Pharyngula

Atheists don’t believe in God. We deny the Holy Spirit. Jesus was just a man, at best, as were Buddha, Mohammed, and every other prophet and religious figure in history. That much everyone seems to be able to pick up on, but I think there’s something even more important that we reject.

We don’t believe in souls.

Now that’s a heresy, and should be even more distressing to people than our denial of gods. There is no immortal, constant part of any of us that will survive after death — our minds are the product of a material brain. We are literally soulless machines made of meat, honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution. And so is everyone else.

When we die, there is no paradise, no hell, not even a grim gray afterlife of darkness and regret…we are just gone. Everyone who has ever lived has or will simply end, and become nonexistent.

i-d2592a4ec523d3262e15d11a21f93ea8-legos.jpeg

That should be the scariest, most depressing part about being an atheist. No future? How awful.

But it isn’t.

I have several replies to believers who think we should be miserable because we don’t have an afterlife to look forward to; they usually can’t comprehend any one of them, which is far more depressing than mere death.

One answer is that a lie is not reassuring at all — telling me that I’ll get to go to heaven when I die is about as believable as telling me that I’ll be rewarded with beer volcanoes and strippers for my irreverence. I’d rather be honest and aware then deluded and oblivious.

Another answer is that we are alive right now — I simply do not worry about what will happen after I’m dead. Life is for the living of it, it’s wasteful to spend it fretting over what you’ll do when it’s gone. One reasonable response to mortality is to enjoy life now.

We do have hope for the future, too. Think for a moment about your community a century from now. Does it make you feel good to think that there will still be people living there then? That they will be talking about things that you find interesting, that they will be doing activities you also enjoy? Do you hope that life will be better for them? Even though we will be gone, we can still aspire to perpetuate our culture, and find satisfaction while we are alive in advancing that cause.

The hardest explanation for theists to grasp, though, is the understanding that none of us have ever had this unlikely clot of vapor called a soul. If the soul is an imaginary fantasy, then Mozart’s music, Michaelangelo’s sculptures, Picasso’s paintings, the Wright brothers’ plane, every work of art and technology produced by people whose names have been lost to us, every child, every dream, has been created by us, mere mortal flesh unled by a magic puppeteer in the sky, unaided by angels or spirits. I find that wonderful.

We do not have immortality, but that also means we can throw away the irrelevant crutches of god-belief. We’ve walked successfully without them — cast them away, stand as a proud human being and meet fate without the wishful delusions of faith. That’s why this thought is a sacrilege — it says that we have no need of priests or gods or persistent ghosthood, ideas that have only hobbled us.

Comments

  1. #1 Glen Davidson
    April 11, 2010

    One other thing–we can strive for actual understanding sans soul. The soul is vaporware that prevents understanding us, our fates, and how we think well or poorly.

    The soul is just a piece of incomprehension that people place their meaningless hopes into.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  2. #2 BinJabreel
    April 11, 2010

    I think part of it is that we’re often taught to look to the future to justify being robbed in the present, and the whole, “Sure it sucks for you serfs now, but just wait ’till you get to heaven, which, incidentally, you only get to go to if you’re good, obedient little serfs” ties right into that.

    Of course, now I sound like Marx. Which I guess isn’t such a bad thing.

  3. #3 Pareidolius
    April 11, 2010

    If the soul is an imaginary fantasy, then Mozart’s music, Michaelangelo’s sculptures, Picasso’s paintings, the Wright brothers’ plane, every work of art and technology produced by people whose names have been lost to us, every child, every dream, has been created by us, mere mortal flesh unled by a magic puppeteer in the sky, unaided by angels or spirits. I find that wonderful.

    It’s quotes like the above that make me so grateful to be a human being. Thanks from rain-soaked NorCal.

  4. #4 ildinia121
    April 11, 2010

    I just finished reading Lucretius, and he spends quite a lot of time talking about this very subject. We shouldn’t be afraid of our end, it is inevitable, and everyone has to meet it someday. And while Lucretius does believe in a soul, it is in no way supernatural. It is made up of atoms, the same as all other matter, and when we die, it too disperses. Giving control of your life to superstition and religion, he claims, is wasting it. We ought to live our lives happily to the best of our ability, no more, no less.

    Of course, about a hundred years after Lucretius, Jesus had to come around, and everyone sort of forgo about humanism for the next 1500 years.

  5. #5 https://me.yahoo.com/a/84wisycHmdmYNWwIdAlcrXNF8IzBeqEDlfut8487#439b2
    April 11, 2010

    I agree that we don’t need souls or a God to be happy. Nevertheless I’m fascinated by after-death and reincarnation research.

  6. #6 tristan.cragnolini
    April 11, 2010

    Even as an atheist, that’s the kind of things I like to hear from time to time, especially when feeling a bit gloomy.
    Just as the xkcd comic, just stating those simple things about how the world is, and what that means for us humans, not as a fairy tale one could be inclined to believe in.
    And I find that comforting.
    Thanks PZ!

  7. #7 Joe Fogey
    April 11, 2010

    The fact that we have no souls and are not immortal also means it is down to us to enjoy this life, and to avoid the life-denying rule-bound ugliness that is so apparent in many Christians and other theists.

  8. #8 jrberg
    April 11, 2010

    #3, we need that rain still – and at least here in Davis, it’s never snow…

    I’m part of a couple of projects that I hope will still be around a hundred years from now, and that’s what life should be about.

  9. #9 beders
    April 11, 2010

    This whole afterlife thing is just not really thought through.

    What the heck will you be doing for the first 10 million years? And the eternity afterwards? Living in either heaven, hell or hades or any place for that matter forever is just non-sensical. You will be bored to death, but you can’t die. Great!

    And this soul thing: Do I really want a part of me, the essence of me to survive? Do I want to be a shadow of my former self? How would possibly want an (after)life like that?

    What will survive is the impression you made on your fellow beings. If you find comfort in being remembered, make sure it is something worthy to be remembered of.

  10. #11 Cerberus
    April 11, 2010

    One thing I’ve always noted especially to those who proscribe to a religion is that regardless of what religion or lack of religion you proscribe to, no matter what you believe about how we end up, we’ve got one shot at this life on this planet in this personality.

    Oh, the buddhists believe we end up back on Earth, sure, but you’re someone else. The Christians believe in Heaven (from which you can never come back to Earth ever again). The Scientologists believe you become Gods of separate planets (again, never back on Earth).

    This life, this consciousness, this us on this world, no matter how airy fairy fantasy the other tales try and make it, is all we’ve really got. The realest most non-negotiable bit we have. And it’s sick that people will actively make their lives miserable or make the lives of other people miserable because they are hoping for an extra ride in some bonus world or new consciousness that they are throwing out the one unique thing we all have.

    Cause this particular life is all we have. Atheists may state that bluntly, but it’s just as true for even the “rest your mind” “beneficial lies” of any religion.

    And it’s an important note to make. This one life is all we have and we need to live that and try not to ruin it for some lottery-esque long-shot or ruin the one-lives of others. We should all just enjoy it and try and do right by each other so we can all enjoy it best we can.

    And seeing Scandanavia from the inside, I don’t think that’s a far-fetched notion.

  11. #12 SteveV
    April 11, 2010

    But a dickhead like me can still type when I meant “. Bah.

  12. #13 Caddisfly
    April 11, 2010

    To live in the moment is the most rewarding result of loosing the concept of the soul. To be more involved with those people and situations you are experiencing right here and right now is the true reward in life…not what might or maybe be in the minds of others in relation to their imaginings. The mere ability to apprehend what we do know of this world is true joy.

  13. #14 alopiasmag
    April 11, 2010

    I tell people your soul is simply the memory of you left behind in the thoughts of your family and friends.

    Very nice Post PZ.

  14. #15 tdcourtney
    April 11, 2010

    I feel like one place I differ from many atheists is that I genuinely wish there was a heaven I could go to. Unfortunately my wishes don’t affect the reality that there isn’t, and I’d rather live the only life I’ve got as best as I can than aim for some delusional fantasy.

  15. #16 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkxhJPvKu8eE-_ANufXyUtEKDBhdPNFLsA
    April 11, 2010

    The Scientologists believe you become Gods of separate planets (again, never back on Earth).
    You’re thinking of the Mormons. The Scientologists believe in reincarnation. Really, really, weird reincarnation.

  16. #17 dutchdoc
    April 11, 2010

    @#16

    Really, really, weird reincarnation

    As opposed to what other kind of reincarnation? ;-)

  17. #18 Cactus Wren
    April 11, 2010

    One bizarre notion I’ve run across more than once is the conflation of atheism and nihilism: the idea that unbelievers “hate life” so much we’d rather believe we cease to exist than believe in eternal tedium life in some heaven. (The phrase “worm food” often turns up in such discussions.) I’ve even been asked why I don’t commit suicide, since there is no “point” or “purpose” to life if it is not eternal. Example:

    Why do you live?
    For what reason?
    Why do you continue to live in a world with zero purpose?
    I can’t understand that.
    Atheists (if truely thinking there is no god) should feel like trash.
    If you don’t feel that way, you must feel you have purpose.
    What is this purpose?
    Telling “theists” there is no god?
    Man, what a purpose.
    Is your purpose surfing the net all day?
    Is your purpose learning as much as possible about everything?
    only to die…and be dead…and that’s all…?

    What’s most entertaining about such assertions is the insight they give into this particular theistic mentality. The individual who posted this has, for all intents and purposes, conceded that he believes the world to revolve around him: that if he is going to “die…and be dead…and that’s all,” there is no point in existing in the first place. That without his continued existence, the world has “zero purpose.” That he can see no point in enjoying his life unless he can go on doing so forever. That without a god promising him eternal life, he would “feel like trash.” He has, in fact, admitted that the world and all the beings in it are worthless, trash, without purpose … unless HE exists.

  18. #19 Stuart
    April 11, 2010

    @tdcourtney #15
    I don’t know about that, I’m sure there are many of us who would like there to be something afterwards just in the same way that we’d probably like there to be a Father Christmas (I might be alone with that one!)… but we are just realists who know there isn’t

  19. #20 Cerberus
    April 11, 2010

    googlename @16

    You’re probably right. My larger point still stands. Even the fairy tales believe we’ve got one shot in this body, this consciousness, this world.

    And yet atheists and semi-mellow religionists like the UU or the pagans seem to be the only ones who believe in valuing it and trying to make it easier to live through for all.

    Absolute madness.

  20. #21 Patrick McC
    April 11, 2010

    There is only the present moment.

    “Don?t be afraid your life will end; be afraid ?that it will never begin.”

    ?-Grace Hansen?

  21. #22 Stuart
    April 11, 2010

    Another cracking Sunday post, PZ. You’ve summed it up really well.

  22. #23 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnqXkf5yGM94_eVIugc9B_3rX0tMYmGjr0
    April 11, 2010

    I was thinking about this the other day – technically, I don’t think atheists automatically don’t believe in souls. Of course for Christians and Muslims and all the rest it’s the same, but conceptually, they don’t have to be linked. Most atheists don’t believe in souls because atheists are more likely to be rationalists.

  23. #24 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmRjbXoDgCq4N0aNWT2Z2RtB4Mm9CbDVys
    April 11, 2010

    OT — Since the vatican is busy dancing around some issues now:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ0bqZw6B0A

  24. #25 Rillion
    April 11, 2010

    It’s not just the lack of afterlife that people find to be a scary implication of not having a soul. Notions of a soul also underlie a lot of people’s ideas of mind/body dualism– they think there’s something separate and intangible which inhabits their bodies and is the real “I.” The “I” is what is morally responsible for their behavior. It can be pure or impure, and has an essential quality to it that makes it both unique and part of a larger body of people– fellow Christians, for example, or fellow white people, or fellow women. Take away the soul, and the notion of committing “crimes against nature” (i.e. sodomy) seems bizarre and silly. If there is no invisible essence inside each of us that determines our identity and behavior, then reductionistic explanations about those things actually start to make sense. Invoking the soul is a good way of unconsciously but deliberately obscuring the reasons for why people do and say things, or why their membership in a certain group is meaningful, and putting those things in the mysterious category of the supernatural.

  25. #26 Sir Craig
    April 11, 2010

    Really, it does just boil down to the “eternity” thing as beders mentions – would you really want an undying conscious part of you held hostage for so long as to make (after)life meaningless?

    I guess that’s why I never understood the appeal of being a vampire…

  26. #27 blf
    April 11, 2010

    What the heck will you be doing for the first 10 million years? And the eternity afterwards? Living in either heaven, hell or hades or any place for that matter forever is just non-sensical. You will be bored to death, but you can’t die. Great!

    This explains the remarkably lousy aim (temporal and spatial) of the various disasters. Teh Eternal Woos are so fecking bored they’ve either retreated into extreme perfectionism and won’t throw a thunderbolt until everything is exactly right (so they wind up never tossing one at all), or else just don’t give a flying feck anymore, and figure if it hits some planet, any planet, that’s good enough.

  27. #28 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    No soul here. Despite that, I am enjoying life, taking specific pleasure in the small signs of life now popping up here in ND, signifying Spring is on its way. Life is good. I think I’ll grab the dogs and go enjoy it some more. :D

  28. #29 MJP
    April 11, 2010

    Belief in the soul has some nasty implications. For example, it implies that many of our emotions, such as lust, aren’t part of us at all, but are merely the body exerting some control over the soul. IMO rejecting dualism is essential for any sort of sanity.

  29. #30 raven
    April 11, 2010

    The Scientologists believe you become Gods of separate planets (again, never back on Earth).

    You’re thinking of the Mormons. The Scientologists believe in reincarnation.

    Not quite for the Scientologists. They believe you can progress to “Operating Theta Clear” status. At that point, you control MEST, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. Among other things, you can create your own universe.

    Universe > planet.

    You can see how the religions keep upping the ante on the afterlife. The ancient Greeks had some ill defined afterlife that wasn’t much fun. The xians promised heaven. The mormons promised godhood and your own planet. The scientologists promised godhood and your own universe.

    Hades – heaven – planet – universe.

    The problem and solution is obvious. The next religion will have to keep upping the ante. But the bar is set high now. I suppose the next afterlife will be your own Multiverse, you create the gods, and then what?

  30. #31 MultiTool
    April 11, 2010

    No soul?

    Thank goodness, I was afraid PZ’d say we don’t believe in astrology. That would leave my world spinning.

  31. #32 beigeman
    April 11, 2010

    I’ve had a few discussions with my girlfriend about this sorta thing, she says she believes in reincarnation just because she can’t deal with the thought that after she dies, that that is it.

    She doesn’t believe in a God – she just can’t deal with it, same with space. She gets upset when I go on about how vast it is because she’s afraid of how “empty” it is.

    I really does get to her, so I tend to leave the subject well enough alone. Shame though :(

  32. #33 Antiochus Epimanes
    April 11, 2010

    It’s not as though common ideas of the afterlife are really all that appealing if you really think about them. As Bertrand Russell put it, the popular conception of Heaven (gaudy with jewels, everyone dancing and singing to flatter God’s ego) is a place no cultured person could endure for more than 10 minutes.

    I tell people that atheism is tremndously liberating; religions like Christianity, although claiming to “free” people from imaginary bonds, instead tell you that your own efforts are ultimately futile: God has a plan for the future of everyone and everything, and it’s unalterably mapped out. Nothing you do will really affect the universe because Sky Daddy has already decreed how everything will go. Atheism puts the responsibility in our hands.

  33. #34 Jillian Swift
    April 11, 2010

    I think one of the biggest advantages of facing the truth of the finality of death as well as the fact of a godless universe is that you get to have reasonable expectations about it all.

    Unreasonable expectations are often the root of personal dissatisfaction with life. From the banal expectation of expecting better service than can be delivered from a business to the religious idea of divine intervention, if such expectations are outside reasonable bounds you will get greater than your fair share of disappointment and ruin of plans.

    Having no expectation of existing eternally, nor one of being cared for by some invisible patron, I am rarely disappointed when life doesn’t hand me what I’d like it to, and am in turn driven to make the best of what I can manage. I find life as an atheist/materialist/skeptic a great deal more satisfying than the life I lead as a believer.

    (And friends and family say I’m far less of a bitch to be around, too.)

  34. #35 raven
    April 11, 2010

    One bizarre notion I’ve run across more than once is the conflation of atheism and nihilism: the idea that unbelievers “hate life” so much we’d rather believe we cease to exist than believe in eternal tedium life in some heaven.

    The real champs for Nihilism are the fundies, the Rapture Monkeys. One of the most amoral and malignant of their myths.

    They sit around hoping and praying that god will show up any minute now and destroy the earth and kill 6.7 billion people. The only way to top that is if we discover UFO aliens. Then they can hope god kills them too.

    Some of them really are that pathetic, to sit around with their empty, miserable lives and babble constantly about how god will kill them and everyone else any happy day now.

    One wonders sometimes why they don’t just get a head start and have a Jonestown koolaide party.

