te Ching.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:harleysportster

Ktulu wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

That's funny as hell Ktulu. Almost sprayed coffee all over my keyboard reading that.

Take it down to the basics, and it almost sounds like something out of a Marvel Comic book plot.

Smiling  I wonder about Mak.  He seems like a very intelligent individual and I really enjoyed the article mentioned in the OP.  What I seem to have an issue with is his leap of faith.  I understand it must resonate with his beliefs but the conclusion he draws out of the article is non sequitur.  That's my whole premise.  If you're willing to make the leap of faith to an immortal soul, why do you need a multiverse to support that theory? You can just as well imply that the UNIverse is enough since in a multiverse you would still need something that transcends the universes in question.  So if something transcends the multiverse why not transcend the universe?... very interesting article otherwise.

I don't need the multiverse theory.  As I described elsewhere, it is a hypothesis that provides a path to an alternate perspective of what reality means.  Butter characterizes it as an analogy, and that is close enough for the purpose of this thread.  It provides no proof, and as I have stated elsewhere, the proof or disproof of that particular model has no influence on my world view any more than disproof of the newtonian model would cause someone's faith in science itself or empirical method to be shaken.  

 

Some people don't feel any such relationship with the idea that the force of their character might be a property of the universe.  For them, it is an interpretation of Tegmark's thesis that does nothing for them.  That lack of response does not necessarily reflect on them at all, and I certainly do not think is is any reason to think any less of them in any respect.  Many people have similar reactions to Abstract Expressionism.  Each person has a different path to ultimate concerns, and they might be what I would consider deeply religious if I understood their worldview in sufficient detail.  

 

What I don't understand is why some atheists feel that it is important that Postmodern Christianity be eradicated.   Just from a perspective of pragmatics, it is a demonstrable  force of tolerance and activist progress in the world, values shared with many secular humanists.  


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:I don't

Mak Thorpe wrote:
I don't think that art is at all secular, it is fundamentally about getting at the same transcendent truths.  That is why Jesus's favorite mode of communication was through metaphor and parable.

This is why people feel like you are sending "mixed messages." You mention that it gets at "transcendent" truths without defining transcendent. Then, you mention the Jesus of the Bible, seemingly making multiple naked assertions at once.

The phrase "warm fuzzy feelings" sort of derides the value of art, but it is not incorrect. Art plays with our emotions and maybe we can learn something about human values. That's all. There is nothing transcendent about it.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
If you read back to ButterBattle's description of his perception of his wife (link), his characterization is pretty close to the epistemological model I believe is valid.  If I summarize accurately, Butter believes that his wife actually exists from a perspective of pragmatism but makes no assertion that he can logically prove she does in fact exist.  He doesn't take it as a leap of faith in the sense popularly associated with  Kierkegaard,  because Butter believes that such an act is as unnecessary as it is intellectually dishonest.  Battle and I differ on whether the answer of pragmatism or the leap is the best response.  In your language, is his belief in his wife's existence one of "egotism"?  If so, then I can go along with the statement as well, although I have strong reservations if your semantics involve the more commonly used senses of the term, because it is more a leap away from egoism rather than a leap that a self filled with egoism makes.  As for the assertion that the motivation is one of feeling "damn special", neither my nor butter's belief in an unprovable "other" is motivated particularly by the sense that we are special.  Really, this positing of an other beyond the reach of our epistemological bubble is a generic philosophical problem.  Your attempts at levity achieve little in disproving or even grappling with the issue in any sort of meaningful way.  If you want to pursue the discussion, I think you might find it not as simple as you seem to assume.

For clarification, realize though, that I would not agree with you in applying this model of my wife to God because there are no sensory experiences that I can directly attribute to God. Even if I didn't believe in my wife, I still have a concept of her; I observe her with my senses. The feelings that we receive from art, praying, etc. can be explained by psychology.   

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:[If you

Mak Thorpe wrote:

[

If you read back to ButterBattle's description of his perception of his wife (link), his characterization is pretty close to the epistemological model I believe is valid.  If I summarize accurately, Butter believes that his wife actually exists from a perspective of pragmatism but makes no assertion that he can logically prove she does in fact exist.  He doesn't take it as a leap of faith in the sense popularly associated with  Kierkegaard,  because Butter believes that such an act is as unnecessary as it is intellectually dishonest.  Battle and I differ on whether the answer of pragmatism or the leap is the best response.  In your language, is his belief in his wife's existence one of "egotism"?  If so, then I can go along with the statement as well, although I have strong reservations if your semantics involve the more commonly used senses of the term, because it is more a leap away from egoism rather than a leap that a self filled with egoism makes.  As for the assertion that the motivation is one of feeling "damn special", neither my nor butter's belief in an unprovable "other" is motivated particularly by the sense that we are special.  Really, this positing of an other beyond the reach of our epistemological bubble is a generic philosophical problem.  Your attempts at levity achieve little in disproving or even grappling with the issue in any sort of meaningful way.  If you want to pursue the discussion, I think you might find it not as simple as you seem to assume.

 

I thought it was funny, I guess not everyone appreciates my attempts at levity.  You take yourself way to seriously, watch some Southpark and smile, you'll live longer.  It's just a thread on a forum after all not a trial.  We're not setting any precedents here.

