My problem with atheism

[_EAllusion]

I quite clearly stated immediately after the quote your concerned with, "These experiences whether spiritual or mystical or in between happen to the vast majority of mankind. The atheist is never a blank slate after they pass infancy anymore than one could say they are a a-relationshipist. We swim in the experiences in our concrete lives, they are fundamental. If they are rejected it isn't because of a lack of belief but a rejection of a believing or at least open attitude toward the experiences." That is my broader point, which is much more clearly related to the rest of my post as well.

Your now stated use of the quote doesn't help establish any point you say you are making. That religious experiences aren't found in one locus of the brain and this being consistent with their reality does not refute any popular argument they are not, nor does it help to establish it is like its original source tries to claim in full context. So its relevance to atheism or religious experience doesn't materialize. You've traded an incorrect implication for unhelpful triviality.

First, let's remind ourselves you agree with the quote your so concerned with.

No I don't. In context, it means something other than what you are claiming you used it for. The quote's use of "does not demonstrate, but is consistent with" is meant to carry the force of something like, "evidentially supports, but does not prove" Only, it doesn't.

I can stipulate for you that you don't like the book because it disagrees with many of your beliefs.

And here I thought it had to do with its bad, often misleading as best I can tell, arguments to that end. Not too far after your quote, it goes on to argue that human brains and chimpanzee brains are not related like "materialists" think by arguing against the evolution of humans. It actually tries to leverage the difference in chromosome number to that end, when if you understand that in a little more detail, it argues the opposite. Do you agree with that? Do you disagree merely because it violates some cherished belief of yours?

[_mikwut]

Hello E,

Your now stated use of the quote doesn't help establish any point you say you are making.

Why do you say the bolded and underlined, as if I changed something? I quoted directly from my originally stated quote that follows immediately from the quote your concerned with. It does help establish the point that spiritual experiences are basic to human experience. They aren't make believe or faked. They are appropriate for serious dialogue and consideration of their meaning.

That religious experiences aren't found in one locus of the brain and this being consistent with their reality does not refute any popular argument they are not, nor does it help to establish it is like its original source tries to claim in full context. So its relevance to atheism or religious experience doesn't materialize. You've traded an incorrect implication for unhelpful triviality.

Sorry you keep missing the point. If the vast majority of mankind has described a oneness with the universe, a sense of God, mystical feelings and experiences and we found no correlation to brain states with those experiences like we do other concrete experiences humans have we might well be justified in saying they aren't real, they possibly are even faked. Finding complex brain states shows that that isn't the case. Further, and deeper to my original post (which you haven't responded to at all) the now common atheist blank slate description of the belief position of atheists isn't as satisfying either. I could have used a multitude of quotes to show that humans have been hardwired for spirituality. I claim we don't have definitive answers to the veridical nature of that hardwiring one way or the other - but given that state of affairs a complete blank slate towards it isn't a satisfying intellectual position.

No I don't. In context, it means something other than what you are claiming you used it for. The quote's use of "does not demonstrate, but is consistent with" is meant to carry the force of something like, "evidentially supports, but does not prove" Only, it doesn't.

It only doesn't if we accept your attitude and background beliefs wholesale, I don't.

And here I thought it had to do with its bad, often misleading as best I can tell, arguments to that end. Not too far after your quote, it goes on to argue that human brains and chimpanzee brains are not related like "materialists" think by arguing against the evolution of humans. It actually tries to leverage the difference in chromosome number to that end, when if you understand that in a little more detail, it argues the opposite. Do you agree with that? Do you disagree merely because it violates some cherished belief of yours?

I'm not sure it says that. The authors stress the differences between the apes and humans as more poignant than the similarities for understanding the spiritual nature of our brains. It is arguing against the possibility of chimpanzees developing some of the higher functions of humans to any meaningful degree. It makes some arguments against A.I. and cross breeding humans and chimpanzees. It discusses the differences between humans and apes. It is developing a meaningful framework of uniquely human spirituality and making some ground work arguments against materialism. It does so mainly against pop evolutionary psychology. I don't think it makes any wholesale arguments against the evolution of humans in the crude way your describing. It makes a quote that seems to support the existence of biological evolution: "So the chimpanzees cannot help us understand ourselves because the very thing that separates us from them is the human mind. How that mind arose and how it works is still a genuine puzzle. As science writer Elaine Morgan says: Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances…. Something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees."

But, be that as it may, let's say the book is the worst ever written. Do you really think you've actually responded to my post by this red herring? Is a point scored that mikwut quoted a book that EAllusion thinks is drivel real dialogue to you? My point remains, even if the quote is poor, that human spirituality is a concrete part of our human existence, experience and lives - a blank slate position for atheism is an unsatisfying response to the complex innate human experience.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Hello E,
Why do you say the bolded and underlined, as if I changed something?