  35. #36 formosus
    April 11, 2010

    One of the nicer parts about becoming an atheist was realizing that this one life that I’m living is the only one that I get. It makes life so much more precious, it made me want to live life to the fullest. The whole concept of life after death cheapens the one life you do have to live. It also makes you want to have as much of a positive impact on others as possible; the only way you will live on after death is in the memories of others.

    “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
    -Albert Pine

  36. #37 aratina cage
    April 11, 2010

    technically, I don’t think atheists automatically don’t believe in souls.
    -jr0 #23

    It’s the certain type of atheist who packages up all supernatural beliefs, including those about gods, into the same box and labels it “poppycock”, the kind of atheist who interrupts wooists citing their own delusions as evidence with, “What evidence? Are you kidding me?”

    Once you dump the big fish back into the pond, why keep the pond scum or the water it was swimming around in?

  37. #38 Cuttlefish, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Yeah, you’ve read it before, but it’s one of my favorites…

    When we are dead, we?ll feed the worms
    And other stuff that writhes and squirms
    And if you cannot come to terms
    With that?well, use your head!
    There are no ifs nor ands nor buts:
    Bacteria within our guts
    Will start to eat us; that is what?s
    In store, once we are dead.

    [continues: http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/01/worms-go-in.html ]

  38. #39 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    Antiochus Epimanes:

    It’s not as though common ideas of the afterlife are really all that appealing if you really think about them.

    So true. Now, if I got another life on Discworld after this one, I could get behind that. But only if I had a Sapient Pearwood trunk. The essentials count.

  39. #40 Givesgoodemail
    April 11, 2010

    I can’t find the quote, but I’ve always liked what Rand said about dying–something to the effect that, when she died she would cease to exist to the world and the world would cease to exist for her.

    You’ve given me an idea for this week’s blog tag line.

  40. #41 CalGeorge
    April 11, 2010

    “I’d rather be honest and aware then deluded and oblivious.”

    Me too!

  41. #42 https://me.yahoo.com/a/yaXGH_5jpoEyuVvyy8IYn.mIxK9kJ0iE#e06dc
    April 11, 2010

    I like this article, but it is to depressing for me to belive. To accept the fact that humans are marionettes being controlled by the hands of “fate” and descended from primitive animals that were fond of throwing feces is very questionable. I’m not to familiar with Evolution despite being a High School Ap Biology student, but I believe that we as people do have a purpose. I am raised under a Christan household and I do believe in Christian principles, but I cannot tolerate hypocritical Christians themselves. I sometimes believe that life at some times is meaningless, but I still think that there is more to it than living a hedonistic lifestyle. If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

  42. #43 Sven DiMilo
    April 11, 2010

    We don’t believe in soul

    Speak for yourself!

    oh, souls?

    never mind

  43. #44 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 11, 2010

    BinJabreel #2

    I think part of it is that we’re often taught to look to the future to justify being robbed in the present, and the whole, “Sure it sucks for you serfs now, but just wait ’till you get to heaven, which, incidentally, you only get to go to if you’re good, obedient little serfs” ties right into that.

    I read this and was reminded of the chorus of the old Joe Hill Wobbly song “The Preacher and the Slave”:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

    Here’s the whole song.

  44. #45 Leon
    April 11, 2010

    It seems to me that this post is really about the idea of an afterlife, not about souls. Many protestants see the idea of a soul as foreign to the Bible, which instead talks about people being recreated with new bodies quite unlike the old ones, and I’m sure there are plenty of other belief systems with “soulless” afterlife theories.

    The real question is whether:

    1. Denying an afterlife drains this life of meaning/significance.

    2. Belief in an afterlife drains this life of meaning/significance.

    There’s of course a lot to unpack there, but I doubt either point is necessarily true.

  45. #46 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

    where did you get the impression that we aren’t?

  46. #47 Matt_
    April 11, 2010

    I don’t think that there is a true sense of life. We are just one of countless organisms, like machines we just work/live and we don’t even have a choice. There is no free will, it doesn’t matter whether you are a serial killer or some guy who helps older people cross the street.
    ———————–
    Most people seem to like joy so they do whatever it needs to seek that state because that’s how they work. Atheists like reason, theists prefer to limit their thoughts so they fit into a book, there is no higher right or wrong.

  47. #48 vanharris
    April 11, 2010

    I would imagine that most of us regulars here have the desire to leave the world a better place than it would’ve been without us. And that this desire is high amongst our priorities. In other words, we’re mostly Humanists.

    I wonder how we compare with the general populace in that regard? Of course, they’d all claim that they, too, want to leave the world a better place. My cynicism says that they would, in reality, put that objective firmly behind making money, fooling around, & satiating their animal desires.

  48. #49 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    Thanks PZ. That is an important point.
    The other important point, I think, is that scientifically, we cannot exclude god(s). But we CAN exculde mind-body dualism. And that is the beauty of it: even if some kind of god exists, he (obviously never a she) cannot reward or punish you once you’re dead as christianity and islam insist.

  49. #50 aratina cage
    April 11, 2010

    To accept the fact that humans are marionettes being controlled by the hands of “fate” and descended from primitive animals that were fond of throwing feces is very questionable.
    -#eo6dc #42

    All you need to do is open up an electronic newspaper to lose all doubt about that, although I wouldn’t say that humans are marionettes controlled by “fate” any more than I would say that humans are controlled by God.

  50. #51 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Many protestants see the idea of a soul as foreign to the Bible, which instead talks about people being recreated with new bodies quite unlike the old ones, and I’m sure there are plenty of other belief systems with “soulless” afterlife theories.

    that doesn’t work. even in the “new bodies” version, it’s basically about housing yourself in those new bodies… without the “desires of the flesh”, as if those were somehow separate from who they are. Once you’re getting a new body, with a new, sin-less brain, you’re no longer you.

    this thread is about the denial of the religious that the mind IS the body, and when the body dies, so does the person in that body.

  51. #52 https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
    April 11, 2010

    Thought a lot about all this on losing my father a couple of years back.

    What’s immortal is how you affect the world around you, and how people remember that.

  52. #53 Scott Cunningham
    April 11, 2010

    Raven said @30

    The problem and solution is obvious. The next religion will have to keep upping the ante. But the bar is set high now. I suppose the next afterlife will be your own Multiverse, you create the gods, and then what?

    If that’s what people want they should learn C++ and buy a video game construction set. Cheaper and easier than Scientology and a surefire way to whittle away an eternity of time.

  53. #54 listener
    April 11, 2010

    I enjoy your posts but would – truly respectfully – disagree.
    I have my own problems with invisible wisps of non-matter defining human essence but cannot claim something does not exist, however improbable the chances. Of course, this is not a spiritual argument, just one based on reason.
    Given the paucity of empirical evidence for the soul, it is likely that the first person who came up with the concept (perhaps as a result of a stroke in the temporal lobe??) conjured it up without much external help. Drugs can do a good job of that, too. But, again, can we prove it wrong? Perhaps not.
    In the scientific world, we could argue that the proponent have to prove that souls indeed do exist. But, more reasonably, instead of denying the possibility, we could exclude it until such time that such a claim is defensible.
    We cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns from another universe will not cross a brane and invade earth, but it is impossible to deny this admittedly unlikely possibility.
    In taking on the unscientific, we risk getting polarized, taking up a stronger position that is perhaps necessary. Sticking with science, we don’t need to deny souls, pixies, hippogriffs, ghosts, Santa, or even pink unicorns, we just need a worldview consistent with the available evidence.
    If that makes any sense…

  54. #55 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    And while Lucretius does believe in a soul, it is in no way supernatural. It is made up of atoms, the same as all other matter, and when we die, it too disperses.

    This is Epicurean teaching, and, funnily enough, Paul the Apostle accepted it.

    He then added the supernatural spirit in order to allow for an afterlife and other, well, spiritual affairs. This is where all the confusion about soul and spirit comes from.

    Source here, but don’t click on that link unless you want to stay up all night.

    Belief in the soul has some nasty implications. For example, it implies that many of our emotions, such as lust, aren’t part of us at all, but are merely the body exerting some control over the soul. IMO rejecting dualism is essential for any sort of sanity.

    Indeed. I have long held (since the age of… maybe 6 or less) that it really is me who wants to procrastinate, not some kind of part of me that another part with better judgment could fight against or something. Without that insight I’d probably be chronically depressive.

    The ancient Greeks had some ill defined afterlife that wasn’t much fun.

    The Sumerians had a pretty well defined afterlife: your shadow goes to the dark, depressing underworld and eats mud for all eternity. The key point is that this underworld is for everyone, even the demigods, even the two-thirds gods; only the full gods and Dumuzi are immortal.

    The problem and solution is obvious. The next religion will have to keep upping the ante. But the bar is set high now. I suppose the next afterlife will be your own Multiverse, you create the gods, and then what?

    Day saved.

    I really does get to her, so I tend to leave the subject well enough alone. Shame though :(

    Perhaps show her photos of the Hubble Deep Fields and the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field. They don’t look empty (even though they’re emptier than anything else ever seen).

    Then maybe remind her of the way Woody Allen did not want to achieve immortality ? because it works. I can be found in Google Scholar, I’m all set :-)

    As Bertrand Russell put it, the popular conception of Heaven (gaudy with jewels, everyone dancing and singing to flatter God’s ego) is a place no cultured person could endure for more than 10 minutes.

    The more vague way I was taught it is more like an eternal state of utter bliss. That should be easier to stand for longer, shouldn’t it.

    Atheism puts the responsibility in our hands.

    It does no such thing.

    It says that the responsibility is in our hands, and that it is in our hands completely regardless of whether anyone knows this or not.

  55. #56 startlingmoniker
    April 11, 2010

    This is one of those times when I feel like there’s a third option– I’m gonna frakkin’ live forever if I can. Every time I run into one of those stories where the main character ends up living forever, and just expresses his/her terrible boredom, I’m like– “whatever, try me!”

    There’s a zillion things I would never get tired of doing, and surely more than enough knowledge to keep me happily learning new things for zillions of years. I’m waiting for the day when I can upload the chem-set that is my brain into a mist of nanobots, and just start exploring the galaxy. I’ve got a plan to try out some sort of gentle parasitism, maybe hitch a ride in a fish for vacation, or send a few of me into an ant colony and just hang out. It would be great if all of me could communicate with each other. There’d be no day, and no night, just endlessly different experiences. Seriously, how far off technologically could this really be?

    Ya’ll can go the worm food route if you want– and that’s cool if you’re okay with it– but I’m holding out for something better.

  56. #57 bickazer
    April 11, 2010

    Everyone, please don’t take #42’s comment as an indication of what all high school AP biology students are like. u_u

    My high school actually teaches evolution and I pay attenton in class so I actually do have some understanding of how evolution works.

    I’ve never thought about the concept of “soul” that much, and when I did I have to admit my mind turned towards more woo-ful beliefs, something like reincarnation or whatnot. I am an atheist but for some reason I find woo very alluring. Thankfully I try to express my woo only in the fantasy fiction I write and not in the real world.

    So I was a bit shocked when PZ flat-out said “there is no soul,” but I read on and found myself agreeing. And what he describes is much more beautiful than any promise of an afterlife or reincarnation.

  57. #58 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    #42: and how much do you know about primate behavior? Have you stuied the behavior of primates? Have you read the works of primatologists? Based on the views you are expressing I strongly suspect the answer is no. Let me just tell you this: you’ll be surprised.

  58. #59 grenea
    April 11, 2010

    I’ve always taken the philosophical view that the soul was the same as our psyche, that essence that makes us unique and individual from each other. When we die the soul dies with us.
    Is the belief in a soul exclusive to theism?

    Greg

  59. #60 listener
    April 11, 2010

    I enjoy your posts but would – truly respectfully – disagree.
    I have my own problems with invisible wisps of non-matter defining human essence but cannot claim something does not exist, however improbable the chance. Of course, this is not a spiritual argument, just one based on reason.
    Given the paucity of empirical evidence for the soul, it is likely that the first person who came up with the concept (perhaps as a result of a stroke in the temporal lobe??) conjured it up without much external help. Drugs can do a good job of that, too. But, again, can we prove it wrong? Perhaps not.
    In the scientific world, we could argue that the proponent have to prove that souls indeed do exist. But, more reasonably, instead of denying the yet unprovable possibility, we could exclude it until such time that such a claim is defensible.
    We cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns from another universe will not cross a brane and invade earth, but it is impossible to deny this admittedly unlikely possibility.
    In opposing the unscientific, we risk polarization, taking up a stronger position than perhaps necessary. Sticking with science, we don’t need to deny souls, pixies, hippogriffs, ghosts, Santa, or even pink unicorns, we only need a worldview consistent with the measurable evidence.

  60. #61 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    Yahoo @ 42:

    I’m not to familiar with Evolution despite being a High School Ap Biology student,

    Perhaps you should do some actual learning then. You would have both understanding and a basis for actual discussion.

    but I believe that we as people do have a purpose. I am raised under a Christan household and I do believe in Christian principles, but I cannot tolerate hypocritical Christians themselves.

    So, you can’t handle (or accept) the notion that people are somehow the marionettes of “Fate” yet you have no problem at all with people being marionettes of a psychopathic sky daddy god? By the way, Fate is also a god in many traditions, just not your particular god.

    The only purpose in your life is the one you assign yourself or allow other people to assign for you. There’s no magic involved.

    I sometimes believe that life at some times is meaningless, but I still think that there is more to it than living a hedonistic lifestyle.

    I’m trying to be nice here, but I get so tired of all the idiots who parrot the “hedonistic lifestyle” bullshit. What in the fuck makes you think any atheist’s life is more hedonistic than yours or anyone elses? Getting enjoyment out of life does not equal ‘morally bankrupt’. I’m involved with charities, I’m a good neighbour, a good friend and a good partner. How does injecting your particular nasty ass god into my life make me better? How does a belief in some sort of vaporous soul make me better? I live without fear of a god, I live without shame inspired by a god, I live without being enslaved to a god. I do not have a soul. I know this life is all I get, and I make the most of it I can, in every possible way. That includes a multitude of small kindnesses, because I know I won’t get another chance. However, since I am supposed to be leading this hedonistic lifestyle, I had better put a baby in to roast, and organize the orgy.

    If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

    Because we evolved. Evolution. Learn it.

  61. #62 aratina cage
    April 11, 2010

    If that makes any sense…
    -listener

    No, it surely doesn’t. Would you care to back up your delusion with more clarity of thought? How does a soul figure into birth, unconsciousness, Alzheimer’s, and death for starters? In other words, where does it come in, where does it go when you fall unconscious, does permanent loss of memory affect it, and what is it after death?

  62. #63 https://me.yahoo.com/a/yaXGH_5jpoEyuVvyy8IYn.mIxK9kJ0iE#e06dc
    April 11, 2010

    I’m sorry for not being specific Insightful Ape. Believe me, I am only a naive 17 year-old boy attending a silly Christian High School. I know nothing about apes except what I see on television. What I actually meant was the general view of apes as violent, barbaric, and unintelligent when this is actually false. I know apes are quite intelligent, unfortunately I am not very familiar with their behavior. Forgive me for my ignorance.

  63. #64 raven
    April 11, 2010

    I like this article, but it is to depressing for me to belive. To accept the fact that humans are marionettes being controlled by the hands of “fate” and descended from primitive animals that were fond of throwing feces is very questionable.

    What you want to believe and what is real are two different things.

    Who says humans are puppets controlled by fate? We have free will. The puppet idea is more a religious one, god running the universe and knowing everything that can and will happen.

    That we evolved is indisputable. Accepted by 99% of all relevant scientists in the USA except a few religious fanatics. Most of those scientists describe themselves as…xians.

    but I still think that there is more to it than living a hedonistic lifestyle.

    Who says atheists are all hedonists? The No Religions are 24% of the population, 72 million people and they tend to be more educated than the fundies. The vast majority are just normal people with families, jobs, kids, and pets.

    If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

    We are descended from fish, to monkeys through apes and are still primates. That doesn’t mean we behave like fish, amoebas, monkeys, or nonhuman apes. We are humans, no more and no less.

    Being xian doesn’t mean not behaving like an ape. Fundie xians score higher than the general population on all measure of social dysfunction, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDS, alcoholism, ignorance, you name it. Social primates divide up into tribes and occasionally have intertribal conflicts. There are now 38,000 xian sects. They are all the One True Cult, they all hate each other, and historically they have killed each other by the millions.

    Just who is behaving like an ape here?

  64. #65 NitricAcid
    April 11, 2010

    The soul, and its absence, has been experimentally verified.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

  65. #66 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    #60: sorry but you are wrong. Essentially all the functions that have been traditionally attributed to “souls” are in fact functions of specific parts of brain. What is more, our “intentions” are firings of neurons-and knowledge of those intentions is a secondary phenomenon. Further, the behavior of brain when you cut off the communicating fibers is like separated islands-each of them is totally unaware of what others “know”. This contradicts the idea of “soul” which should transcend space, if it exists.
    The body-mind duality is a scientific hypothesis. As far as neuroscience is concerned it is also a rejected hypothesis.