I'm sorry I hit a nerve, I really was trying to understand and not insult, I'm just an arrogant asshole and can't help it.  It's been my experience with agnostics (or whatever your consider yourself to be) that egotism (the motivation to maintain and enhance favourable views of oneself, in my semantics) is the last bastion against atheism.  They just can't believe this is all there is, there just has to be an immortal soul or big daddy in the sky.  

You have obviously gone through extensive lengths to rationalize that, and I admire that to some degree.  I just can't believe that some with your obviously elevated IQ can waste so much time and energy on an ancient myth.  I mean... really dude?... the bible? wtf?...

You may justify it whichever way you want and employ any philosophical concept it still comes down to this, you believe there is a God out there listening to your prayers correct? I'm really just trying to simplify what you believe in.  If I'm wrong or if my line of reasoning is so beneath you, please lower yourself to my level temporarily and explain where I'm wrong.  Who knows you may blow my mind and I'll start going to your church every Sunday.

As for the original post.  My question still stands levity or not.  How is the proven or unproven existence of a multiverse help the concept of a transcendent being, as opposed to the UNIverse?  I mean, if I'm not grappling the issue because I'm simple, please enlighten me, I take criticism really well unlike some people *coughMak Thorpecough that I will not mention.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:mellestad

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

So, you think the Bible is only valuable as an aesthetic, and it is equal to Shakespeare, no more, no less?  Just a book and you're happy it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling?  Because,

mak wrote:
Why is it ok for people to appreciate Shakespeare in that way, but not the Bible in the identical way?
means that.  Back to mixed signals.  If you appreciate Christianity or the Bible as art but past that you are 100% secular I'd be fine with you saying that. 

I see.  You think the value of Shakespeare is that it gives you warm fuzzy feelings and no more than that.  I cannot convince you with logic how much you are cheating yourself.  You will not grasp truths of any significance regarding human values through science.  

 

I don't think that art is at all secular, it is fundamentally about getting at the same transcendent truths.  That is why Jesus's favorite mode of communication was through metaphor and parable.  

 

The difference is that artists make no specific recommendations about human behavior, nor stand united as a coherent group against tyrannies like naziism or the cruel oppression of the poor in Latin America, or racism in America.   They fail the metric.   They have no system of thought that does, but postmoderns do.  There are no systems of art whose members march united as a group to bring about social change.  Disciples of Tillich, like Martin Luther King do.  You cannot say that about other world views with coherent systems- like that of  quantum physics or a philosophy of ethics.  

What is transcendent?  Why is it special?  As I pointed out, everything I've ever seen points to 'transcendent' being no different from any other emotional response, it is a brain reaction.  It, 'blows your mind.'  Big deal.  A serial killer feels transcendent the first time they murder someone, does that make their experience something we should respect more simply because of how they felt?

You're entire argument seems to be that your particular emotional reaction to certain stimuli is evidence of some greater truth, but all you do to show that is repeat yourself over and over.

 

If 'transcedency' is a legitimate path to truth then how do you sort all the various contradictory experiences?

-------------

I do agree with you though, on every point.  I just think by transcendent you mean emotionally powerful.  Same result, but without the woo-woo stuff you must rely on at some point.  Hell, if we took out the theist words and replaced transcendent with emotionally powerful, everything you wrote would make sense.

 

I look forward to how you justify transcendent as being special.  To date, all you've done is assert.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Mak

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
If you read back to ButterBattle's description of his perception of his wife (link), his characterization is pretty close to the epistemological model I believe is valid.  If I summarize accurately, Butter believes that his wife actually exists from a perspective of pragmatism but makes no assertion that he can logically prove she does in fact exist.  He doesn't take it as a leap of faith in the sense popularly associated with  Kierkegaard,  because Butter believes that such an act is as unnecessary as it is intellectually dishonest.  Battle and I differ on whether the answer of pragmatism or the leap is the best response.  In your language, is his belief in his wife's existence one of "egotism"?  If so, then I can go along with the statement as well, although I have strong reservations if your semantics involve the more commonly used senses of the term, because it is more a leap away from egoism rather than a leap that a self filled with egoism makes.  As for the assertion that the motivation is one of feeling "damn special", neither my nor butter's belief in an unprovable "other" is motivated particularly by the sense that we are special.  Really, this positing of an other beyond the reach of our epistemological bubble is a generic philosophical problem.  Your attempts at levity achieve little in disproving or even grappling with the issue in any sort of meaningful way.  If you want to pursue the discussion, I think you might find it not as simple as you seem to assume.

For clarification, realize though, that I would not agree with you in applying this model of my wife to God because there are no sensory experiences that I can directly attribute to God. Even if I didn't believe in my wife, I still have a concept of her; I observe her with my senses. The feelings that we receive from art, praying, etc. can be explained by psychology.   

 

Sure, and if the poster is interested in following up on that difference that is something to examine.  He made a generic characterization of egoism that appeared indistinguishable to how he would characterize your situation.  Possibly he would say it only relies on egoism (whatever he meant by that) if there is not the same sort of sensory input as in the case of perception of physical entities occupying a specific location.   We don't know.  Yet.