Because the quote you used in its original context means something else and that meaning makes more sense in your post. What you are explaining your use of the quote for reads awkwardly trivial, has nothing to do with a difference between atheism/theism, and does not help establish what follows it. That's certainly an odd thing to go to the trouble of citing a passage out of a dubious work for.

It does help establish the point that spiritual experiences are basic to human experience. They aren't make believe or faked. They are appropriate for serious dialogue and consideration of their meaning.

No it doesn't. That we can see different areas of the brain light up during reports of religious experiences actually doesn't establish that they aren't make believe. Nor does the fact that there isn't a single God gene. How could it?

Sorry you keep missing the point. If the vast majority of mankind has described a oneness with the universe, a sense of God, mystical feelings and experiences and we found no correlation to brain states with those experiences like we do other concrete experiences humans have we might well be justified in saying they aren't real, they possibly are even faked.

Unreal experiences also show up in correlates in brain states. If you think something, real or not, intentional or not, it's in your brain.

I could have used a multitude of quotes to show that humans have been hardwired for spirituality.

All that shows is that humans, some more so than others incidentally, are biologically predisposed to spiritual experiences. That doesn't get us to the idea that everyone is naturally having experiences of God, which itself is a culturally peculiar manifestation of a more generic mystical experience. It also doesn't move us from the default position that belief the particular proposition that deities exist requires reasonable warrant to believe. One would think you'd have to do something to either of those views to move off a non-strawman version of the atheist "blank slate." If you think people are born believing in God, neither of those issues are going to help you. Heck, there actually being a single God gene would be more helpful.

It only doesn't if we accept your attitude and background beliefs wholesale, I don't.

No, it doesn't. Feel free to show how either 1) there not being a single locus in the brain for claimed spiritual experiences or 2) there not being a single gene that determines god belief helps meaningfully advance the case for mind/body dualism and that mystical experiences of God are real contact with God. Because I don't see how either could be since those results are no less expected on the negation of those two views.

I'm not sure it says that.

It does. I can't quote it with the copy I'm using though. It wants to argue that the human brain simply is not a souped up version of other apes brains and its authors natural ID/anti-evolution background creeps in as seems to throughout the text. Perhaps it helps that I've read the same material O'Leary is borrowing from in that context, but I still think it is fairly clear.

The authors stress the differences between the apes and humans as more poignant than the similarities for understanding the spiritual nature of our brains.

It gets basic primatology wrong in the process, misleads about the implications of DNA differences between humans and chimps, and uses quotes out of context to imply ideas the authors weren't going for. But hey, one can only disagree with that because of some blind faith against the authors conclusions.

[_mikwut]

Hello E,

mikwut: Why do you say the bolded and underlined, as if I changed something?

EAllusion: Because the quote you used in its original context means something else and that meaning makes more sense in your post. What you are explaining your use of the quote for reads awkwardly trivial,

Even if I grant you your point, it seems even more odd of a thing for you to go to the greater trouble of telling me what I meant and intended, even above my own objections to it. The meaning of the quote of the complex nature of real brain states that are consistent among the carmelite nuns, they are experiencing something real to them - not faking it and it is consistent among them and consistent with the notion of the experiences being veridical. It is also fascinating and worth engagement, that was my point, my written words.

has nothing to do with a difference between atheism/theism, and does not help establish what follows it. That's certainly an odd thing to go to the trouble of citing a passage out of a dubious work for.

It doesn't have anything to do with the difference between atheism/theism (that's awkward regarding what I said) - it demonstrates the complexity of our brains regarding spiritual experiences which helps demonstrate the theme of my post that atheism as a blank slate is unsatisfying in regards to our concrete human experiences. Here is my entire quote again, notice each of the elements I just set out are found within it from beginning to end. If clarification is in order or I my phrasing or reliance on something is awkward I am happy to oblige, if an argument over my intentions of my own post is desired to continue please forgive my future absence from that laborious discussion.

The "there isn't sufficient evidence" or "I am without belief in" a God or Gods or the supernatural has become a distinction without much of a difference. But that conversation is an old hat. I find it more interesting to discuss particular beliefs the atheist does hold such as materialism, naturalism, meaning and the reasons they hold them as more satisfying dialogue.

I think possibilianism coined by David Eagleman to be a more interesting, open minded, scientific and satisfying position and label than "atheism" which has morphed and left to be a description of a blank mind rather than an engaged and weighing mind.