  66. #67 Enkidu
    April 11, 2010

    I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.
    — Mark Twain

  67. #68 bickazer
    April 11, 2010

    “We are descended from fish, to monkeys through apes and are still primates.”

    (Sorry for the quote marks, haven’t figured out how to blockquote yet)

    I agree with everything you said, but just one quibble–we didn’t descend directly from fish; it’ be more accurate to say that we share a common ancestor with fish and monkeys and so on, wouldn’t it?

    Ahh, sorry for being pedantic. I’ll retreat back into my hole now.

  68. #69 jcmartz.myopenid.com
    April 11, 2010

    We don’t believe in souls.

    Nor the devil.

    When we die, there is no paradise, no hell, not even a grim gray afterlife of darkness and regret?we are just gone. Everyone who has ever lived has or will simply end, and become nonexistent.

    Reminds me of this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw

  69. #70 llewelly
    April 11, 2010

    David Marjanovi? | April 11, 2010 4:58 PM:

    The key point is that this underworld is for everyone, even the demigods, even the two-thirds gods; only the full gods and Dumuzi are immortal.

    Sumerians had 3 genders? I learn something new with every David Marjanovi? comment.

  70. #71 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    Yahoo @ 63:

    Believe me, I am only a naive 17 year-old boy attending a silly Christian High School.

    What, exactly, is preventing you from learning on your own? Some reason you can’t hit a library or a bookstore? Something preventing you from reading ScienceBlogs, where you can find a wealth of information about all types of science. Something stopping you from Reading Seed or Science Daily?

  71. #72 Glen Davidson
    April 11, 2010

    I agree with everything you said, but just one quibble–we didn’t descend directly from fish

    Yes, we did. Not today’s fish, of course, but from organisms that very readily fit the definition of “fish,” and that are taxonomically considered to be fish.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  72. #73 Kel, OM
    April 11, 2010

    If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

    Quite simply, because we don’t behave quite like that anymore. We have a different set of circumstances, a differently-evolved brain, why should we expect to see the same behaviour?

    I don’t see other apes posting on the internet, why should I stop just because I believe in the non-existence of an immaterial soul.

  73. #74 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    I like this article, but it is to depressing for me to belive.

    That, frankly, is not an argument.

    To accept the fact that humans are marionettes being controlled by the hands of “fate”

    Oooooh no. Fate is a supernatural concept.

    You probably think you can get around this by assuming physical determinism, but you can’t, because determinism is wrong (it would contradict quantum physics, including observed facts like the Casimir Effect).

    and descended from primitive animals that were fond of throwing feces is very questionable.

    Why?

    I’m not to familiar with Evolution despite being a High School Ap Biology student, but I believe that we as people do have a purpose.

    You mean you actually want to be a robot that was produced for carrying out a task? Is “task” what you mean by “purpose”?

    Now that would be depressing.

    But this, too, is an argument from consequences, so ignore it. Let’s take the scientific angle instead: what evidence is there for your belief that there’s a purpose?

    I sometimes believe that life at some times is meaningless, but I still think that there is more to it than living a hedonistic lifestyle.

    I am a hedonist. I do what I like ? writing manuscripts that get published as scientific papers! :-)

    If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

    It seems you need to learn a lot more about our closest relatives. A lot.

    Most people seem to like joy so they do whatever it needs to seek that state because that’s how they work.

    “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”
    ? Abraham Lincoln

    It’s innate. Those in whom it isn’t innate tend to die out.

  74. #75 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
    April 11, 2010

    To accept the fact that humans are marionettes being controlled by the hands of “fate” and descended from primitive animals that were fond of throwing feces is very questionable.

    Have you watched the US Congress, or Fox News? We’re still pretty fond of throwing feces.

  75. #76 bickazer
    April 11, 2010

    “Yes, we did. Not today’s fish, of course, but from organisms that very readily fit the definition of “fish,” and that are taxonomically considered to be fish.”

    Oh, my bad. Thanks for correcting me.

  76. #77 thehuntbox
    April 11, 2010

    Mormons at least make explicit what is implicit in most Christianity, that after death the individual undertakes some kind of apotheosis, much like in ancient polytheism. My theory is that the Christian eternal life in heaven scheme is really just transformed version of apotheosis — another reason why the Protestant afterlife with perfect flesh bodies and mansion houses on real streets is so bizarre. For that kind of conception it really is hard to imagine what one would do with eternity.

  77. #78 https://me.yahoo.com/a/yaXGH_5jpoEyuVvyy8IYn.mIxK9kJ0iE#e06dc
    April 11, 2010

    I think I need a crash course on reality. Must everything that we as humans consider truth be verifiable by the scientific method? I take back my silly statements from earlier because I realized how stupid I was for saying them, but I am still confused with what is absolute truth. Growing up as a Christian has distorted my beliefs with what is true. I fear that I could be chastised by my family and friends for refuting the existence of God. I do ask myself whether an afterlife exists because the Bible is just not enough to support its existence. My Christian schoolteachers constantly refer to archaeological evidence to support the existence of supernatural events of the Old Testament. The evidence at first appears very convincing yet my faith quickly turns to doubt. I want to know what is true!

  78. #79 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Sumerians had 3 genders? I learn something new with every David Marjanovi? comment.

    huh? how do you get 3 genders out of a mythological being that’s 2/3 god, 1/3 human?

  79. #80 lisathoughts
    April 11, 2010

    I got to be in the room when my brother died and my atheism (and his) was a HUGE comfort to me. I didn’t have to waste the last few moments of his life wondering where his “soul” would go or bargaining with a god. I was able to be present. People assume I have no hope because I don’t believe in a soul or the afterlife, but I have so much MORE hope and appreciate for life.

  80. #81 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    #63, look, I know this is frustrating for you. But anyone saying something along the lines of “if we are animals why not act the part” simply has no clue about animal behavior.
    Apes can be extremely violent. But they can also be kind and empathetic. I have a suggestion for you: look up Frans de Waal. He is a famous primatologist. Take a look at his books.
    Again, you’ll be surprised.

  81. #82 knockgoats.myopenid.com
    April 11, 2010

    We are literally soulless machines made of meat, honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution. And so is everyone else. – PZ [emphasis added]

    Fine post, the only words I disagree with are those I’ve emphasised: evolution is no more ruthless or pitiless than gravitational attraction. It’s no more ruthless and pitiless than it is warm and cuddly!

  82. #83 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
    April 11, 2010

    The body-mind duality is a scientific hypothesis. As far as neuroscience is concerned it is also a rejected hypothesis.

    …and this is a very important point. Because, while the philosophers, faithful, and wishful thinkers hypothesize to their hearts’ content — the only people in the game who are bringing it with evidence are the neuroscientists. A mountain of hypothesis weighs nothing compared to a grain of evidence.

  83. #84 Rillion
    April 11, 2010

    It’s bothersome enough that people think that the matter of whether to believe evolutionary theory or not depends on whether they like the ramifications, but it’s even worse when they get those ramifications wrong. Evolution does not entail the following:

    1. That we should act like any animal other than what we are– humans.
    2. That we do not have what could be legitimately described as free will (read Dennett’s Freedom Evolves for a good dissection of the subject)
    3. That there is no purpose to our lives.
    4. That we are somehow less dignified than if we hadn’t evolved.

    Evolution does entail the following:

    1. That the behavior of non-human animals, especially those closely related to us, can give some clues about why we think and behave the way we do.
    2. That explanations of human thought and behavior should take into consideration the conditions under which the human brain evolved.

  84. #85 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Must everything that we as humans consider truth be verifiable by the scientific method?

    well, without it being verifiable by science, how could you tell if it’s true or false?

  85. #86 Egaeus
    April 11, 2010

    In reference to SteveV #10,

    “On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind.”

    -Johannes Brahms

  86. #87 Kel, OM
    April 11, 2010

    well, without it being verifiable by science, how could you tell if it’s true or false?

    Well there’s always logic. “All bachelors are unmarried” is true, but it’s not a scientific truth. It’s not like one has made a study of bachelors and saw that they are all unmarried (and even then, there’s the problem of induction), but we know such a statement is true by definition. Just as 2+2=4 is a truth that can’t be attested to through science. We can observe that 2+2=4, but we don’t need to see whether two and two apples will be four apples or that two and two bananas will be four bananas. 2+2=4 is surely true, yet not a scientific truth.

  87. #88 cfmilner
    April 11, 2010

    … unaided by angels or spirits …

    Bravo, sir. Simply bravo.

    Vicar’s Daughter

  88. #89 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    #78 so what kind of a christian school do you go to?
    Doesn’t sound like a catholic one, they are not so obsessed with the OT.

  89. #90 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    bickazer, look below the comment box for a few helpful html hints, including how to blockquote.

  90. #91 bickazer
    April 11, 2010

    bickazer, look below the comment box for a few helpful html hints, including how to blockquote.

    Thank you very much. ^^ I’ve been lurking here for a year and I can’t believe I never noticed that.

  91. #92 E
    April 11, 2010

    I’m starting to think that the need to believe in a soul that persists beyond death is simply a sign of immaturity in the adult brain. I’ve noticed that my six-year-old has a desperate desire for permanence in all things — for example, she wants picked flowers or hand-painted boiled eggs to last forever, and becomes petulant when told they will wither or go rotten. When an adult needs to believe that a part of the self, i.e. the “soul,” goes on forever, it seems like the same kind of childish thinking. Understanding and accepting the transient nature of things is a part of growing up.

  92. #93 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    The concentration here is way too much on belief to be scientific.

    liar

    To be scientific the concentration ought to be on the scientific method.

    it is, you numbnut. neurology says there’s no mind-body dualism. therefore, there are no souls.

    This is an incredible idea. That Myers affects to be able to read the minds of anonymous others. And that he gives a damn as to what they believe, rather than the argument at hand.

    mindreading is unnecessary. usually a concern troll slips up sooner or later and reveals their true anti-scientific, anti-evolution face. Identifying them early saves everyone time dealing with a dishonest liar though, so it’s entirely in everyone’s benefit.

    WTF is your point, anyway?

  93. #94 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Must everything that we as humans consider truth be verifiable by the scientific method?

    Reverse the question. How can you tell anything you believe by “revelation” is anything other that your wishes? Science requires evidence. Revelation requires fast talking/rationalization (a famous line from the movie The Big Chill, is that “we can go a day without sex, but not a day without a rationalization”. Guess which one is favored by realists, like scientists, and which is favored by wooists, like New Agers and theists.

  94. #95 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    I’ve always taken the philosophical view that the soul was the same as our psyche, that essence that makes us unique and individual from each other.

    That’s not an essence, that’s a brain. “Soul Made Flesh”, as a book title puts it.

    Sorry for the quote marks, haven’t figured out how to blockquote yet

    <blockquote>quoted text here</blockquote>

    Sumerians had 3 genders? I learn something new with every David Marjanovi? comment.

    LOL! Well, “two-thirds god, one-third man” is what is written about Gilgames”h”. Presumably that’s an approximation that sums over a long family history of… introgression, with repeated crossings of gods and mortals.

    and that are taxonomically considered to be fish

    …or rather were so considered when taxonomists still used the word “fish”. They’ve stopped.

    Similarly, either we’re monkeys, or the term “monkey” is misleading and should be dropped. The exact same thing holds for “ape”. Here’s why:

      ,----------------------------lemurs
      |
    --+  ,-----------------------tarsiers
      |  |
      `--+  ,--------------------New World monkeys
         |  |
         `--+  ,-----------------Old World monkeys
            |  |
            `--+  ,--------------gibbons
               |  |
               `--+  ,-----------orang-utans
                  |  |
                  `--+  ,--------gorillas
                     |  |
                     `--+  ,-----humans
                        |  |
                        `--+  ,--chimpanzee
                           |  |
                           `--+
                              |
                              `--bonobo

    This is a family tree that covers about 50 million years. Time proceeds from left to right, every + is a point where a population split in two, and the vertical axis is completely meaningless (every branch could be rotated around itself without changing anything). Any more questions?

  95. #96 aratina cage
    April 11, 2010

    Zxg #87,

    What the…? What was that?

  96. #97 Kel, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Similarly, either we’re monkeys, or the term “monkey” is misleading and should be dropped.

    I said the same thing in a thread yesterday and was taken to the proverbial sword.

  97. #98 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Thank you very much. ^^ I’ve been lurking here for a year and I can’t believe I never noticed that.

    It is a new feature, that appeared around the time of the banned words a few weeks ago.

  98. #99 Rev. Pyramid Head
    April 11, 2010

    [RANT]
    I am probably the odd one out on this, but non-existence is a lot more comforting to me than being forever in some high celestial plane.

    Any concept of an afterlife just scares the freaking shit out of me. For me it’s non-existence (no happiness, joy, sadness, pain, or loss ever again); or watching close relatives/friends die from a place in heaven, burn in hell, or go back into the world and experience the same joys/pain I did in this life.

    Sorry if I sound like a whiny kid- I’m just a wee bit overly annoyed at the whole argument that boils down to “OMG ATHEISTS ARE SUUU SAD AND DOWN BECUZ THEY HAVE NO AFTERLIFES”.

    GAH!
    [/END RANT]

    But yea, I love the comic- it’s the one that I always show to everyone when they pester me about donating my body to science after I die.

  99. #100 llewelly
    April 11, 2010

    Jadehawk, OM | April 11, 2010 5:27 PM:

    how do you get 3 genders out of a mythological being that’s 2/3 god, 1/3 human?

    It is impossible to construct 2/3 from sums of powers of 2. If there are two genders, an individual can be 1/2 god, 1/4 god, 1/8 god, 3/4 god, 7/8 god, or any portion god that can be constructed from sums of powers of two. But 2/3 cannot be constructed that way. 2/3 god requires 3 genders.

  100. #101 https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
    April 11, 2010

    Are you nuts? I don’t know what Ray Charles’s religious views were, but he definitely had soul. Case closed.

  101. #102 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    Yahoo @ 78:

    Growing up as a Christian has distorted my beliefs with what is true. I fear that I could be chastised by my family and friends for refuting the existence of God.

    A whole lot of people here have been in your exact situation. Some of them still are in them, they’ve managed to learn, and come to their own conclusions. Whether or not to come out as an atheist (or agnostic) can be a very difficult situation. Some people do, some people don’t.

    I do ask myself whether an afterlife exists because the Bible is just not enough to support its existence. My Christian schoolteachers constantly refer to archaeological evidence to support the existence of supernatural events of the Old Testament. The evidence at first appears very convincing yet my faith quickly turns to doubt.

    Doubt is a good thing, it means you’re using your brain. One thing, no matter how unpalatable it may be, is that theists do lie and they will lie. Perhaps they don’t consider it lying, however, all it amounts to are stories which are told in order to shore up belief. Religious belief must be propped up constantly, it must be reinforced constantly. This is necessary, because without it, thought, learning and reality will erode those beliefs.

    I want to know what is true!

    Good for you! Remember that, and keep telling yourself that. Knowledge is the best thing you can feed yourself right now. Stick around here, do a of reading. Ask questions.

  102. #103 Gregory Greenwood
    April 11, 2010

    Must everything that we as humans consider truth be verifiable by the scientific method?

    Short answer; yes. If by ‘truth’ you mean a quantifiable measure of objective reality, then the scientific method is the only credible way to falsify any given hypothesis. The only alternative is to accept a parity of meaning between reality and fantasy, and that way lies, if not madness, then certainly ignorance.

    … I am still confused with what is absolute truth.

    There is no such thing as eternal, ‘absolute truth’. There is only the best available explanation for observed phenomena that conforms with the currently available evidence. As the evidence changes and new data is found, then the theories may have to be revised to fit the new evidence. Nothing is carved in stone. From my perspective as a scientific layman, I would say that the pursuit of such explanations and their constant refinement in the face of new evidence is the very purpose of science.

    I fear that I could be chastised by my family and friends for refuting the existence of God.

    You are almost certainly right on this point. If you genuinely wish to replace religion with reason, then the road ahead of you will be rocky indeed. Many of your theist friends and family will be horrified by your decision. Some will disown you, others will deploy emotional blackmail to try to prevent you from pursuing the life of a rationalist. The price will likely be high, but the rewards of a life free from pernicious mythology making all your decisions for you is, in my opinion, more than worth it.

    I do ask myself whether an afterlife exists because the Bible is just not enough to support its existence. My Christian schoolteachers constantly refer to archaeological evidence to support the existence of supernatural events of the Old Testament. The evidence at first appears very convincing yet my faith quickly turns to doubt. I want to know what is true!

    Congratulations, you have taken the first steps toward rational skepticism, toward ‘wisdom’, if I can use that term without a terminal excess of pomposity.

    Doubt is not a bad thing. It is vital to be prepared to re-examine any of your beliefs, however hard held they may be, in the light of the evidence. You are right to say that the bible is not evidence supporting the Christrian world view any more than The Lord of the Rings is evidence of Middle Earth. I wish you well with your bid to break free of dogma. You may never find the singular ‘truth’ you aspire to (The Truth(tm) is itself a very theistic concept). What you hopefully will develop is the ability to think for yourself, free of the constraints of scripture or the pre-packaged opinions of a priesthood.