 

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
I don't think that art is at all secular, it is fundamentally about getting at the same transcendent truths.  That is why Jesus's favorite mode of communication was through metaphor and parable.

This is why people feel like you are sending "mixed messages." You mention that it gets at "transcendent" truths without defining transcendent. Then, you mention the Jesus of the Bible, seemingly making multiple naked assertions at once.

The phrase "warm fuzzy feelings" sort of derides the value of art, but it is not incorrect. Art plays with our emotions and maybe we can learn something about human values. That's all. There is nothing transcendent about it.

 

No, "warm and fuzzy" is incorrect.  Many times the impact of art is hardly warm, fuzzy, or anything one would describe as pleasant.   Does Edvard Munch's scream elicit warm and fuzzy feelings?  Does one feel warm and fuzzy in response to Holden Caulfield's tremendous feeling of alienation and the inauthenticity of existence in Salinger's Catcher in the Rye?   Regardless how many measurements we take of brain activity, understand the exact mechanism of how Salinger communicates that meaning to our brains, we come to realization of truths upon which we can base our human values.  

 

It seems that we agree that there are truths that due to the constraints of our epistemological bubble, we are unable to reliably verify.  The term transcendent can be used both to refer to truths beyond the limits that bubble as well as refer to some sort of process whereby it is possible to "transcend" the limitations of that bubble.  I accept the former and as I have said repeatedly, deny the possibility of the latter.  

When Nietzsche or I say that "We all have a character that is eternal",  then we are using language that is suggestive of an unverifiable truth that implies heavy burdens with deep implications for human values.  Neither Nietzsche nor I can prove this truth empirically, or logically.  These truths are beyond the realm of scientifically verifiable truths, and so irrespective of the epistemological limits, at this most simple level they are transcendent with respect to  truths of science.  

 

There are many valid and whimsical ways to make fun of this point of view.  For example, there could be a large group of theists who have a self- consistent system of thought involving a trinity of flying spaghetti monsters.  Now also assume that none of the adherents claim that there is any proof of the actual existence of the spaghetti monsters nor have any hostility or objection whatever to teaching science consistent with the rules of science- including teachings that seek to disprove the validity of their system.  Nonetheless, the group of followers consistently follow a code of behavior in personal and social action that generally adhere to what we would consider superior human values.  Reasonable people could claim the idea of the mythology of the spaghetti monster is utter nonsense.  Further, they might even be able to show how their spiritual practices are actually neurologically reproducible states that only make suggestions to the adherants that the transcendent truths upon which they base that moral behavior are actually being suggested to them by perceptual and neurological  illusions.  The response is essentially the same blank look in response to your undeniable proofs that Hamlet didn't actually see a ghost.  So what.  Their experience suggested the existence of the numinous, or what Tillich refers to as an ultimate concern.  Their teapot still floats hidden on the other side of the sun.

 

Fine, make fun of such weird and unfounded superstitions as this.  But what harm do they pose to our culture or society?  If there is an absence of harm it seems to me that this so called Rational responders group is wasting there time trying to disprove the undisprovable to a group that is promoting good, not evil in our society.  It seems irrational to me.   Atheists have a justifiable beef with many so called Christians, but this beef is with those who believe in literalism, and does not necessarily apply to other theists.  

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
mak wrote:When Nietzsche or

mak wrote:
When Nietzsche or I say that "We all have a character that is eternal",  then we are using language that is suggestive of an unverifiable truth that implies heavy burdens with deep implications for human values.  Neither Nietzsche nor I can prove this truth empirically, or logically.  These truths are beyond the realm of scientifically verifiable truths, and so irrespective of the epistemological limits, at this most simple level they are transcendent with respect to  truths of science.  

 

No it isn't.  There, what do I win?

 

Do you understand what you're saying?  Really?  You're admitting to pulling something out of your ass, proud of it, and willing to base your life around the principle.  Plus, by saying your beliefs cannot be logically verified you're either discounting the ability of logic to account for something real (which means your world view is based on chaos and you can't assert *anything*) or you are just admitting that your ideas are BS, but they make you happy so leave me alone.

Do you know why leaving you alone is a bad idea?  Because someone can take your reasoning, arrive at a horrific conclusion that *does* do direct damage.  Anyone can come up with *anything* by using your reasoning, because you reject all reason and logic and replace it with pure emotion.  My serial killer example is right at the top, if you felt moved by death in the same way you do by these religious ideas, well...anyway.

 

It hurts society because, at the root, you're pushing a philosophical foundation that is based on irrationality.  You can't build on that.  Transcendent indeed.  Assert, assert, assert.  I guess I understand *why* you're asserting though, because with your beliefs that is all a person can do.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Fine, make

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Fine, make fun of such weird and unfounded superstitions as this.  But what harm do they pose to our culture or society?  If there is an absence of harm it seems to me that this so called Rational responders group is wasting there time trying to disprove the undisprovable to a group that is promoting good, not evil in our society.  It seems irrational to me.   Atheists have a justifiable beef with many so called Christians, but this beef is with those who believe in literalism, and does not necessarily apply to other theists.  