I am unsatisfied when an atheist all to often simply turns out to be debunker, hyper cynical skeptic, "freethinker". These terms have nothing to with God or Gods existence and can be shared by theists and non theist a like.

I also find the atheism position to be unsatisfying with our human experience. Research has shown there is no God switch or gene or spot in the brain. Studies with Carmelite nuns at the university of Montreal have demonstrated spiritual experiences are complex experiences, like our experiences of human relationships. They leave signatures in many parts of the brain. That fact is consistent with (though it does not by itself demonstrate) the notion that the experiencer contacts a reality outside herself. Beauregard, Mario; O'leary, Denyse (2009-03-17). The Spiritual Brain . Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. These experiences whether spiritual or mystical or in between happen to the vast majority of mankind. The atheist is never a blank slate after they pass infancy anymore than one could say they are a a-relationshipist. We swim in the experiences in our concrete lives, they are fundamental. If they are rejected it isn't because of a lack of belief but a rejection of a believing or at least open attitude toward the experiences.

You continue:

No, it doesn't. Feel free to show how either 1) there not being a single locus in the brain for claimed spiritual experiences or 2) there not being a single gene that determines god belief helps meaningfully advance the case for mind/body dualism and that mystical experiences of God are real contact with God. Because I don't see how either could be since those results are no less expected on the negation of those two views.

My point was not a thesis on those questions, the quote was a primer to only the consistency of neuroscience with the veridicality of the experiences and the fascination worth open minded engagement. The fascinating exploration of them. That is all my post requires, the existence of another materialist explanation and competitor bolsters my point doesn't diminish it. I am not committed from the mere quote itself and the theme of my post to show either proof of what your demanding (I believe the evidence overall not just from one mere quote to be more satisfying towards veridicality but that isn't this particular discussion) -

But, your proving the theme of my original post, why isn't it at least curious or odd that your materialism must be correct outside of any proffered defense of a particular materialist stance. I should be asking you and you should be answering and defending what otherwise compelling intellectual arguments exist that could grant such a strong background presumption of materialism. Just because materialism has been successful in some areas is no argument that in the area of consciousness it should be provided any blind presumption.

my final sentences showed all the necessary intent of the quote I utilized:

Spirituality is fascinating, curious and compels investigation by our human minds. I just find it like you grey and dull to not appreciate that and delve into its mysteries and meanings. So atheism is just not very interesting or satisfying to me. I suppose the atheist could respond that truth is what they are following and so interesting and curious aren't proper motivators - but that simply begs the question that the truth of the matter is already settled which it clearly has not been. It also just shows the attitude the party labeling themselves atheist holds.

The complexity of the experiences are consistent with veridicality so if we don't know for sure one way or the other fascination, engagement in an open minded manifold of possibilities is more satisfying than remaining in the dull and grey materialistic view as if that view were an obvious default and blank slate for such depthful, manifold and complex questions. Again the "without evidence and belief" is an unsatisfying position to me. It is uninteresting, dull and not the default only rational position in town.

mikwut: I'm not sure it says that.

EAllussion: It does. I can't quote it with the copy I'm using though. It wants to argue that the human brain simply is not a souped up version of other apes brains and its authors natural ID/anti-evolution background creeps in as seems to throughout the text. Perhaps it helps that I've read the same material O'Leary is borrowing from in that context, but I still think it is fairly clear.

Fair enough, it isn't the battle I was waging. I am open minded enough that I can still read or listen to a party's position rather than just call them an idiot as soon as they say the ID words, or imply as much.

mikwut: The authors stress the differences between the apes and humans as more poignant than the similarities for understanding the spiritual nature of our brains.

EAllusion: It gets basic primatology wrong in the process, misleads about the implications of DNA differences between humans and chimps, and uses quotes out of context to imply ideas the authors weren't going for. But hey, one can only disagree with that because of some blind faith against the authors conclusions.

Again battles I wasn't implying anything regarding my personal position by the simple quote I made. But you are demonstrating the closed mindedness which my original post's intent was contextually written regarding. We have not developed an empirically satisfying, complete or even known framework of understanding of consciousness and the mind for your juxtaposition of the authors statements to be reduced to merely a biological evolution argument outside of a satisfying theory of consciousness. You would be reducing the discussion to two poles of 1) materialism promised at all costs against 2) a god of the gaps. I am more interested in what lies in between those rather silly and dogmatic positions and my theme in this thread is just that - we don't have a default or a blank slate that doesn't include any biases or interference from materialism or particular dogmatic positions of theism. We have a fascinating new frontier that is right now open to several frameworks and ideas. That is my problem with atheism, that is the topic of this thread. It is uninteresting in its current predominant manifestation. I agree with Zeezrom it is like living behind the wall.

mikwut