  103. #104 DaveWTC
    April 11, 2010

    @#42 Ouch, you might be smarting a bit after being sliced up by some of the responders above. I would not presume to apologize for that but I do think that, considering your age, it got a little over the top in some cases. That aside, I can only say that if you have somehow managed to come through High School AP Biology with this abject level of knowledge of the defining theory of modern biology, then you have been very badly served indeed by your local school board and I would encourage you to make some noise about it! Good luck and don’t be hesitant to stay in the discussion.

  104. #105 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    It is impossible to construct 2/3 from sums of powers of 2.

    right… but since when should we be taking such things literally? the 2/3 more likely had a symbolic meaning, rather than a biological one :-p

  105. #106 suntzusays
    April 11, 2010

    http://suntzusaid.blogspot.com/2010/04/deliberate-attempt-to-become-offensive.html

    I was very much annoyed with this same concept last week. I find theists have a harder time somehow explaining how their actual lives have meaning or utility when they spend all this energy and concern wishing away their mortality and pretending to know things with certainty from a metaphysical (ie, subjective) point of view. Why worry about it at all? Life has enough problems of its own worth examining and resolving without trudging through this nonsense about afterlives and souls.

    Still, it’s an even worse problem that they don’t even bother to take those views seriously and thus never have to presume that those souls they supposedly have will be lost or punished. It’s one thing to make something up and maybe it makes you feel “better” to believe in it. I don’t know. It’s another thing entirely to make something up and then not bother to attend to its rigorous “logic” when it has make-believe implications that you may not like.

  106. #107 Wise Bass
    April 11, 2010

    I am an atheist, do not believe in a soul (what I’ve read of neuroscience and psychology has convinced me of that), and the like. I suppose there is no rational reason to fear death – we won’t exactly know that we’re dead, just like we had no experience of life before we were born.

    That said, I will be honest and say that death fills me with regret and sorrow. Barring the development of either major life extension technology and/or the ability to upload ourselves into computers, I will likely never live long enough to see the end of the 21st century, never walk under the light of an alien sun, never watch humanity become something so much greater than itself as technology progresses, and so forth. I feel like I just missed the lottery somehow – that I was born just barely too early to live to see a radical transformation in humanity.

  107. #108 llewelly
    April 11, 2010

    thehuntbox | April 11, 2010 5:26 PM:

    Mormons at least make explicit what is implicit in most Christianity, that after death the individual undertakes some kind of apotheosis, much like in ancient polytheism.

    Mormon eschatology also has a convenient* out for the problem of evil: God is teaching faithful Mormons what not to do when they become gods themselves.

    *Well. Maybe not that convenient. It requires god be unable to teach the lesson in a nicer way. That’s a limit on god’s power.

  108. #109 Crudely Wrott
    April 11, 2010

    The future is in the hands of our children, much as it was once in ours.

    I talked to my daughter today. The one that got pregnant at 18 and was well served by the services available to find capable parents for my grandson. The one that found out about addictive drugs. The one that came so close to ending her life before it had fully begun.

    She told me today that she is continuing pursuit of an associate degree in education and that she is looking forward to her history class being seated tomorrow after spring break.

    She told me how important is was to her to teach, to pass knowledge and insight on to the youngsters. She told me how she recalled how I used to read aloud to her, often while she cleaned up from a meal that I prepared. Lewis Thomas, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov. She didn’t understand why I did so back then but she was fascinated by the subjects and the trail of science that made them comprehensible. The fascination has grown into a deeper appreciation and she wants to do for today’s children more of what I was able to do for her.

    Today is my 59th birthday. No sweeter present could I receive.

    If you are concerned about the future, about the role of science and the level of general understanding of science there is no better way than to engage the young at every opportunity. Show them how to watch, to observe. Teach them about the continuity of life. Inform them that they live in a world so full of mystery and riddle that we might be occupied for millennia. Let them know that there are serious problems for which workable answers are not at hand. Provide examples from history of how intractable problems are solved, usually by brute force but sometimes by serendipity. Empower them with skills to research and collate information. Teach them how to learn.

    My admiration of PZ is primarily that he teaches at a high level. That he is a heathen atheist is just the fun part. Learning is often fun but it is also necessarily hard when assumptions and convention are taken to task. That constitutes another important lesson that needs teaching; don’t fear changing your mind when reality demands it.

    If I do have anything like faith it is that I am trusting the new generation to succeed, to survive, to thrive. It is what I put my energy into while I was in a new generation. Talking to my daughter today I realized that not only did I do something right while raising her, she has done more things right on her own account. I see that I was part of that even as I recall my own teachers, my uncles, old men in bib overalls, kind men and women I knew while young who each taught me something and who I recall even today.

    The inheritance we leave to our children becomes more fraught with risk as time passes. It is incumbent upon us to provide them with the best of our knowledge, seeing as how they’re going to need it. We cannot give them wisdom, that only comes with time; we can give them thinking skills, knowledge and the benefit of our understanding. Then we can only trust them.

    If anyone out there was born on April 11, a very happy birthday to you and many pleasant returns.

  109. #110 Gregory Greenwood
    April 11, 2010

    Gah! Blockquote fail! Apologies all.

  110. #111 Teddydeedodu
    April 11, 2010

    Givesgoddemail

    I can’t find the quote, but I’ve always liked what Rand said about dying–something to the effect that, when she died she would cease to exist to the world and the world would cease to exist for her.

    But years after her death there are still a lot of Randroids running around living their lives like zombies. Why can’t they just follow her (pretty please) and cease to exist to the world as well. I mean, that would at least make the world a much better place to live in. :)

  111. #112 kilternkafuffle
    April 11, 2010

    Monism forever. The most important bit. I was a monist before I dropped religion, and right after I ever considered the question. The only argument my parents had against monism was the wish-thoughtful, “is that all there really is?”

  112. #113 Al B. Quirky
    April 11, 2010

    meh. The Lego pieces is a bad analogy. Our bodies don’t retain the same molecules our whole entire lives, but we can remember things that happened in our 1st 5 years. Its that sense of self (soul?) that’s a mystery, and we can’t pretend to know all there is about it. Can it survive death? Probably not, but what about resurrection? Not this body or bones getting up out of the ground and boogie-ing Ezekiel-fashion; look at it this way: if Evolution is real & true (I refuse to say I ‘believe’ in it), then the chances of me existing at all are so many trillion to 1 against, yet here I am with a brain the size of New Mexico. Now, if there’s enough stuff to collapse the universe in a Big Crunch, and if that results in another Big Bang (and a resultant New Universe), what are the chances of me existing again in that New Universe? I’d say about the same as me existing in this one.

  113. #114 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    Oops, I miscounted. The lemurs are not yet in the future. :-)

    PZ! You forgot the alt-text of the picture!

    It’s “Dad, where is Grandpa now?”

    Must everything that we as humans consider truth be verifiable by the scientific method? [...] I am still confused with what is absolute truth. [...] I want to know what is true!

    I have to disappoint you. Science cannot prove, only disprove. If an idea contradicts reality, we can find out by deriving predictions from it and comparing them to reality; if the predictions don’t agree with reality, the idea is false. If they do agree, the idea could still be false.

    Suppose we discover the truth. How can we find out that what we’ve discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don’t have?

    Worse yet, there’s no way to disprove ideas like solipsism (which says that nothing exists except me or rather my mind, and that everything else is a figment of my imagination). I need to go to bed soon, so I won’t go into my usual discussion of truth and reality; I’ll just refer you to the principle of parsimony for the moment ? when several ideas explain the evidence equally well, those ideas that require the fewest extra assumptions must be preferred.

    Science is a humbling experience.

    evolution is no more ruthless or pitiless than gravitational attraction. It’s no more ruthless and pitiless than it is warm and cuddly!

    Bingo.

    the only people in the game who are bringing it with evidence are the neuroscientists.

    Though some philosophers suspected that right from the start. From the left sidebar…

    “A blow to the head will confuse a man’s thinking, a blow to the foot has no such effect, this cannot be the result of an immaterial soul.”
    ? Heraclitus, 500 BC.

    That Myers affects to be able to read the minds of anonymous others.

    He’s not reading minds, he’s making and testing a scientific hypothesis. It’s easy, see comment 94.

    Similarly, either we’re monkeys, or the term “monkey” is misleading and should be dropped.

    I said the same thing in a thread yesterday and was taken to the proverbial sword.

    Which thread?

    There is no such thing as eternal, ‘absolute truth’.

    There may well be, but we can’t find out.

  114. #115 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    #108: but maybe you and I will just barely escape the full devastation of anthropogenic climate change. Isn’t that akin to winning the lottery?

  115. #116 Kel, OM
    April 11, 2010

    (I refuse to say I ‘believe’ in it)

    Why? Are you ignorant of the scientific support for the concept, or do you buy into the equivocation between the words belief and faith?

  116. #117 Cheezits
    April 11, 2010

    We don’t believe in souls.

    Speak for yourself! I don’t believe that souls have any objective existence, in the same sense that feet or hair exist. But I think a person does have a soul in the sense of, a kind of core essence of who they are, what they care about, what they mean to other people, etc.

    According to a speaker at a skeptic meeting that I once attended, whose name escapes me, the whole idea of a separate soul that flutters away to heaven after you die isn’t even Biblical. You can’t have a soul without a body.

  117. #118 Peter G.
    April 11, 2010

    If there was an after life then you could only characterize it as hell. Endless consciousness! Most people are traumatized when they can’t find anything good on TV on a rainy evening.

  118. #119 Kel, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Which thread?

    Right here

  119. #120 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    but we can remember things that happened in our 1st 5 years.

    um that’s no mystery at all. our fingerprints don’t change either, even though the skin on your fingertips is made of ever-changing cells.

    look at it this way: if Evolution is real & true (I refuse to say I ‘believe’ in it), then the chances of me existing at all are so many trillion to 1 against, yet here I am

    and if it weren’t you, it would be someone else, or no one else, and it wouldn’t matter.

    there’s nothing mysterious or miraculous about looking at the history of the universe backwards. it’s only egocentric, assuming that what we got was what we were “supposed” to get. which isn’t true. you’re no more important for the universe than the uncountably many genetic/developmental combinations that never happened.

  120. #121 MadScientist
    April 11, 2010

    I pity the fools that would slave away for the promise of an afterlife. Even the Medicis could never appreciate the beauty of their grand tombs. That sounds just like the sort of scam a church would pull though: give me your money, god will reward you when you’re dead (sucker!)

  121. #122 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    Our bodies don’t retain the same molecules our whole entire lives, but we can remember things that happened in our 1st 5 years. Its that sense of self (soul?) that’s a mystery, and we can’t pretend to know all there is about it.

    Ehm… the arrangement stays the same enough for memories to survive. Molecules can be exchanged within that arrangement without problem, like pieces in a Lego house.

    Now, if there’s enough stuff to collapse the universe in a Big Crunch, and if that results in another Big Bang (and a resultant New Universe), what are the chances of me existing again in that New Universe? I’d say about the same as me existing in this one.

    Fine, except there won’t be a Big Crunch. The expansion of the universe is not only not slowing down, it’s speeding up, as you would know if you hadn’t been sleeping for the last 10 or more years. You’re on the Internet, for crying out loud. Just yesterday Starts With A Bang had a post about this right here on ScienceBlogs.

  122. #123 https://me.yahoo.com/a/yaXGH_5jpoEyuVvyy8IYn.mIxK9kJ0iE#e06dc
    April 11, 2010

    @InsightApe. The school I go to is part of the Christian Reformed Church sect which shares the beliefs establish by a Christian named John Calvin. Some of the teachers there are quite present while the student body is on the mehh side (Meaning they are quite spiritual and “pious”). The place was founded by a bunch of tall Dutch guys and that are believed to by a direct beneficiary by members of the Dutch mafia. I have hated my 4 years at the school especially because I was expecting my transition from public school to a private Christian High school to be a good one. Unfortunately I was dead wrong. The people there can be pigheaded and I especially hate it when they constantly mention how God is basically responsible for everything that happens, as if we are so helpless and pathetic.

  123. #124 Jadehawk, OM
    April 11, 2010

    or, to put it more concisely… it’s only impressive to hit a particular “target” if you were aiming for it… otherwise it unimpressive and meaningless; after all, every thrown dart hits something eventually.

  124. #125 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010
    (I refuse to say I ‘believe’ in it)

    Why? Are you ignorant of the scientific support for the concept, or do you buy into the equivocation between the words belief and faith?

    If you believe in a scientific theory, you’re doing it wrong.

    I think a person does have a soul in the sense of, a kind of core essence of who they are, what they care about, what they mean to other people, etc.

    As I just said, that’s your three-pound monkey brain.

  125. #126 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
    April 11, 2010

    @#78
    I am still confused with what is absolute truth.

    There probably is no such thing. Would “absolute truth” require knowing everything that there is to know about whatever it is? And wouldn’t that be at least somewhat affected by the tempo at which we live and the scale at which we operate?

    There are many things that are true; which one dominates the landscape as “absolute” would be tricky to determine. The following are true:
    – you are a human
    – you are a mass of meat and bone and assorted glop
    – you are a large number of cells
    – you are a huge number of molecules
    – seen from the perspective of our sun, you’re an unnoticeable particle
    – seen from the perspective of one of the phosphorus molecules in your brain, you’re a whirling cloud of atoms
    – frozen in time it becomes hard to recognize you as a living being without close examination
    – seen from the time-scale of a mountain, you’re like an eddy in a vast current of compost
    etc. I could go on and on but I’ll spare you.

    Everything we see is filtered through our eyes, then post-processed by our brains, and then “understood” by other processes in our brains that we don’t understand, yet. Some philosophers like the extreme skeptics point out that we can hardly (or not even) claim to “know” anything, really, because our perceptions could be wrong, our perspective might be inappropriate, or we could simply be crazy. So the skeptics say that if there’s an “absolute truth” we cannot know it (indeed, “absolute truth” about anything might require more knowledge than we could integrate, because is not the “absolute truth” about any molecule dependent on the universe?)

    So some of us adopt evidence as the only way of making claims about knowledge. That’s why “what’s your evidence?” is shorthand for “how do you claim to know X for any given X?” Evidence is never treated as completely conclusive, but unless we base our understanding in common experiences (evidence = shared experience) then we’re up against the isolation boundary between every human. Evidence is the bridge across our ignorance.

  126. #127 kilternkafuffle
    April 11, 2010

    WiseBass:

    I feel like I just missed the lottery somehow – that I was born just barely too early to live to see a radical transformation in humanity.

    Why so gloomy! This year already we know more about human and tetrapod ancestors. Just recently we left the planet! There’s so much to live for and we’re so incredibly lucky to live in a century of immense possibilities. Our parents’ generation couldn’t dream of what we have!

    We already live in a fascinating world, with humanity transforming as radically as it has ever been!
    Here is a dose of comical and brilliant optimism about our world by Louis CK!

  127. #128 Andreas Johansson
    April 11, 2010

    A concern troll complaining about the concept of concern trolling? You see something new every day I suppose.

  128. #129 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    Would “absolute truth” require knowing everything that there is to know about whatever it is?

    That isn’t even possible.

    It would contradict Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relation.

  129. #130 David Marjanovi?
    April 11, 2010

    Right here

    Feynmaniac says the same thing as I there, only in different words and from a different perspective.

    :-)

  130. #131 phoenicianromans
    April 11, 2010

    One thing I’ve always noted especially to those who proscribe to a religion is that regardless of what religion or lack of religion you proscribe to, no matter what you believe about how we end up, we’ve got one shot at this life on this planet in this personality.

    That’s because to make any other assertion would subject their religious faith to falsifiable predictions. Which they won’t do.

    Whereas the claim “the soul is just an illusionary epiphenomenon of the brain running mental processs” makes the predicition that when the brain messes up, people’s experience of their “soul” will change. Which it does.

  131. #132 Abelard
    April 11, 2010

    The ancient dualism of soul/body from which western culture derives its notions depends on the definition of psyche, spiritus: breathe. The classical distinction: breathe was the characteristic that defined a sleeping person from a dead one. The sleeping person had ‘spiritus’ while the dead one did not. (Death and sleep were very interconnected in the ancient world). This also curiously led to a visual concept in western culture of a soul being made of “air” (ever wonder why we consider ghosts to be air-like?) This “air” supposedly inhabits the body, adhering to its shape. The greeks/romans had another bodiless concept of soul which we don’t see much of today: a shade or a dark reflection of the body

  132. #133 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
    April 11, 2010

    David Marjanovi? writes:
    That isn’t even possible.

    It would contradict Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relation.

    Exactly. But to know the “absolute truth” about something wouldn’t you have to both know where it was and how fast it was moving in any particular direction? Those are important properties of the truth of a thing.