You have the mental capacity to assert the value of a claim, and you are still a theist.  You're in the very, very small minority.  The majority of people that have your level of understanding and ability to keep an open mind are atheists.  The 'harm' is in how easily this 'unfounded superstition' can be turned into a profitable business or a way to abuse women.  Every cult (including all religions) is based on unfounded superstitions, and at one time was promoting a subjective 'good'.  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".  The problem I have with your belief is that if left unchallenged by reason it will flower into a Neo M-theory Christianity with a pope that rules all 10 dimensions.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Do you understand what

mellestad wrote:
Do you understand what you're saying?  Really?  You're admitting to pulling something out of your ass, proud of it, and willing to base your life around the principle.  Plus, by saying your beliefs cannot be logically verified you're either discounting the ability of logic to account for something real (which means your world view is based on chaos and you can't assert *anything*) or you are just admitting that your ideas are BS, but they make you happy so leave me alone.

Do you know why leaving you alone is a bad idea?  Because someone can take your reasoning, arrive at a horrific conclusion that *does* do direct damage.  Anyone can come up with *anything* by using your reasoning, because you reject all reason and logic and replace it with pure emotion.  My serial killer example is right at the top, if you felt moved by death in the same way you do by these religious ideas, well...anyway.

 

It hurts society because, at the root, you're pushing a philosophical foundation that is based on irrationality.  You can't build on that.  Transcendent indeed.  Assert, assert, assert.  I guess I understand *why* you're asserting though, because with your beliefs that is all a person can do.

what he said Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Do you

mellestad wrote:

 

Do you understand what you're saying?  Really?  You're admitting to pulling something out of your ass, proud of it, and willing to base your life around the principle.  Plus, by saying your beliefs cannot be logically verified you're either discounting the ability of logic to account for something real (which means your world view is based on chaos and you can't assert *anything*) or you are just admitting that your ideas are BS, but they make you happy so leave me alone.

Do you know why leaving you alone is a bad idea?  Because someone can take your reasoning, arrive at a horrific conclusion that *does* do direct damage.  Anyone can come up with *anything* by using your reasoning, because you reject all reason and logic and replace it with pure emotion.  My serial killer example is right at the top, if you felt moved by death in the same way you do by these religious ideas, well...anyway.

 

It hurts society because, at the root, you're pushing a philosophical foundation that is based on irrationality.  You can't build on that.  Transcendent indeed.  Assert, assert, assert.  I guess I understand *why* you're asserting though, because with your beliefs that is all a person can do.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.   Besides, society needs to learn truths, not more superstitious mumbo-jumbo to give meaning to their lives.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:You have the

Ktulu wrote:

You have the mental capacity to assert the value of a claim, and you are still a theist.  You're in the very, very small minority. 

Not really.  I listed a large number of current ministers above who are postmoderns.  Within that larger set,  Neo-orthodox christians who think along the lines of  Tillich seem to be really obscure to people here, but as I pointed out, he was so significant to Martin Luther King, he wrote his dissertation on him.  Jimmy Carter regarded him as the most profound theologian when asked about his religious beliefs which deeply motivate all his actions.  So, without postmodern Christian thought there may never have been a Jimmy Carter in the white house, no Camp David.  No Martin Luther King, no march on Washington, no Barack Obama in the White House.  Is MLK, Obama and Carter equally dangerous due to their Christian faith? Where are the evils that postmoderns have committed?  They have been around since the mid 19th century.

 

Really your criticism is generic about systems.  Let's have no groups of people with a common set of ideas because powerful leaders will take advantage of the situation.  

 

How does it apply to postmodernists?  You seem to think that they would be duped easily since their belief in truths that they cannot verify means that they do not apply formidable rules of rationality to our everyday world where institutions and individuals are corrupted.  We don't accept that the Pope is inerrent, that priests are above reproach or investigation as any other individual if there is any suggestion of pedophilia.  I guess you need to get a little more concrete in order for me to understand the danger you see.  


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Ktulu

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

You have the mental capacity to assert the value of a claim, and you are still a theist.  You're in the very, very small minority. 

Not really.  I listed a large number of current ministers above who are postmoderns.  Within that larger set,  Neo-orthodox christians who think along the lines of  Tillich seem to be really obscure to people here, but as I pointed out, he was so significant to Martin Luther King, he wrote his dissertation on him.  Jimmy Carter regarded him as the most profound theologian when asked about his religious beliefs which deeply motivate all his actions.  So, without postmodern Christian thought there may never have been a Jimmy Carter in the white house, no Camp David.  No Martin Luther King, no march on Washington, no Barack Obama in the White House.  Is MLK, Obama and Carter equally dangerous due to their Christian faith? Where are the evils that postmoderns have committed?  They have been around since the mid 19th century.

 

Really your criticism is generic about systems.  Let's have no groups of people with a common set of ideas because powerful leaders will take advantage of the situation.  

 

How does it apply to postmodernists?  You seem to think that they would be duped easily since their belief in truths that they cannot verify means that they do not apply formidable rules of rationality to our everyday world where institutions and individuals are corrupted.  We don't accept that the Pope is inerrent, that priests are above reproach or investigation as any other individual if there is any suggestion of pedophilia.  I guess you need to get a little more concrete in order for me to understand the danger you see.  