    I think the notion of “absolute truth” is incoherent; that was my point. Anyone who knew the “absolute truth” about anything would explode like the wafer theen guy in the Monty Python sketch. :)

  133. #134 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    kilternkafuffle @ 128:

    We already live in a fascinating world, with humanity transforming as radically as it has ever been!

    Yep. Amen, even! ;D If I make to 80 years old, I’ll live until 2038. That’s pretty damn exciting all by itself. I love living in the future. ;p

  134. #135 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
    April 11, 2010

    Whereas the claim “the soul is just an illusionary epiphenomenon of the brain running mental processs” makes the predicition that when the brain messes up, people’s experience of their “soul” will change. Which it does.

    A fun question to ask the faithful (or those who believe in “souls”) is whether taking antidepressants affects the soul.

  135. #136 Hirnlego
    April 11, 2010

    “Come from nothing and go back to nothing”
    co-sign

    Death doesn’t frighten but there’s one thing which bugs me and that is that our lives are way too short.. I’d settle for 5000 years and then re-incarnation :)

  136. #137 Abelard
    April 11, 2010

    This concept is also, incidentally, from where the custom of saying “God Bless you” when we sneeze derives. Your “soul/air/breathe” is somehow leaving you hence you need a blessing to keep it inside.

    Dark age superstition is wonderfully crazy.

  137. #138 NitricAcid
    April 11, 2010

    It always strikes me as odd that creationists like to ask, “If we’re descended from apes, why don’t you act like an ape?” Evolution aside, I’m quite sure that a large number of my medieval ancestors were illiterate peasants and serfs who spent their lives grubbing in the dirt because that’s the only way they could earn a living. Or soldiers who happily butchered people who looked different from themselves, or who spoke a different language.

    Why would I want to act like my medieval ancestors, let alone my prehistoric ones?

  138. #139 DaveWTC
    April 11, 2010

    @#132 To what does the text in italics refer? Are you quoting #11? If so, please put @#11 before your post and put the text in quotes so we don’t have to hunt through 131 comments to find the one you’re referencing.

    And #11, how does one “proscribe to” a religion?

    And, both of you, I have no idea what you’re talking about so I am doubly pissed at having wasted my time!

  139. #140 monad
    April 11, 2010

    @David Marjanovi? 96:
    Why does that mean the terms should be dropped? There’s more to the world than just phylogeny. Although tetrapods evolved from fish, fish have a number of positive characters they lack, like gills. You wouldn’t want to use them as a taxon, perhaps, but it makes perfect sense to say our ancestors were fish but we aren’t.

    In the same way, “monkey” means “primate with a tail”. So long as you don’t assume that means they form a single evolutionary group, what’s misleading about that?

  140. #141 KOPD
    April 11, 2010

    I lost an uncle last Fall to a rare type of stroke. It happened at a wake for his step-father, so a lot of family were around when he had his seizure. It was a couple days later when he died in the hospital. I remember my devout Southern Baptist family members being so concerned over his soul and wanting to be at the hospital if and when he regained consciousness so they could make sure he was “saved.” I know it was out of concern for him, but I still couldn’t help the feeling that they were vultures circling a wounded prey and waiting for the chance to swoop in. The soul concept was getting in the way of the things that were really important at the time, and causing unnecessary concern when there was plenty else to think about.

    And with that, I’m going to go put on my “Smile, there’s no Hell” t-shirt and go visit some friends from the freethinkers group at my alma mater.

  141. #142 zzubzzub
    April 11, 2010

    Very well put. Awesome, thanks!

  142. #143 mrcreosote
    April 11, 2010

    “We don’t know what happens when we die
    We only know we die too soon
    But we have to try or else our world becomes
    A waiting room”

    Joe Jackson – The Verdict

  143. #144 Dahan
    April 11, 2010

    Well said.

    BTW, I had a dream last night that I was kicked off this blog for putting my real name in a comment.

    Luckily, I can tell the difference between dreams, fantasy and reality, unlike theists. See ya all around!

    Dan Hansen

  144. #145 Crommunist
    April 11, 2010

    @17 Year-old X-ian AP Bio guy

    It’s encouraging to see you’re not afraid to state your opinions, have them challenged, and respond without losing courage or getting angry. It’s doubly encouraging that you’re going outside your usual comfort zone for other opinions and information.

    It’s less encouraging that at the AP bio level you don’t have a solid grasp of evolution, but hopefully that’s what college is for.

    If you want to take a “crash course in reality” as you put it, I’d highly suggest you look into an introductory course in philosophy. While knowledge of philosophy doesn’t get you a job at the Philosophy Factory, it will give you the basic mechanics of how to evaluate an argument and work it through from first principles. Philosophy doesn’t teach you what to think, but it can give you some pointers on how to think more effectively, and how to test hypotheses in the absence of material evidence.

    Just a warning, though: learning the difference between good philosophy and bullshit pseudo-reasoning WILL make you an atheist.

  145. #146 GodlessNot Clueless
    April 11, 2010

    To startlingmonika #56;
    Got room on that bus for me?

    To the confused 17yr old #78;
    Please take the advice offered by others; stick around, ask questions, read and don’t be afraid to learn.
    Aside from this excellent site, may I recommend you visit http://www.richarddawkins.net and look through some articles there. Better still, grab yourself a copy of Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’ and read it from cover to cover. Once you’ve done that, read it again; you’ll be amazed at how much you either missed or misunderstood on the first reading. Don’t just read the book though, make sure that you properly understand what is being said, keep a dictionary and thesaurus at hand as academics do have a tendency to use 10-syllable words where 3 would suffice (I’ll probably be accused of advocating ‘dumbing-down’ for saying that but in reality isn’t this how we all learn? Einstein; Hawkins; Dawkins; Myers; You; Me; Everybody; We all had to learn ABC… and 1+1=2 before we could understand more complex matters), and don’t give up.
    Both of these sites are goldmines for clearly written, informative and rational articles on atheism, evolution and understanding our place in the Universe, and all you need do is suspend your religious beliefs for just long enough to begin to comprehend and the chances are that, in no time at all, you’ll have no need of (or fear of) the superstitious hoodoo that has no place in the 21st Century.
    Good luck!

  146. #147 TimKO,,.,,
    April 11, 2010

    It’s an irony in xtianity.
    Is jeebus (according to the four most popular gospels, anyway) the prince of peace/love or the prince of war/hate? He preached both. Judged by today’s better moral standards : Fail.

    Modern xtians support war/hate in American culture.
    War, the environment, none of it matters to them because life is unimportant compared to the (pick one) imaginary soul.

    But to a non-theist, life is too valuable. The here and now matters. Non-theism teaches better values. When you drop yr indoctrinated superstition of choice, life and your fellow man takes on greater importance for now and the future.

  147. #148 Alex P.
    April 11, 2010

    There is, of course, an aspect of this which is horrible. It is unsettling to think that Hitler met the same end as all of his victims. The flipside is that this also reveals the tragedy of such actions; the atheistic context makes life all the more valuable.

  148. #149 Insightful Ape
    April 11, 2010

    #124,
    I hope it cheers you up to learn, many of us here have had to deal with such challenges in the past.
    Either way, while a number of people (including me) have already given you recommendations on literature, I’ll still take the liberty to make a suggestion: since you seem to be particularly irritated by the repeat suggestions that archaeology bears out the Old Testament (and rightfully so), there is a book you can take a look at: The End of Biblical Studies, by University of Iowa professor Hector Avalos. He takes on the claims of historicity of the bible head on. It is a great read.
    Stick by and we can exchange notes.

  149. #150 tresameht
    April 11, 2010

    I am totally crushed.

  150. #151 AZ Writer (Kim Hosey)
    April 11, 2010

    I think a person does have a soul in the sense of, a kind of core essence of who they are, what they care about, what they mean to other people, etc. (#118)

    I think that’s sort of the same thing PZ was getting at in his post, with the continuation of our cares and efforts and all we care about in society, etc. It’s sort of a grander “immortality,” if you ask me. Our works don’t get written off as attributable to God. Our ourselves live on.

    I just think that everyone in our society (regardless of belief) is so conditioned to think of “soul” to mean a God-ghost resident in our brains that it’s problematic to call it that, even if “soul” means something else to you. But I agree with you, in essence.

  151. #152 ChrisD
    April 11, 2010

    The Wild Honeysuckle

    FAIR flower, that dost so comely grow,
    Hid in this silent, dull retreat,
    Untouched thy honied blossoms blow,
    Unseen thy little branches greet:
    No roving foot shall crush thee here,
    No busy hand provoke a tear.

    By Nature?s self in white arrayed,
    She bade thee shun the vulgar eye,
    And planted here the guardian shade,
    And sent soft waters murmuring by;
    Thus quietly thy summer goes,
    Thy days declining to repose.

    Smit with those charms, that must decay,
    I grieve to see your future doom;
    They died–nor were those flowers more gay,
    The flowers that did in Eden bloom;
    Unpitying frosts and Autumn?s power
    Shall leave no vestige of this flower.

    From morning suns and evening dews
    At first thy little being came;
    If nothing once, you nothing lose,
    For when you die you are the same;
    The space between is but an hour,
    The frail duration of a flower.

    Philip J. Freneau

  152. #153 ChrisD
    April 11, 2010

    Of course that should be Philip M. Freneau. My bad Phil.

  153. #155 Kel, OM
    April 11, 2010

    If you believe in a scientific theory, you’re doing it wrong.

    Now you’re just playing word games.

  154. #156 a.human.ape
    April 11, 2010

    I like to remind Christians that they are greedy and cowardly to believe in heaven, and that they should be grateful for the one life they have.

    PZ’s brilliant post reminded me of this song by Iris Dement. Her song is more agnostic than atheist but I like her philosophy.

    Off topic but this is her best song.

  155. #157 lol8ta_120
    April 11, 2010

    Right on, Mr. Myers–what a funny coincidence, I was just musing on this subject this weekend!
    Frankly, I pray to the Christian God (actually I mostly shout art project ideas at him because, face it, nobody else needs to hear it.) But I agree absolutely that the afterlife is the shadiest part of religious doctrine and have shed it over time. I believe in considering what we’ll leave behind us, and I hope to leave things that may delight and provoke people.

    I’m new to this site and would like to offer a gift:

    ———–To All The Measle-y Journos————

    Flatfooted denial’s their creed.
    They share a rambunctinous greed.
    The fatheaded slurps.
    The slim-witted twerps:
    Warn children away from their mead!

  156. #158 StarScream
    April 11, 2010

    Jesse Bering has a great paper analyzing why people do believe in souls:

    http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Bering%20%282006%29%20in%20BBS.pdf

  157. #159 Sili
    April 11, 2010

    Amen.

  158. #160 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    a.human.ape @ 156:

    I like to remind Christians that they are greedy and cowardly to believe in heaven, and that they should be grateful for the one life they have.

    How sweet. Have you managed to get rid of your vile homophobia, which is such important part of your life, you piece of scum?

  159. #161 Serenegoose
    April 11, 2010

    As much as I do not believe in a soul, or any religion, and do not adopt a faith because I know it’s simply wrong and I can’t knowingly believe lies, none of the familiar atheist statements about death are even remotely comforting or reassuring to me.

  160. #162 Al B. Quirky
    April 11, 2010

    @#123
    If I go back to sleep for another 10 years, can you guarantee that Big Crunch will still be a dead duck?

  161. #163 raven
    April 11, 2010

    I’ll still take the liberty to make a suggestion: since you seem to be particularly irritated by the repeat suggestions that archaeology bears out the Old Testament (and rightfully so),

    The Bible Unearthed – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the ….. Finkelstein and Silberman have themselves written a provocative book that …

    Actually biblical archaeology showed that much of the bible is just made up. Finkelstein and Silberman who did much of the original digging is good. The Exodus never happened, the multiple genocides of the Canaanites never happened, the Jews were just another tribe of Canaanites anyway, David and Solomon were minor rulers, and so on. Oddly enough the later history has some truth to it, the lists of kings of Judea and Israel.

    Some xians dispute the findings of archaeology though. As well as biology, geology, history, astronomy and paleontology. When you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and UFOs are piloted by demons, reality becomes a minor obstacle.

  162. #164 Sili
    April 11, 2010

    but we can remember things that happened in our 1st 5 years.

    Speak for yourself.

  163. #165 Dark Matter
    April 11, 2010

    The hardest explanation for theists to grasp, though, is the understanding that none of us have ever had this unlikely clot of vapor called a soul. If the soul is an imaginary fantasy, then Mozart’s music, Michaelangelo’s sculptures, Picasso’s paintings, the Wright brothers’ plane, every work of art and technology produced by people whose names have been lost to us, every child, every dream, has been created by us, mere mortal flesh unled by a magic puppeteer in the sky, unaided by angels or spirits. I find that wonderful.

    I have always found this to be one of the loveliest things about atheism – it makes the world an infinitely more interesting and beautiful place.

  164. #166 Aaron Baker
    April 11, 2010

    Like others who post here, I find Lucretius very congenial on this subject. However, when, in addition to asserting that the soul is material and mortal, he (following his idol Epicurus) also tries to argue away the fear of death, the whole project is, I think, misconceived.

    The reason why is stated better by Philip Larkin than anyone else I’ve ever read:

    Aubade
    by Philip Larkin

    I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
    Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
    In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
    Till then I see what’s really always there:
    Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
    Making all thought impossible but how
    And where and when I shall myself die.
    Arid interrogation: yet the dread
    Of dying, and being dead,
    Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.

    The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
    — The good not done, the love not given, time
    Torn off unused — nor wretchedly because
    An only life can take so long to climb
    Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
    But at the total emptiness for ever,
    The sure extinction that we travel to
    And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
    Not to be anywhere,
    And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

    This is a special way of being afraid
    No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
    That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
    Created to pretend we never die,
    And specious stuff that says No rational being
    Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
    That this is what we fear — no sight, no sound,
    No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
    Nothing to love or link with,
    The anaesthetic from which none come round.

    And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
    A small unfocused blur, a standing chill
    That slows each impulse down to indecision.
    Most things may never happen: this one will,
    And realisation of it rages out
    In furnace-fear when we are caught without
    People or drink. Courage is no good:
    It means not scaring others. Being brave
    Lets no one off the grave.
    Death is no different whined at than withstood.

    Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.

    It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
    Have always known, know that we can’t escape,
    Yet can’t accept. One side will have to go.
    Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
    In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
    Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
    The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
    Work has to be done.
    Postmen like doctors go from house to house.
    ………………..

    The “specious stuff” that Larkin ridicules is exactly that cache of arguments from Greek philosophy, designed to buck us up in the face of our impending extinction.

    I’d take a different tack. The dread of not being isn’t something you can really argue yourself or others out of. But the dread is only intermittent. At other times, the prospect of ceasing to exist can be quite welcome. I find it comforting that the world’s most sadistic tyrant has no power over his victims beyond a fixed point. I find it comforting that pain, no matter how severe, quite simply ends one day, and can’t recur.

    So, sometimes dreading my end, and the end of others I care for, and at other times being a bit fatigued by “life’s fitful fever,” I find it all seems to average out in a way that, so far, is tolerable.

  165. #167 Mbee
    April 11, 2010

    Great post PZ.

    It is sad to know that so many religious people spend so much time in this life worshipping something that probably does not exist. Then when they die and there is nothing they will never ever know how wrong they were. That is truly a waste.

    At least as an atheist if we are wrong and there actually is something there we will at least know we were wrong. Assuming of course that the religious are right! – and that is quite a stretch – there are so many things that you could suppose happens to us when we die – so far no evidence of anything other than simply death.

    If someone could just invent email from beyond the grave maybe we could find out!

  166. #168 raven
    April 11, 2010

    none of the familiar atheist statements about death are even remotely comforting or reassuring to me.

    How many xians are reasonably sure there is an afterlife anyway? Very few seem to be in a hurry to get there. In the hospitals, the most likely to demand heroic endtime life support are the most devout ones. They don’t act like they are all that sure.

    Living forever could get boring although a few thousand or a million years sounds good.

    What I most would miss about not having an afterlife is not seeing a few {deceased} friends, relatives, and more than a few cats.

  167. #169 Sastra
    April 11, 2010

    Serenegoose #161 wrote:

    As much as I do not believe in a soul, or any religion, and do not adopt a faith because I know it’s simply wrong and I can’t knowingly believe lies, none of the familiar atheist statements about death are even remotely comforting or reassuring to me.

    And that may just be, the way it is.

    In her stageplay/movie Letting Go of God, Julia Sweeney talks about how the finality of death really hit her hard, when she lost her faith and began to think through all the implications. If there was no God or afterlife, this meant that everyone she loved who had died, had to die for her a second time. Before, she had always had a comforting thought that she’d see them again. Now, she knew she wouldn’t. And they weren’t somehow still alive. They were really, really, gone. And, thinking about it, she wondered if it was too much: was atheism — truth — worth it?

    But, as she thought more, she realized that, every time she had ever grown as a person, it was because she was forced to accept something she didn’t want to believe. And, once she accepted it, she knew it was the right thing to do. Living in denial, was no way to live.

    I think the atheist reaction to death varies because atheists vary a great deal, not just in background, but in temperament. If you weren’t raised with the conviction that heaven awaits (or it just never seemed reasonable), then you probably don’t really miss, what you never had. If you were, then reactions run the gamut. And they can change over time. What bothers you now, may not in a few years. Or, vice versa.

    Bottom line, reality isn’t under an obligation to satisfy us, and give us what we want. And if you’re the kind of person who thinks that Sagan’s “better a hard truth, than a comforting fable” is wise — as you apparently are — then all you’re left with is making the psychological best, with what there is.

    That’s really all they’re doing, as well. They pick the comforting fable. What’s annoying, of course, is that theists often try to re-frame this choice as courage and discipline, instead of their negation.

  168. #170 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    Mbee @ 167:

    If someone could just invent email from beyond the grave maybe we could find out!

    Eternal spam? Nooooooooooo!

    ;p

  169. #171 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 11, 2010

    Belief in a soul and/or resurrected body and/or reincarnation is a response to fear of death.

    I don’t particularly fear death. I know I’ll die and that’ll be that. As Shakespeare observed:

    The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones.

    I just hope I don’t leave too much evil behind.

  170. #172 Twisted_Colour
    April 11, 2010

    I believe… I believe in the beat.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVLaqcKAzM8

    There’s nothing else I need to believe in.

  171. #173 WowbaggerOM
    April 11, 2010

    Great post, PZ.

    The idea of heaven has always struck me as kind of silly. Humans appear to need change and constant challenge in order to function so the concept of ‘eternal bliss’ is one that I can’t see as being practical beyond a few dozen years (if that).

    Which is why the Agent Smith quote from the The Matrix is a good one:

    Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.

    If I could have what I wanted, I’d go for non-linear, non-species-specific reincarnation, i.e. we could be reborn at any point in history, as any kind of organism. But I think – somewhat sadly, as per evolution; if we weren’t strongly attached to life we wouldn’t try so hard to prevent losing it – we just die.

    Actually, it makes me think about something that Dawkins alluded to in TGD – why aren’t Christians, considering that their lives are more obstacles to their goals than anything else – bigger risk-takers? It seems odd they don’t want to die sooner and get to heaven.

  172. #174 tomrooney.phd
    April 11, 2010

    How I explain my atheism to evangelical christians…

    “If I believe Jesus is my personal Lord and saviour, I go to heaven, right?”

    “Right!”

    “Well, I need to spend eternity in hell so I can comfort and minister to all the souls that ended up there. It is what God wants me to do. So I have to reject Jesus and be an atheist, otherwise I will end up in heaven.”

    The vacant stare I get in response is fucking awesome!

  173. #175 Alex P.
    April 11, 2010

    Paraphrased by Iron Maiden, of course…

    Circle of fire, my baptism of joy’s at an end it seems
    The seventh lamb slain, the book of life opened before me…
    And I will pray for her!
    Someday, I may return.
    Don’t you cry for me,
    Beyond is where I learn…

    Seriously great song. Not really atheistic, but awesome nonetheless.

  174. #176 keithaschuler
    April 11, 2010

    “You shouldn’t take life to seriously. You’ll never get out alive.” – Van Wilder

  175. #177 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    tomrooney.phd @ 174:

    LOL. That’s downright wicked, man.

  176. #178 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 11, 2010

    WowbaggerOM #173

    why aren’t Christians, considering that their lives are more obstacles to their goals than anything else – bigger risk-takers? It seems odd they don’t want to die sooner and get to heaven.

    “Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody’s in a hurry to get there.” -Irish proverb

  177. #179 Sven DiMilo
    April 11, 2010

    honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution.

    I wonder where Ruth is.

  178. #180 JustJoe 42
    April 11, 2010

    While finally admiting to myself that , “no, I don’t believe in god”, was rather easy, the whole “And no soul, either.” was a bit more tricky. The problem for me was all of the stuff I was going to lose (or thought I was going to lose, as the case may be), namely the thought of my Mother being “gone”.

    It took a long time to come to the conclusion that nothing was really changing except me and how I looked at the world. And once that happened, so many other things opened up for me to see. It might have been even more important than letting go of god.

  179. #181 ereador
    April 11, 2010

    thehuntbox @#77: Yes, an eternity in a world modern protestants think is good. Shit.

  180. #183 llewelly
    April 11, 2010

    Jadehawk, OM | April 11, 2010 6:05 PM:

    [Me, llewelly:]

    It is impossible to construct 2/3 from sums of powers of 2.

    right… but since when should we be taking such things literally?

    It made me smile to think of 3 genders among Sumerian mythological figures. I know for some people humor isn’t sufficient justification for taking something literally, but for me it is more than enough.

  181. #184 GodlessNot Clueless
    April 11, 2010

    #163 by Raven

    Actually biblical archaeology showed that much of the bible is just made up. Finkelstein and Silberman who did much of the original digging is good. The Exodus never happened, the multiple genocides of the Canaanites never happened, the Jews were just another tribe of Canaanites anyway, David and Solomon were minor rulers, and so on. Oddly enough the later history has some truth to it, the lists of kings of Judea and Israel.

    Rumour has it that archeologists have discovered an ancient parchment which, when translated, was found to be the original title page of the first ever written bible.
    Apparently it read;
    THE BIBLE
    or
    A COMEDY OF TERRORS.
    A satirical take on the History of the World
    By Riq’ad D’hakis

    If only!!!!!!!!!

  182. #185 marylynne7
    April 11, 2010

    Belief in a soul was the last thing vestige of faith I lost. Surely there’s SOMETHING . . .

    But, what would it be?
    Not our thoughts, they stop when the synapses stop firing. Not emotions, they stop when the chemicals stop. Not memories, not feelings, not personality – it’s all a result of brain function, and will not continue when the brain dies. If there is anything left, it won’t have any of me in it, so what do I care?

    I’m sad when other people die because I miss them (and I can grieve and feel sad or be angry without trying to twist it to an unnatural emotion like being glad they are in a better place or gratitude to God), but I’m not really afraid of my own death. I hope I’m not in pain for a long time, but as for actually dying – so what? I won’t be here to care! I won’t be around to regret what I haven’t done, won’t see the pain in my loved ones.

    That sounds so cold when I write it; I value my life very much, everyone I care about knows it, if I knew I were going to die tomorrow I’d pretty much do the same thing I would have anyway. I’m certainly hoping to live my 80 years. I’ve seen enough family members die of cancer to know I would feel sorrow and pain and probably regret for the leading up part if it’s dragged out like that, but dying itself – it would be sad for my girls to grow up without me, but I wouldn’t know it! No point in getting upset now over something I will have no experience of then.

    I’m not sure I was clear – it looks odd even to me to not care about dying. I’ll have to think about this and work out ways to clarify and express this.

  183. #186 otrame
    April 11, 2010

    @#124

    You have a lot to learn, but don’t worry. Many people here, many people you’ll meet out in the real world, have had to deal with the same situation you find yourself in. You have plenty of time.

    To get a hint of why us atheists encounter so much joy in our lives, take a look at here. Be sure to read the sidebar with all the information in it.

    Also, check out the work of this wonderful young man, who, like you, simply wanted the truth. This is the first video of a series.

    You may have trouble with your family about the things you are going to learn. I can’t claim that will be easy.

    But good luck. You are very welcome here. If you say something and someone snipes at you, don’t take it personally. We so often have to deal with people who have no intention of actually learning anything and who make us very very tired. You have made it clear that that is not who you are, but sometimes people here commit preemptive snarking. Like I said, don’t take it personally.

  184. #187 Al B. Quirky
    April 11, 2010

    @#164
    OK. I have definite memories from when I was 2, and possibly less than 24 months. Earliest memory is of my neighbor’s 2nd birthday -we were born same year; must look him up and check which month.

  185. #188 tobeobtained
    April 11, 2010

    First time commenter, long time lurker– I’m mainly in to read about the latest Creationism/ID news. But this was really a beautiful post. Thanks for writing it.

  186. #189 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 11, 2010

    marylynne7 @ 185:

    I’m not sure I was clear – it looks odd even to me to not care about dying. I’ll have to think about this and work out ways to clarify and express this.

    I think you were clear. I care about living. It doesn’t pay to fret about dying. There’s nothing I can do about dying at some point. If I spend time fretting over that, I’m not spending time living.

    I’d certainly rather live much longer than the time I’m going to get. Just more reason to enjoy it as much as possible.

  187. #190 WowbaggerOM
    April 11, 2010

    The idea of heaven always makes me think of someone who’s been married but their husband/wife (who they never stopped loving) has died and then they married again – what then happens in heaven? Are they spending eternity with the first spouse or the second? what happens to the other?

  188. #191 Feynmaniac
    April 11, 2010

    The Scientologists believe you become Gods of separate planets (again, never back on Earth).

    You’re thinking of the Mormons.

    Mormonism is just 19th century Scientology.

  189. #192 Ted Zissou
    April 11, 2010

    What! There’s no beer volcano?!

  190. #193 brotheratombombofmoderation
    April 11, 2010

    The human concern about what happens to the “soul” after death was discussed on the Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles in the episode “Adam Raised A Cain.” The character “John Henry” is an AI program running on a roomful of servers and speaking through a body of humanoid robot. The character “James Ellison” is a human who has been brought in for teaching the AI program human ethics.

    John Henry: The human brain is an amazing computer. Its raw clock speed is 20 billion calculations per second. Its storage is functionally infinite. But it’s flawed.

    James Ellison: How’s that?

    John Henry: There’s no way to download it when you die.

    James Ellison: Not exactly, no.

    John Henry: Your Bible solves this problem by introducing a concept of Heaven.

    James Ellison: Yes.

    John Henry: Billions of souls with no bodies.

    James Ellison: Okay.

    John Henry: [Gesturing towards his server farm] Yet all this required simply to process the unique entity you call John Henry.

    James Ellison: Yes.

    John Henry: It’s possible the Heaven has a hardware problem.

    And this “hardware problem” that is overlooked is why nearly all concepts of an afterlife to be nonsense (I suppose a “Caprica”-style avatar might be one way for the “soul” to survive death for a few individuals but millions of souls would need a lot of hardware to survive death).

  191. #194 RamblinDude
    April 11, 2010

    For me, the best perk about being free of agonizing over that nonsense about souls and afterlives is that it frees one to concentrate on what?s really going on. And what is that? Well, even if we never figure it out, it?s the most interesting of mysteries.

  192. #195 Phiwilli
    April 11, 2010

    The ancients (Lucretius & Epicurus as noted above, but many others) spoke freely of the soul, but whether it exists post-mortem was a matter of debate (no doubt among the hoi polloi the opinion was that it does, but among the intelligentsia it wasn’t so clear). In line with Plato and Aristotle, I find it very useful to talk about the soul – as everything about a person that is immaterial: desires, emotions, hopes, ambitions, thoughts, feelings, etc. None of these are material physical things, and unquestionably we all have them. If we lose them, we no longer exist (although our bodies may still be “alive,” as with Terri Schiavo – and many other elderly and not-so-elderly people).

    So: the soul IS immaterial, and it is the essence of a person – but it dies with (or before) the body. And of course the soul is, in thus far not very well understood ways, wholly dependent upon the body (especially the brain).

  193. #196 MadScientist
    April 11, 2010

    @Nitric Acid #138: But humans still do behave very much like other contemporary apes. You can always provoke most humans into killing you, just as a small example of how humans still exhibit other ape behavior. Hierarchy in society? Ape. Pack rape? Ape. Clans? Ape. War? Ape. Yup, still lots of ape behavior in humans. I guess the religious wouldn’t have much trouble denying that though since they are accustomed to denying the goddamned obvious, like the fact that homosexuals are a normal part of any society.

  194. #197 https://me.yahoo.com/a/lMQXDh4_yc5DEskAP682r3i9BsdZ_9Rt#87efd
    April 11, 2010

    As an aside, since no one’s mentioned it, if you’re not already an organ donor, sign up.
    http://organdonor.gov/donor/index.htm

    This is the federal site, but it’ll take you to your state center. Do it. Please. It’s simple, and it’ll help someone who needs it.

    At the very least, tell your next of kin (preferably many of them) what to do with the pieces when you’re done with them. Don’t assume they’ll realize if you’ve never discussed it with them specifically.

  195. #198 truth machine, OM
    April 11, 2010

    We do have hope for the future, too. Think for a moment about your community a century from now. Does it make you feel good to think that there will still be people living there then? That they will be talking about things that you find interesting, that they will be doing activities you also enjoy? Do you hope that life will be better for them? Even though we will be gone, we can still aspire to perpetuate our culture, and find satisfaction while we are alive in advancing that cause.

    If that makes me feel good, then should I feel bad that all those people, and that entire culture, all the works of human beings and all other civilizations, will inevitably perish? “perpetuate our culture” is, literally, impossible.

    I don’t think it makes any sense to be concerned about the future, other than in how our actions now will affect it, because we live now and are responsible for our actions. While I’m alive, I will do things like check the organ donor box, carry life insurance, provide a will, etc., because I care about the consequences of my actions. But I don’t generally care about what happens after I’m gone, which is a good thing because otherwise I would find the heat death of the universe really really depressing.

  196. #199 Scyldemort
    April 11, 2010

    My own position on this particular issue is this: I don’t know. I don’t know what, if anything, may happen to any particular individual after death. I don’t know if there is an afterlife, or if we all simply cease to exist upon the ending of our lives.

    I hope there is life after death, and yes, I would happily take a trillion years of ‘tedious paradise’ over nonexistence; I love life, and I love living it, and cannot imagine thinking otherwise. But I don’t have evidence of anything at all after death, one way or another. I may not have anything at all, save hope.

    It will have to do.

  197. #200 Aaron Baker
    April 11, 2010

    Here’s another of my favorite poems about death: “Of Heaven Considered as a Tomb,” by Wallace Stevens:

    What word have you, interpreters, of men
    Who in the tomb of heaven walk by night,
    The darkened ghosts of our old comedy?
    Do they believe they range the gusty cold,
    With lanterns borne aloft to light the way,
    Freemen of death, about and still about
    To find whatever it is they seek? Or does
    That burial, pillared up each day as porte
    And spiritous passage into nothingness,
    Foretell each night the one abysmal night
    When the host shall no more wander, nor the light
    Of the steadfast lanterns creep across the dark?
    Make hue among the dark comedians,
    Halloo them in the topmost distances
    For answer from their icy lyse.

  198. #201 Aaron Baker
    April 11, 2010

    I shared the Stevens poem on Michael Drake’s excellent Strange Doctrines site (strangedoctrines.com). Along with it I posted two poems by Geoffrey Hill, so I might as well put them up here as well:

    Merlin

    I will consider the outnumbering dead:
    For they are the husks of what was rich seed.
    Now, should they come together to be fed,
    They would outstrip the locusts’ covering tide.

    Arthur, Elaine, Mordred; they are all gone
    Among the raftered galleries of bone.
    By the long barrows of Logres they are made one,
    And over their city stands the pinnacled corn.

    In Memory of Jane Fraser

    When snow like sheep lay in the fold
    And winds went begging at each door,
    And the far hills were blue with cold,
    And a cold shroud lay on the moor,

    She kept the siege. And every day
    We watched her brooding over death
    Like a strong bird above its prey.
    The room filled with the kettle?s breath.

    Damp curtains glued against the pane
    Sealed time away. Her body froze
    As if to freeze us all, and chain
    Creation to a stunned repose.

    She died before the world could stir.
    In March the ice unloosed the brook
    And water ruffled the sun?s hair.
    Dead cones upon the alder shook.

  199. #202 truth machine, OM
    April 11, 2010

    I don’t know what, if anything, may happen to any particular individual after death. I don’t know if there is an afterlife, or if we all simply cease to exist upon the ending of our lives.

    Do you also not know what happens to the Lego house when it is disassembled? What about the whirring of a fan when you turn it off? Do you know that Booth shot Lincoln or that Obama was born in Hawaii? It’s possible those are false. People don’t operate on that sort of knowledge, but rather by making inferences from evidence. The rational inference is that Booth shot Lincoln, Obama was born in Hawaii, and that the mind is something the brain does and ends when the brain stops functioning, just as the whirring of the fan ends when you kill the power.

  200. #203 KOPD
    April 11, 2010

    I want to live until I’m tired of living. No more, no less.

  201. #204 ereador
    April 11, 2010

    Phiwilli @#195: Sorry, but you’ll have to provide the data for the immaterial soul.

  202. #205 Scyldemort
    April 11, 2010

    the mind is something the brain does and ends when the brain stops functioning

    Maybe so. I hope not, but maybe so.

  203. #206 paulmurray
    April 11, 2010

    The positive side is: “my body, my self”. No more “my hormones made me do it”, or my neurochemicals, or my animal nature. My hormones is me.

  204. #207 truth machine, OM
    April 11, 2010

    I find it very useful to talk about the soul – as everything about a person that is immaterial: desires, emotions, hopes, ambitions, thoughts, feelings, etc. None of these are material physical things, and unquestionably we all have them.