I admit I have to do a bit more reading regarding postmodern Christianity, I'm quite ignorant.  I apologize if I jumped the gun.  I still stand by my previous comments regarding religion as a whole, and it is my firm view.  I put them all in the same bag, and if there are any benefits to your religious view it will be far outweighed by the rest of the 99.9999% of religious views that abuse ideals.

As for postmodernists, I don't believe they will be easily duped themselves, rather that your religious paradigm will be used to sell a bastardized version of your ideals to the ignorant masses that don't care to think for themselves.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I agree Harley.  Besides,

I agree Harley.  Besides, if all you want is awe, science has plenty of that.

 

Vastness of the universe.  100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.  We see planets aren't rare at all, and we can only detect the giants.  Holy shit.

The barrier between our minds, bodies, the air around us and everything else is arbitrary because everything runs on the same physics.  The things your brain does to generate thought are indistinguishable from the way atoms react in the heart of a sun.  Hell, parts of you might have been in a sun once.  You are star stuff.  Wow.

Our brains usually make decisions before 'we' even know what is going on.  Moral choices too.  A good chunk of the time our consciousness is just along for the ride.  Whoa.

Our bodies are made up of autonomous cell colonies.  Our consciousness is a tool used to perpetuate a symbiotic, walking coral reef.  Jesus H. Christ.

The intricacy of, well, *everything*.  What actually happens when you light a match, or scratch an itch, or the wind makes a cloud drift by?  Daaaamn.

Quantum theory.  Lol, insane.

Evolution.  The best idea anyone has ever had. - Daniel Dennett

Psychology, physics, biology, chemistry, sociology, neuroscience, genetics, on and on and on.

 

 

Seriously, I could write about stupidly amazing stuff all day long.  Every one of them an idea that just knocks my socks off and puts me in an awe induced state that my wife hates because I won't shut up.

A theist has...what?  What compares in significance or impact to a single one of those concepts?  What has equal explanatory power?  Maybe that is part of the problem, many people just don't know what they're missing.  That would explain why religion adherence declines with science education.  

We don't need God to fill out lives with awe, because we've already got more than we can handle.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The idea that the world

The idea that the world would never evolve leaders without your brand of theism is just another assertion, and an insulting one at that.  So is insinuating that slavery would never have died out, or no-one would ever attempt to end violence.  I'm sure you'll say that isn't what you meant, but that is what it sounded like.

I think religion has made some very valuable contributions to morality.  But we can do better now.  The basis of religion is too well understood, and it is tapped out.  It had its time in the sun and it was valuable before we had anything better.

We can understand what empathy really is, why it is, and why we should use it.

 

We don't need God to be moral anymore, we can make systems of ethics and morality based on facts, systems that are consistent and equitable and effective.  We avoid so much baggage that way.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak:  I know it sounds like

Mak:  I know it sounds like some of us are trying to bust your balls, but that is because this is a debate forum and you came here with an idea I don't think is true.

 

If I had to choose between religious ideas, I would choose ideas like yours.  I've said many times, on this very forum even, that in the real world I don't have much of an issue with liberal theism.  I really don't.  I've even said I'd rather live in a world of functional liberal theists than a dysfunctional atheistic world (That isn't to say I think an atheistic world would be dysfunctional, it is just a general point that atheists can be just as stupid and irrational as theists).  If I lived next to you, we'd probably get along great, we'd lend each other sugar, and we'd probably be donating to the same causes, meeting with the same people and generally agreeing on lots of things.  Once I knew you, I'd probably let me kids play at your house.

My "real world" struggle is against religious fundamentalism, religious and secular extremism and general irrational and destructive concepts.  In the "Real world" I doubt I'd ever want to debate your religion because it doesn't matter much to me.

 

But this isn't the real world, this is a debate forum where everyone pounces on the slightest sign of weakness.  We eat out own young and most of the interesting debates aren't even against theists, they are atheists tearing each other apart.

 

Just wanted to get that out there.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The idea

mellestad wrote:

The idea that the world would never evolve leaders without your brand of theism is just another assertion, and an insulting one at that.  So is insinuating that slavery would never have died out, or no-one would ever attempt to end violence.  I'm sure you'll say that isn't what you meant, but that is what it sounded like.

I think religion has made some very valuable contributions to morality.  But we can do better now.  The basis of religion is too well understood, and it is tapped out.  It had its time in the sun and it was valuable before we had anything better.

We can understand what empathy really is, why it is, and why we should use it.

 

We don't need God to be moral anymore, we can make systems of ethics and morality based on facts, systems that are consistent and equitable and effective.  We avoid so much baggage that way.

 

I did not mean to imply that culture would not make advances towards a world expressing higher human values if postmodernist Christianity were eradicated.  There are many leaders with wholly secular humanist perspectives that motivate themselves as well as their followers.  As footnote though, I think it can be shown that the foundations of their value system are as epistemologically "fictitious" as that of pure science or any of the postmoderns.  