    Would you say that good health is an immaterial thing? What about reputation? How about the browser process that is running on your computer right now?

    If we lose them, we no longer exist

    When Phineas Gage lost his ambition, did he cease to exist?

  205. #208 truth machine, OM
    April 11, 2010

    The positive side is: “my body, my self”. No more “my hormones made me do it”, or my neurochemicals, or my animal nature. My hormones is me.

    Yes, even we scientifically educated people persist in using dualistic language that treats our minds as ourselves and our bodies as something else. It makes more factual sense to consider the self to be the physical person and the mind to be a part or aspect of it. When we say “I went to the store”, we mean the whole person, not just, say, our feet. When we say “I like chocolate” or “I love my mother”, we should mean the whole person, not just some homunculus that we imagine to be located inside our skull somewhere — after all, it is the whole body that responds to chocolate and to its mother.

  206. #209 iamjustme
    April 11, 2010

    Hierarchy in society? Ape. Pack rape? Ape. Clans? Ape. War? Ape.

    To be fair on apes, dolphins have been known to do a lot of this too. And non-ape monkeys. And elephants. Well, maybe not the pack rape part for the elephants – the logistics boggle the mind for that – but hierarchy, clans and war – yep.

  207. #210 scooterKPFT
    April 11, 2010

    That’s the cool thing about being part of the comedy ape species, you never run out of shit to not believe in.

    after all, it is the whole body that responds to chocolate and to its mother.

    mmmmmm chocolate milk.

  208. #211 Mr Z
    April 11, 2010

    There is more than one reason to think about humans and souls, but eternal life is the silliest. That humans can believe there is a soul, some essence of life guiding our meat robot mind and body is interesting in and of itself. It is an explanation (no matter how poor) of what it is that is happening in our brains, day in and day out. To achieve artificial intelligence, it would seem necessary to understand what we consider intelligence. Such an understanding would necessarily need to embrace all aspects of life for that which is defined as intelligent and sentient. A robotic humanoid could not be a human for a number of reasons, but lack of a soul is the worst reason ever. If we hypothesize that what is called a soul is actually a clump of neurons which control thinking of internal processes, a regulator for justification of action, then we can begin thinking of it like a hypervisor of sorts. This would be nothing like Christians claim that God creates, but it serves all the same functions, does all the same things, and has at least a minimally measurable process to it.

    If we can refer to such a subsystem/process as a soul, then it can be recreated. Recreating it in hardware and software would go a long way toward getting people to see that much of their self identification is merely an artifact of sentience/intelligence: Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum

    I won’t call it a soul, but I believe there is something which is referred to as a soul and it is much less mystical than many believe. It’s the part that runs in the background, with or without inputs, regardless of stimuli, it is just there whether we are responsive to the world or not, whether our societies are the same or not, wether we speak the same languages or not, this process is ever running until we die. The same can be said of our hearts or lungs et al, and there is no mystical bits involved.

    To me, using the word soul the way Christians do is like calling your heart a psychic pump or any word the imbues mystical properties on an ordinary meat robot part. Humans are amazing enough as is, there is no need for mystical magic to be involved.

  209. #212 truth machine, OM
    April 11, 2010

    A robotic humanoid could not be a human for a number of reasons

    Could not? Other than lacking human physiology, what are those reasons? Even the latter is not a “could not”, since a humanoid could be grown, as in “A for Andromeda”. I suppose it hinges on the definition of “robotic”. But then that “could not” seems rather ad hoc.

  210. #213 MrFire
    April 12, 2010

    I would happily take a trillion years of ‘tedious paradise’ over nonexistence;

    Perhaps you should watch philhellenes’ short commentary, “1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years in Heaven”.

    I love life, and I love living it, and cannot imagine thinking otherwise.

    Argument from incredulity, if that is what I am reading into your words, will not make the soul any more real.

  211. #214 Rorschach
    April 12, 2010

    TM @ 208,

    It makes more factual sense to consider the self to be the physical person and the mind to be a part or aspect of it.

    I always wondered why that is, but I guess that brings one back to the Heraclitus quote mentioned by David @ 114.

    Interesting to see that such old and forever ill-defined concepts like “essence” should still pop up in a discussion on mind and soul in 2010.

    Not that “soul” isnt undefined and wishy-washy either, it seems to mean something different for everyone you ask, from just being another word for “character” to “immaterial part of a person”.

  212. #215 lol8ta_120
    April 12, 2010

    @ 160
    Whoa, what was that? Do you think it’s fair to put words into others’ posts just to give us a link? Could you have handled that differently?
    Causehead.
    Oh I’m new here and don’t know what outrageous comments a.human.ape has left before, but all the same:
    Causehead.
    Misser of the bigger picture.
    And that’s “AN important part of your life”.
    Don’t make me do your work for you; I care about good writing too much.
    Frankly, I didn’t realize sentiments like yours were expressed here (thought it was one of those smart places) and I’m quitting already. Sorry, but I’m scared and bored now and not for the usual Christian reasons.
    Nice to see y’all, keep up the poetry reading.
    Although I can’t resist writing that some of you should head back to the Classics Department’s Pedant’s Corner.

    @166
    I love that Larkin one. Thanks for the reminder.

    Mr. Myers, I think yours is a lovely blog. Beautiful English.
    It’s been real.

  213. #216 davemcrae999
    April 12, 2010

    A lovely Sunday sermon :)

    Truely, best I’ve heard and beats all the made-up stuff out there.

  214. #217 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Maybe so. I hope not, but maybe so.

    What part of “rational inference” don’t you understand? Again, what do you think happens to the Lego house, or to the whirring of the fan? Your “hope” is stupid.

    Consider this: people with ALS eventually lose the ability to communicate, resulting in “lock in”. With no body, you would not only have no ability to communicate, but you would have no ability to perceive. Do you hope for that? It would be stupid to. Oh, wait … without a brain, you would have no ability to think. With no body, no brain, you would have no ability to do anything; in fact, you wouldn’t exist. Duh. Your hope is stupid. Imagine that, in a moment from now, you die from a fatal aneurysm. Right now, you think it would be terrible to end there. But suppose you do end there? Will you care then? Hint: you won’t exist to care. Your whole intellectual framework around this matter is stupid. Try being smart instead.

  215. #218 David L
    April 12, 2010

    Beer volcanoes and strippers? Count me in.

  216. #219 lol8ta_120
    April 12, 2010

    P.S.
    How do I get unregistered from this blog?
    There seems to be some error every time I try to view my profile. Hope that’s true for other people looking too.
    I want off now.
    Thanks for your help.

    Oh here’s a bit of my Bible:
    In my distress I cried unto the Lord, and he heard me.
    Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.
    What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?
    Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper.
    Woe is me, that I sojourn in Me’sech, that I dwell in the tents of Ke’dar.
    My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.
    I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

    —And the villagers never liked you.

  217. #220 phoenixwoman
    April 12, 2010

    KOPD @ 182:

    Johnny saved the best for last, taking a Trent Reznor song and making it his epitaph, and June’s (she preceded him by a few months): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go&feature=related

  218. #221 mark.elkin.home
    April 12, 2010

    Of course a soul exists. God also exists and I am also an atheist. Soul is a word, a concept, and useful to atheists and theists alike. Music can have soul; food can have soul and I don’t mean “soul food” or “soul music”. It embodies something of the creator in a metaphoric way. Everyone knows this. A person’s soul can even last forever in creative works.

    As for the everlasting soul that somehow continues your brain function and your concsienceness after you die. Not even theists REALLY believe in that. They hope for it, but they don’t act like it really exists. Most theists are just as concerned with health and safety as atheists.

  219. #222 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    @ 160
    Whoa, what was that? Do you think it’s fair to put words into others’ posts just to give us a link? Could you have handled that differently?
    Causehead.
    Oh I’m new here and don’t know what outrageous comments a.human.ape has left before

    wtf are you talking about? There was a direct quote, no words were “put … into others’ posts”, and the link shows what outrageous comments a.human.ape has left before.

    Misser of the bigger picture.
    And that’s “AN important part of your life”.

    Uh, hypocritical much?

    Frankly, I didn’t realize sentiments like yours were expressed here (thought it was one of those smart places) and I’m quitting already.

    Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

  220. #223 DexX
    April 12, 2010

    I have to admit that death scares the crap out of me. I think it’s just because absolute, total nothing with no chance of ever existing is so hard to imagine. Not darkness, not silence, because darkness and silence are something.

    My hope is that I’ll have a good forty or so years to come to grips with this fear, though, since I’ve only been a atheist for less than a decade, and only identified as such for a couple of years.

    I suppose part of me is still hoping for an afterlife, despite knowing how ludicrous it is. Maybe when I can let go of that delusion once and for all, I can can start growing beyond this fear.

  221. #224 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    Strangly, there are athiests who believe in souls. They are called Jains. It’s a rather ancient Eastern tradition, like Bhuddism (also athiestic), which has many spiritual/mystical tendancies.
    Ironically, even Hinduism can be undersood (not in it’s current polythiestic mode- which is much younger than the Vedas and Upanishads) as dealing with Brahman (or global consciousness) this isn’t God, because it isn’t a soul which is reincarrnated in either Bhuddism or Hinduism, but the Atman, which is just pure consciousness-and which is identical with Brahman, in being ultimately empty of objects of the mind.

    Interestingly, the Jains reject even the concept of Brahman.
    Just saying.

  222. #225 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    Scyldemort:

    the mind is something the brain does and ends when the brain stops functioning

    Maybe so. I hope not, but maybe so.

    There is no reason to say “maybe”. Your hope has nothing to do with it.

    Since this thread is already so full of great quotes…

    I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment. –Woody Allen

    Great. This is just great. Let’s go find something else for my entire life to be about. — Zaphod Beeblebrox

  223. #226 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Science cannot prove, only disprove.

    This really isn’t true. e.g., science proved that there are atoms and black holes, and science may prove that there’s a Higgs boson. Science proves things by predicting them and then verifying the predictions. What science cannot prove is theories, which are generalizations that cannot be proved by any number of observations.

  224. #227 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Strangly, there are athiests who believe in souls.

    I know a lot of them who live in Ojai.

  225. #228 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    Your whole intellectual framework around this matter is stupid. Try being smart instead.

    Why bother with all of that, knowing you’ll inevitably fail in the end? With minimal effort, one can fail right from the very beginning.

  226. #229 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I have to admit that death scares the crap out of me. I think it’s just because absolute, total nothing with no chance of ever existing is so hard to imagine.

    Henny Youngman: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” “Then don’t do that!”

    Just pretend that you will live forever. Keep doing that until you’re dead, at which point you will be unscareable.

  227. #230 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    mark.elkin.home #221:

    I agree. Actually, people are concerned about thier “spirit” or personality, quirkiness, self-identity and ego surviving. The soul, as far as i know, is just some sort of “replenishing spirit food” lol. There isn’t anything holy about it. It’s just something that’s supposed to exist- purportedly for forever -with no explenation as to why that would be the case.

    Furthermore, it’s impossible to stay the same person forever becasue no one would want to. Therefore the “soul” as they envision it, is a pure fabrication, just like the cannon of thier respective religious texts.

  228. #231 Menyambal
    April 12, 2010

    I find it odd that Christians are so damned concerned with achieving eternal life, while Buddhism is concerned with getting off of the wheel of life.

    =======

    To die, to sleep
    No more ? and by a sleep to say we end
    The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
    That flesh is heir to ? ?tis a consummation
    Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep
    To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub,
    For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
    When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
    Must give us pause.

    But that the dread of something after death,
    The undiscovered country from whose bourn
    No traveler returns, puzzles the will
    And makes us rather bear those ills we have
    Than fly to others that we know not of?

    –William Shakespeare

    ====

    To sleep without dreams sounds good to me.

  229. #232 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    To sleep without dreams sounds good to me.

    It’s sleeping without ever awakening that alarms people. But sleep is no more like death than it is like not yet being conceived.

  230. #233 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    not yet being conceived

    Also, consider all the multiverses in which you never were. Are those scary? If not, how are those stretches of space-time different from the one that follows your death in this universe?

  231. #234 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    What country Truth Machine?

    And I would have to dissagree that we have proved atoms or black holes exist. We have made many models that fit the data, but do the actual technical details of the as-of-yet incomplete quantum mechanical discipline fit the idea of an Atom? Not in essence, becasue atoms are not all identical to one another (isotopes), uniform in thier structure (the whole concept of intermolecular forces denies that electrons are evenly dispersed), and there are many other contributing things to the study of periodicity itslef.

    There is a whole class of materials called Superatoms, where atoms obtain the properties of others in the proper configuartion (another example of how atoms aren’t universal templates which all matter is built upon). I don’t doubt the reality of atoms, but the whole idea of Inductive Reasoning upon which science is based dissalows there to be absolute fact.

    But, to deny that black holes or atoms exist is stupid, sheer ignorance. Or like saying that simply becasue the earth isn’t a perfect sphere our science hasn’t progressed beyond a flat-earth level of ignorance. Utter bullshit.

    /pedant

  232. #235 Menyambal
    April 12, 2010

    “Inconceivable!”

    Isn’t sleeping without dreaming a temporary absence of being, or at least conciousness? When I sleep deeply, I simply am not for a few hours.

  233. #236 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    David M,

    Similarly, either we’re monkeys, or the term “monkey” is misleading and should be dropped. The exact same thing holds for “ape”. Here’s why:

    ,—————————-lemurs
    |
    –+ ,———————–tarsiers
    | |
    `–+ ,——————–New World monkeys
    | |
    `–+ ,—————–Old World monkeys
    | |
    `–+ ,————–gibbons
    | |
    `–+ ,———–orang-utans
    | |
    `–+ ,——–gorillas
    | |
    `–+ ,—–humans
    | |
    `–+ ,–chimpanzee
    | |
    `–+
    |
    `–bonobo

    I couldn’t help but notice that you included every major primate group except the lorisiformes. We are not amused. I may be forced to bite you with toxic saliva for this slight.

  234. #237 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    Truth Machine #233:

    Also, consider all the multiverses in which you never were. Are those scary? If not, how are those stretches of space-time different from the one that follows your death in this universe?

    Too bad Multiverses remain metaphyscial speculation (unless there is some really roundabout way of detecting them). :-/

  235. #238 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    What country Truth Machine?

    Uh, if you don’t know where Ojai is, it’s easy enough to find out.

    And I would have to dissagree that we have proved atoms or black holes exist.

    Well, you’re wrong and your pedantry is foolish. But, if you prefer, science has proven that Tiktaaliks existed. Again, science proves things by making predictions and then verifying the predictions.

  236. #239 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Whoa, what was that? Do you think it’s fair to put words into others’ posts just to give us a link? Could you have handled that differently?
    Causehead.
    Oh I’m new here and don’t know what outrageous comments a.human.ape has left before, but all the same:
    Causehead.

    concern troll.

    a.human.ape is a homophobic and generally misanthropic assface, and he doesn’t get to pretend like he isn’t around here. So people link to the atrocious shit he says. it’s a way to keep the community honest. So WTF is your problem?

    Frankly, I didn’t realize sentiments like yours were expressed here (thought it was one of those smart places) and I’m quitting already. Sorry, but I’m scared and bored now and not for the usual Christian reasons.

    don’t let the door hit ya, concern troll.

  237. #240 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Too bad Multiverses remain metaphyscial speculation

    That’s all that’s needed for my point, silly, especially in a discussion about souls and the afterlife. But they are more than that:

    Many-worlds comprises of two assumptions and some consequences. The assumptions are quite modest:

    1) The metaphysical assumption: That the wavefunction does not merely encode the all the information about an object, but has an observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object. For a non-relativistic N-particle system the wavefunction is a complex-valued field in a 3-N dimensional space.

    2) The physical assumption: The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction. For non-relativistic systems the Schrodinger wave equation is a good approximation to reality. (See “Is many-worlds a relativistic theory?” for how the more general case is handled with quantum field theory or third quantisation.)

    The rest of the theory is just working out consequences of the above assumptions ….

    There is no other quantum theory, besides many-worlds, that is scientific, in the sense of providing a reductionist model of reality, and free of internal inconsistencies, that I am aware of….

  238. #241 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    I’m still trying to read this thread through, but I just wanted to say that I do find the end of my existence to be a very depressing thing. I am at the center of my existence, so it’s a horrible thing to think about no longer existing. All of the talk about making the world a better place while we’re here is good, and I think it’s probably the most admirable goal we can have, but the sheer inconsequential nature of my existence in the grand scheme of things kinda got to me. The relatively small things I can do to make life better get lost in the noise of day to day life. What got me over this was learning about the vastness of the universe, and the vast stretch of time in front of the planet. Nothing anyone does will matter in the really grand scheme of things. Even the actions of the very powerful become unimportant from the perspective of the universe. That was a very nice revelation. I don’t need to leave anything behind, or have a major impact on many lives to feel like my life is worthwhile. I just need to make myself and the people around me happy more often than sad. For me, it’s just that simple.