 I sense a close here, so I should point out some other meanings that I did not intend.  None of you pounced on an unfair suggestion that could be read from my point that postmodern Christians are much more common that people think.  I did not intend to suggest, and it would be a gross mischaracterization to say that the masses of Christians that followed MLK, or those Christians that voted for Carter, or the majority of Christians who generally agree with political progressives and voted for Obama  (eg the Jim Wallis crowd) are for the most part postmoderns.   We all know that to be false.   In particular, many of MLKs religious followers though good people were fundamentalists through and through. 

People might also take an incorrect suggestion about the leaders I mentioned.   I know that many if not most here are uninterested in the theological intricacies but I should emphasize that none of the leaders I mentioned are devotees of Tillich though MLK and Carter were influenced strongly by him.  There is an additional point of interest mostly for those that might arrive here on a google of terms that crop up in high frequency in this thread.  MLK's dissertation gives a pretty good summation of two postmodern thinkers, but he actually goes beyond Tillich because he had a far superior skill than Tillich did in wielding symbols and inspiring people.  MLK parts ways with Tillich over his juxtaposition of the ontological discussion of God versus what Tillich perhaps unfortunately characterized as "symbolic" representations of God.  MLK recognizes that Tillich means symbol in a very rare sense, that a  "genuine symbol participates in  the reality of that which it symbolizes."  The full depth of this participation with representations (as being the only reality that humans actually ever talk about) is something Owen Barfield expands on, but its full epistemological ramifications elude the young MLK. To him, the juxtaposition Tillich makes between the ontological and symbolic terminology make  it seem as if Tillich's Personal God is either an inconsistency or some sort of charade that a minister is expected to foist on his congregation.  MLK decides on the former and though he recognizes that Tillich denies he is positing an impersonal God, I believe MLK incorrectly concluded that TIllich failed to address the inconsistency.   Whether he was right about Tillich or not, MLK was brilliant in his response to the problem of translating from the ontological inconcievables to practical religious and moral action.   I personally think the young MLK felt the timeliness of the moment and felt compelled to cut his scholarly work short.  If there were more time, I think he would have more fully described his solution.  Individuals need to feel a personal connection with an ultimate concern which is experienced in the form of a relationship with a Person or person.  Using the terminology of symbols and myth is extremely confusing to a lay audience in a world where the account of nominalism and literalism is dominant.

From a nominalistic world view, we may not need God to be moral, but we are minus a felt personal relationship with ultimates, and this puts such humanists and postmoderns at a distinct disadvantage to the literalists.  Until secular humanists develop coherent systems with such a felt personal relationship to such ultimates then we won't see coherent groups of people who are motivated to take action based on a particular ethical system.  Postmoderns in all honesty are in the same boat.  The mid term elections,  the looming events of Tuscon, and the unrepentant response from the extreme right provide mounting evidence of our relative impotence in confronting evil.

The progress of postmodern christianity or whatever secular humanistic system that supplants it will likely take a pace typical for such major shifts in cultural world views.   In the interim we may be stuck with social action (positive or negative) motivated by masses of  individuals whose felt personal relationship  is not with God but with charismatic human demi gods or some literalistic caricature of a Personal God.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you that

I agree with you that getting secular people motivated en mass about a specific issue is more difficult because they don't respect an objective ultimate authority.  I would respond that memes of that nature are not necessarily good things overall.

Tough to say though.  I think (pure speculation) that part of the problem is Americans are stigmatized for being irreligious, so you have a higher than normal sample of social outliers.  That might make consensus more difficult.  As many surveys and recent studies have pointed out though, Americans probably aren't as religious as they think and if popular culture removes that stigma you might see more secular coalitions form around social issues.

Other nations don't seem to have the trouble, so I don't think it is inherent in lack of belief.  The Scandinavian countries tend to beat Americans in social action and expenditure per capita and they are highly secular.

 

In summary, I don't think you need 'ultimates' to unite, non-ultimate causes work just as well.  For example, Greenpeace, PETA, Doctors without Borders, etc, etc. are all highly cohesive ethical based groups based on secular principles.  I don't think they are any less motivated than any religious group, fundamentalist or not.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
I wish you were right....

 If Antonio Damasio's framework is correct, then many memes have very deep roots indeed.  Of course, the brain stem is not all about baser emotions- there are positive ones like those that Obama touched on in his Tuscon speech.  For example for the most powerful symbol he used, there is good fossil evidence of dinosaur parents in self sacrificial positions protecting their young.   So that kind of protect-the-innocent feeling runs very deep.  The trouble is, it is not bonded to a secular meme that is part of a comprehensive interlocking set of memes like the rugged individualism thang that the NRA crowd chants incessantly.  The gun toting sort of memeplex does not necessarily revolve around what you would call an objective authority (nor does mine since it is not objective in your sense of the term), but it qualifies as an ultimate concern that I have been talking about.  They take anything that even hints at their ultimate concern, and their cerebral cortex is lit up like a Christmas tree with memes imbued with intense visceral feelings.  They care about the associated issues so deeply they will show up at the polls, whereas the progressives don't "feel the call".  The young- the only demographic group that is consistently progressive only delivered 11% of their numbers in the last election.  They felt sad about 2010 elections, real sad.  But it will pass, just like their attention to the meaning of Tuscon.  Sorry for the healthy serving of cynicism- I really really wish I had good reason to believe otherwise.   I really really wish the assault weapon ban would be reinstated, but as Rachel Maddow observed at the beginning of the week, there isn't a shred of a chance it could be reinstated even if it were only to prevent people on the terrorist list from buying them.  Seriously- no pundit believes any gun control measure can pass.  What's more, there will be no backlash against republican stonewalling on the issue.  It's pathetic.

 

So notwithstanding some committed individuals in the organizations you mentioned,  I personally see progressives failing the challenge.  They will not find the fire in their belly to stand up to the Right in 2012.  Not only will the house stay in the hands of the lunatic fringe, but the Senate will go over too.

 

I wish you were right, but I just don't see them finding the necessary inspiration to fire themselves up.  


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote: If

Mak Thorpe wrote:

 If Antonio Damasio's framework is correct, then many memes have very deep roots indeed.  Of course, the brain stem is not all about baser emotions- there are positive ones like those that Obama touched on in his Tuscon speech.  For example for the most powerful symbol he used, there is good fossil evidence of dinosaur parents in self sacrificial positions protecting their young.   So that kind of protect-the-innocent feeling runs very deep.  The trouble is, it is not bonded to a secular meme that is part of a comprehensive interlocking set of memes like the rugged individualism thang that the NRA crowd chants incessantly.  The gun toting sort of memeplex does not necessarily revolve around what you would call an objective authority, but it qualifies as an ultimate concern that I have been talking about.  They take anything that even hints at their ultimate concern, and their cerebral cortex is lit up like a Christmas tree with memes imbued with intense visceral feelings.  They care about the associated issues it so deeply they will show up at the polls, whereas the progressives don't feel the call.  The young- the only demographic group that is consistently progressive only delivered 11% of their numbers in the last election.  They felt sad about 2010 elections, real sad.  But it will pass, just like their attention to the meaning of Tuscon.  Sorry for the healthy serving of cynicism- I really really wish I had good reason to believe otherwise.   I really really wish the assault weapon ban would be reinstated, but as Rachel Maddow observed at the beginning of the week, there isn't a shred of a chance it could be reinstated even if it were only to prevent people on the terrorist list from buying them.  Seriously- no pundit believes any gun control measure can pass.  What's more, there will be no backlash against republican stonewalling on the issue.  It's pathetic.

 

So notwithstanding some committed individuals in the organizations you mentioned,  I personally see progressives failing the challenge.  They will not find the fire in their belly to stand up to the Right in 2012.  Not only will the house stay in the hands of the lunatic fringe, but the Senate will go over too.

 

I wish you were right, but I just don't see them finding the necessary inspiration to fire themselves up.  

 

Honestly I think you are simplifying it far too much.  There are many reasons for why the U.S. is the way it is, but saying progressives can't be passionate and united is just B.S. because there are too many groups and *entire nations* that are very united about progressive issues with a non-religious base.  I could twist that thinking around and say the inability to ban abortion means the religious right doesn't have any political motivation but we both know that is just cherry picking.

Things like gun control are complicated and it isn't about the victory or defeat of reason, it is just about culture.  It is demonstrably true that social, liberal and progressive secular agendas can be just as politically motivating to societies as religious ideas, we can do case studies on nations and groups to prove this.  It is just culture...in America there is a strong bias towards religiosity, but that can change.  I think it is changing.  I don't have any illusions about America becoming Sweden in my lifetime, but I can see a 5-10% shift towards more secular processes and that is enough for me.

 

Honestly I think the main thing is to push education and focus on slowing or even reducing the income gap between rich and poor and the nation will move towards more secular political processes all by itself.  That seems to be a pattern that repeats itself in democracies.

I've heard speculation that the whole fundamentalist movement is largely the result of the cold war propaganda against Communism.  No idea if that is true, but it would explain why the U.S. is an outlier among nations of similar status.

 

*Edit* And not just religious thought processes, I meant to include any 'ultimate concern'.  So, I agree with you, I just think you are being too negative and too focuses on America as an example of what is possible.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The crudest analogy I can

The crudest analogy I can think of is a flame. While a flame is burning, we think of it as a particular flame. It can be passed on to another stick, and we think of that 'new' flame having some connection with the original flame, although no longer being the same flame. Remember, there is no persistent material identity in a flame, the atoms in it are continuously passing through it from the fuel that is burning.

Once it is extinguished, that particular flame is dead, even if another flame that was ignited from it still burns.

If 'I' experienced something analogous, so that there were now two 'me's, I cannot imaging feeling being in two places at once. There would be two individuals who share a common memory for events preceding the split.

What is missing in the flame is some analogue of memory, but I still think our perception of a flame as a 'thing' has some analogy with how we perceive our consciousness.

Memory provides an extra strand of connection with our earlier self, and in particular, to me, it connects us through periods of unconsciousness, including sleep.

Any attempt to make an argument from the changing substance of our bodies really misses the point.

It seems to me that pretty much everyone else here shares this same general feeling about this. Mak is the odd one out. I am not questioning that Mak may indeed feel some sort of resonance with the idea of these other incarnations, but it appears to be a personal quirk which we don't share.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Odd one out

Bob, I suppose you could assert I am the odd one out, so then Nietszche is too as those who have read him since the 19th century and were also convinced of the connection?  He stated that Zarathustra was based on the idea of the eternal recurrence.  Your response?  I suppose one could be equally dismissive of this large body of existentialist thought, but that would require a more careful argument than you have offered.  In any case, it is not accurate to suggest that the point of view that I have put forth is especially rare or idiosyncratic to one particular individual.  

 

It is my feeling that the posters here are reflecting an outlier opinion of feeling profound alienation from these other selves.  If the hypothesis is true, then your character is an emergent property of the universe like any other property such as the atomic weight of uranium.  The fact there is no passing of state from one instance may be relevant to your particular instance because our biological instinct is to associate a great deal of importance to our biological continuation.  Its individualism versus the suprapersonal character that is eternal.  One rejects connection with the other.  So what, that doesn't mean there is no relationship between the two.

 

 

 


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Honestly I

mellestad wrote:

 

Honestly I think you are simplifying it far too much.  There are many reasons for why the U.S. is the way it is, but saying progressives can't be passionate and united is just B.S. because there are too many groups and *entire nations* that are very united about progressive issues with a non-religious base.  I could twist that thinking around and say the inability to ban abortion means the religious right doesn't have any political motivation but we both know that is just cherry picking.

Things like gun control are complicated and it isn't about the victory or defeat of reason, it is just about culture.  It is demonstrably true that social, liberal and progressive secular agendas can be just as politically motivating to societies as religious ideas, we can do case studies on nations and groups to prove this.  It is just culture...in America there is a strong bias towards religiosity, but that can change.  I think it is changing.  I don't have any illusions about America becoming Sweden in my lifetime, but I can see a 5-10% shift towards more secular processes and that is enough for me.

 

Honestly I think the main thing is to push education and focus on slowing or even reducing the income gap between rich and poor and the nation will move towards more secular political processes all by itself.  That seems to be a pattern that repeats itself in democracies.

I've heard speculation that the whole fundamentalist movement is largely the result of the cold war propaganda against Communism.  No idea if that is true, but it would explain why the U.S. is an outlier among nations of similar status.

 

*Edit* And not just religious thought processes, I meant to include any 'ultimate concern'.  So, I agree with you, I just think you are being too negative and too focuses on America as an example of what is possible.

Perhaps you missed the nuances of what Tillich means by ultimate concern?  The meme of an adult protecting a child touches on the ultimate concern of a parent, and Damasio's account of how this works is far from simplistic.  This is why Obama's superb evocation of being worthy of Christina's dreams was so compelling.  Were you saying all ultimate concerns including this one be eliminated?  Surely you are not saying that no one should care deeply about anything?

 

And how is education some sort of prophylactic against the gun toting rugged individualism memeplex?    Plenty of Ayn Rand followers that have a very sophisticated set of ideas built around why they need to allowed to buy plastic guns.  

 

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:It is my

Mak Thorpe wrote:

It is my feeling that the posters here are reflecting an outlier opinion of feeling profound alienation from these other selves.  

Un-true.  We argue that attachment is not a reason to consider such things significant any more than other coincidences, which is all the whole idea is, really.  You happen to share thought patterns with another being, one you'll never ever meet or be impacted by.  Neat idea, but that's it.

Mak Thorpe wrote:

If the hypothesis is true, then your character is an emergent property of the universe like any other property such as the atomic weight of uranium.  The fact there is no passing of state from one instance may be relevant to your particular instance because our biological instinct is to associate a great deal of importance to our biological continuation.  Its individualism versus the suprapersonal character that is eternal.  One rejects connection with the other.  So what, that doesn't mean there is no relationship between the two.

We can see that you might consider it a relation and become attached to it, what we don't see is how you could claim it is immortality any more than claiming part of you is immortal because an idea you've had might be shared by others in the future.  To define immortality in the way you're doing is to dilute it to insignificance.  

We've been over this before:  If all you said was, "Beings in other mutliverses might be identical to us, and they might repeat forever, neat huh?" no-one would give you any crap.  The problem is when you throw language around willy-nilly like souls, immortality, theism, scripture, heaven and hell, objective morality, etc. etc.

You're making a mountain of of a mole-hill and justifying it based on your subjective attachment to a particular thought.  Great, it gives you the shivers when you think about it, but don't try to co-opt religious terminology to make your point, it is horrifically confusing because it comes with so much baggage.

-------------

 

I'm still confused as to how you think this can tie into morality when we don't have any direct knowledge of what another being might experience, and you've never addressed how you propose beings within this system have free will.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Although what I wrote is

Although what I wrote is just repeating myself.

 

Anyway, if lots of other people think they are immortal because they might have clones running around in different universes I'd argue with them too.

 

Let me ask you this though, feel free to ignore the rest of it.  What actual impact does this idea have on your life?  How would it change the way you think and act, beyond just being amused by thinking about it?

Say Mak Version A doesn't think this theory is interesting and Mak Version B does.  Maybe they're in different universes.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.