    Sorry that this is rambling, but I just had to get this out of my head.

  239. #242 tiggerthewing#8a4e4
    April 12, 2010

    I recently came to realise that my fear of dying was, in fact, the fear of actually having an afterlife.

    The thought that, with my death, there would be nothing – not ‘nothing’ as in ‘I’ll be stuck with nothing’ but ‘nothing‘ (no ‘me’ to do any experiencing, just as there was nothing to remember from before this life) – has released me from that fear.

    I too, would like a longer life if it could be lived as a healthy (young-ish?) person.

    I have done a complete 180 turn in my attitude to euthenasia since (a) I wriggled out of my religious straight-jacket and (b) I got a taste of true suffering. I now believe that, in the absence of effective painkillers, it is unhuman cruelty to prolong dying.

    I nearly killed myself last year (I was in hospital, an operation had gone wrong and I was in frequent (though, fortunately, intermittent) increasing agony over a few days waiting for a second op) and the realisation that death would end it was very enticing. How anyone can put forward the idea of hell, an eternity of such horror, shows the depths to which people will sink in order to control others and accrue (and hold on to) earthly power.

    My mother asked me whether I was glad I didn’t die. I do admit that I feel ambivalent towards it. The second operation was a (qualified) success (I still had to return to hospital a few days later for emergency treatment) and the subsequent pain was within manageable proportions once I was given appropriate medication. I try to make the most of the extra time I have (within my health constraints; I can no longer do most of the things that I particularly loved about being alive) and I acknowledge that (I hope!) my friends and family are happier that I am still around.

    But, if I had ended it there and then, there would be no ‘me’ to regret not existing any more.

  240. #243 Scyldemort
    April 12, 2010

    Your whole intellectual framework around this matter is stupid. Try being smart instead.

    Being smart, of course, means agreeing with you and seeing your conclusion as the only possible rational one given the existing evidence? I suppose it doesn’t help that I don’t necessarily disagree with your take on what happens when we die (since I don’t necessarily agree, either)?

    Actually, come to think of it, I have thought of a scenario in which I’d prefer to not exist than to have any kind of afterlife: an afterlife consisting of nothing but hovering around obsessing over my remaining living relatives and having nobody but douchebags like John Edward of ‘Crossing Over’ fame to talk to. Or worse: Sylvia Brown. O_O

    John Edward and Sylvia Brown: not preferable to oblivion.

  241. #244 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Isn’t sleeping without dreaming a temporary absence of being, or at least conciousness? When I sleep deeply, I simply am not for a few hours.

    See my comment at #208.

  242. #245 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    P.S. When you sleep deeply for a few hours, you do dream. One reason to treat the self as the whole body is that neuroscience is showing that the division between “conscious” and “unconscious” is not well defined.

  243. #246 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    Isn’t sleeping without dreaming a temporary absence of being, or at least conciousness? When I sleep deeply, I simply am not for a few hours.

    You as a living person still exist while this happens. It is an absence of consciousness or awareness, but certainly not an “absence of being”. It sounds a bit strange to put it this way, but your consciousness is just one aspect of your being.

    In fact, lots of things we attribute to ourselves as conscious thoughts, emotions and behaviors are actually unconscious brain processes that we rationalize after the fact.

    The “soul” idea is quite worthless in my opinion, and it’s a bit disappointing to see so many atheist commenters finding some justification for it. Even if intended metaphorically, I don’t see how it could be useful in describing life, or conscious experience, or anything else in reality.

  244. #247 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    TM: “look it up”
    fair enough :p

    “Again, science proves things by making predictions and then verifying the predictions.”

    You have only verified a prediction, not made something a necessary truth. Fundamentally, all knowledge claims are not 100% veriviable. there is always, always a non-zero error introduced vis the inherant imperfection of reality

    We would get nowhere in science by one-time “proving” a theory and never re-testing it. In fact, theories are designed to be run under a battery of tests- Einstien’s Special and General Reletivity are still being tested and re-confirmed. If something is found to be incongruent with the data, we alter the theory.

    Are you wiling to accept Bhor’s theory of the Atom as both true and false? (being that the predictions only fit for the spectrum of hydrogen, even though the general principle of energy levels is accurate for all elements on the periodic table). We have just then disproven the truth, by your logic. That is why i don’t say we ever “prove anything. In fact, i beleive PZ has made this point elsewhere on this blog. We increasinly approximate the truth. eventually, it virtuallt IS the truth, just as there is no disproving a round earth, plate tectonics, or a heliocentric solar system at this point.

    I know you’re famous for your attitude, but there is no real reason to be surly. And i know you are a Positivist, but that doesn’t make your interpretation of scientific endevour more “true” as science doesn’t deal in absolutes (only religion does).

  245. #248 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    Oh, I forgot to add this to my post:

    I want to know what happens tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that forever. Knowing that one day I will cease to exist and not only will I not know what happens the next day, there will be no me. GAH! See, that’s what was attractive to me about a nice, happy afterlife especially when I decided (during my deconversion from being a Baptist) that everyone would eventually get there. I wouldn’t find that kind of place boring because you’d always have tomorrow, but you also wouldn’t have to worry about bills and food and how you’re going to make everything work. It would be great, but I’m rational enough to realize that such a place simply doesn’t exist and what makes me me is a function of my brain. Once the brain shuts down, I’m gone. Just as long as it doesn’t happen before the last book in The Wheel of Time gets published ;)

  246. #249 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Being smart, of course, means agreeing with you and seeing your conclusion as the only possible rational one given the existing evidence?

    No, fool, being smart is not simply ignoring all evidence and logic, as you are doing. If you have some reason to disagree with me you haven’t provided it. Rather, all you seem to have is “hope” — a faith in something for which there is no evidence, and much reason to believe is false.

    I have thought of a scenario in which I’d prefer to not exist than to have any kind of afterlife

    Bully for you. There are an infinity of such scenarios and I already gave you one: an eternity of being unable to perceive or communicate.

    If you’re going to “hope” for something that there is no reason to expect and many reasons not to, you might as well hope that, say, in the afterlife you have a billion ectoplasmic sexual organs and are able to pleasure yourself and all the other zombies in myriad mindblowing (despite not having a brain) ways. I’m sure that even with your minuscule imagination you can find other absurdities to hope for.

  247. #250 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    You have only verified a prediction, not made something a necessary truth. Fundamentally, all knowledge claims are not 100% veriviable. there is always, always a non-zero error introduced vis the inherant imperfection of reality

    As I said, this sort of pedantry is foolish, and simply isn’t what people mean when they say they know something. If it were, we couldn’t even know our own names. And consider the philosopher’s definition: true justified belief — something does not have to be 100% verifiable to be known.

  248. #251 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    Sorry for the blockquote fail on my part….

    Scyldemort:

    Other than stating your disagreement (and for whatever reason, making fun of psychics), do you have anything that actually supports your crazy-ass belief in an afterlife? Anything whatsoever?

    No? Alright. It’s settled then.

  249. #252 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    oh, maybe I should finally contribute to the actual topic of this thread.

    see, in my saner moments, I find death actually rather scary. but the nice thing about atheism is that mostly, I have the luxury of not having to think about it, because death won’t have any consequences to me and therefore I don’t really have to spend my life preparing for it. whereas if I believed in an afterlife, I’d have to worry about that one in addition to this life.

  250. #253 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    TM @ 240:

    damn you, quantum mechanical jargon! >_<

    Any chance of returning this to english? Are they saying they maye be able to account for the interaction of other quantum states upon the system that come from other parallel universes?

    On a not totally not unrelated note, i read an article in Discover about the chance or reverse quantum causality, in that when experiments were designed to only weakly perturb the wavefunctions of the systems they studied, they found that thier future measurments affected thier past measurments. Only by enough, however, to be dismissed as rather large error. hopefully someone else has read it and can help out on this (i will have to look it up if i am going to talk in depth about it)

  251. #254 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    monad

    In the same way, “monkey” means “primate with a tail”. So long as you don’t assume that means they form a single evolutionary group, what’s misleading about that?

    Ring-tailed lemurs (among others) would disagree. Monkey means anthropoid primate that has not lost the tail. The strepsirrhines and tarsiers are primates with tails (most of ‘em anyway), but are not monkeys. Just sayin’.

  252. #255 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I am at the center of my existence, so it’s a horrible thing to think about no longer existing

    As I suggested in #229, then stop thinking about it. If you do so for long enough, if you just forget to think about it, then eventually you’ll be dead and you won’t miss existing because you won’t exist.

    I want to know what happens tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that forever.

    But you can’t possibly — your brain isn’t big enough. And heck, you don’t even know what happened today — your knowledge is minuscule. You’re fooling yourself if you think you want to know all that, in such detail. Here’s the short version: entropy claims everything.

  253. #256 echidna
    April 12, 2010

    Yahoo@48,
    You say you don’t know a lot about evolution. You may not realise it quite yet, but what you learn in school is only a tiny part of what you need to know. Even if you get to learn the facts, you still need to make the connections and develop a deeper understanding, and that is more than you will be able to do in a classroom with people of varying readiness to learn.

    As others have said, there is lots of reading material on science blogs, books and so on.

    You might like this:
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

    Spend some time looking at wildlife too, observing the beaks, claws, teeth, muscles, proportions and other features of the animals, and find out how and what they eat, and are eaten by.

  254. #257 SteveM
    April 12, 2010

    I’m not sure I’ve ever experienced a truly dreamless sleep. Even if one does not remember dreaming, I’ve always had a feeling of time having elapsed upon awakening. I attribute this to unremembered dreams. I compare this to experiences of general anesthesia which truly are dreamless. Awakening from that feels like no time at all has elapsed.

  255. #258 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    lol8ta_120 @ 215:

    @ 160
    Whoa, what was that? Do you think it’s fair to put words into others’ posts just to give us a link? Could you have handled that differently?
    Causehead.
    Oh I’m new here and don’t know what outrageous comments a.human.ape has left before, but all the same:
    Causehead.

    I see you’re an idiot. I didn’t put any words in anyone’s mouth. There was a direct link to a.human.ape’s recent vile comments here – you could have read them yourself if you weren’t such an idiot.

    a.human.ape has been called out here more than once for his/her vile, disgusting, sociopathic viewpoints. As we don’t need more idiots here, I’ll say don’t let the door hit ya on the way out. Bye now.

  256. #259 Scyldemort
    April 12, 2010

    No, fool, being smart is not simply ignoring all evidence and logic, as you are doing. If you have some reason to disagree with me you haven’t provided it.

    Actually, I already said that I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I acknowledge that it is likely that existence ends when the body dies. Would you be less grumpy if I substituted the word ‘hope’ for ‘wish?’ Or does even the thought that a human animal’s desire to continue living might lead it to say that it wishes for what may very well be impossible fill you with uncontrollably internet rage?

  257. #260 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Ugh, blockquote fail @ 258. My bad. Sorry.

  258. #261 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    truthmachine,

    If that makes me feel good, then should I feel bad that all those people, and that entire culture, all the works of human beings and all other civilizations, will inevitably perish? “perpetuate our culture” is, literally, impossible.

    I don’t think it makes any sense to be concerned about the future, other than in how our actions now will affect it, because we live now and are responsible for our actions. While I’m alive, I will do things like check the organ donor box, carry life insurance, provide a will, etc., because I care about the consequences of my actions. But I don’t generally care about what happens after I’m gone, which is a good thing because otherwise I would find the heat death of the universe really really depressing.

    Oh yes, that’s what I think too, especially the perpetuating our culture and heat death of the universe parts.

  259. #262 Scyldemort
    April 12, 2010

    *uncontrollable, rather

  260. #263 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    @tiggerthewing#8a4e4 #242

    Yes. Yes yes yes.

    @The Laughing Man #247

    Are you wiling to accept Bhor’s theory of the Atom as both true and false? …. We increasinly approximate the truth.

    As I said previously, science cannot prove theories, which are generalizations that cannot be proved by any number of observations. But science has proved the existence of atoms and black holes, even if we don’t have, or can’t know that we have, a completely accurate theory of their properties. And you ignore my example of Tikaliik — we’ve got the frigging bones; they are proven to have existed just as dinosaurs have been proven to have existed. To deny this is simply perverse.

  261. #264 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Would you be less grumpy

    What makes me grumpy is idiots like you who refuse to engage arguments that have been made. You wrote

    Being smart, of course, means agreeing with you and seeing your conclusion as the only possible rational one given the existing evidence?

    but that’s a stupid characterization, as I’ve explained. If you think that some other conclusion is rational and consistent with the evidence, then justify that. But you haven’t.

    Would you be less grumpy if I substituted the word ‘hope’ for ‘wish?’

    They aren’t at all the same. Wishing that you could wake up tomorrow and there would be no war or disease is reasonable, but hoping that happens is stupid.

  262. #265 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    truth machine,

    But you can’t possibly — your brain isn’t big enough. And heck, you don’t even know what happened today — your knowledge is minuscule. You’re fooling yourself if you think you want to know all that, in such detail. Here’s the short version: entropy claims everything.

    Well, yeah, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting to know. That was what I used to think heaven was like. A person would be able to learn anything and everything about any and all universes that might exist. It would be awesome! Oh well.

    BTW This reminds me of the episode of Married With Children where Kelly is on some game show and her brain can only hold so many facts. Each new bit of knowledge they cram in replaces one that was already there.

  263. #266 Thrutch Grenadine
    April 12, 2010

    There’s an old Yorkshire folksong to the same effect – On Ilkley Moor Bar t’at

    Wheear ‘ast ta bin sin’ ah saw thee, ah saw thee?

    On Ilkla Mooar baht ‘at

    Wheear ‘ast ta bin sin’ ah saw thee, ah saw thee?
    Wheear ‘ast ta bin sin’ ah saw thee?
    On Ilkla Mooar baht ‘at
    On Ilkla Mooar baht ‘at
    On Ilkla Mooar baht ‘at
    Tha’s been a cooartin’ Mary Jane
    Tha’s bahn’ to catch thy deeath o` cowd
    Then us’ll ha’ to bury thee
    Then t’worms’ll come an` eyt thee up
    Then t’ducks’ll come an` eyt up t’worms
    Then us’ll go an` eyt up t’ducks
    Then us’ll all ha’ etten thee
    That’s wheear we get us ooan back

    Roughly translated the subject of the song has been up on Ilkley Moor wooing Mary Jane but he has not been wearing a hat. The prognostication is that the subject will die of the cold, be eaten by worms, which in turn will be et eaten by ducks, who in turn will be eaten by the singer. The singer will then have got his own back on the person courting Mary Jane =D.

  264. #267 evergreenotter
    April 12, 2010

    The next time you see atheists being treated and/or derided as religious fundamentalists, look no further than this article for the basis of that view. I am all for genuine scepticism (i.e. open-minded inquiry) and scathing iconoclasm ( la the holy cracker or those Danish Mohammed cartoons), but when atheists cross the line from agnosticism to dogmatic disbelief, you lose me and huge portion of other non-religious people.

    The fact is there is no evidence to support the claim that the soul does not exist. If there were, you would be quick to cite it. A huge portion of the strident critics of the concept of the soul are simply arguing from an at times fervent a priori belief in materialism. That is not intellectually supportable and it is the exact mindset that creates a reflexive, even angry rejection of any claim of immaterial phenomena without real consideration of the evidence.

    I must say too I see a very narrow concept of the soul being pilloried here, one tied to the Abrahamic faiths. Again really critically minded people consider their own biases and preconceptions in the course of contemplating an issue.

  265. #268 Epikt
    April 12, 2010

    Sven DiMilo:

    honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution.

    I wonder where Ruth is.

    How do you make your voice do that?

  266. #269 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I compare this to experiences of general anesthesia which truly are dreamless. Awakening from that feels like no time at all has elapsed.

    That’s not my experience from the three occasions I’ve undergone it, and I doubt that it really is yours, as you know that time did elapse, and the brain constantly spins mini-theories to fit against its perceptions. On top of the prior knowledge, there is the shift in location and circumstance upon awakening, and numerous differing somatic states. Even people who awake from comas are aware that time has elapsed, but they are shocked at how much has elapsed.

  267. #270 tiggerthewing#8a4e4
    April 12, 2010

    @ truth machine #242

    Thank you. I wasted far too much of my time in the past worrying about things that I could not control and concerned about things which I now appreciate were totally irrelevent.

    [sarcasm]
    Thank you, RCC, for messing with my head for all those decades!
    [/sarcasm]

    Genuine, heartfelt thanks to all the men and women of science who actually have dedicated their/your lives over the years to improving the lot of the average human, unlike the priesthood who, well, haven’t, whatever they may say. Rather the opposite, in fact.

    Thanks to them/you, I have doctors to save my life, medication to keep me functioning and wonderful gadgets to keep me amused and mobile.

    Thanks to them/you, I have the internet so that, despite being on the wrong side of the planet and unable to travel, I saw and heard my eldest son and his bride exchanging their vows last week within hours of it happening. A beautiful, secular wedding that gives me hope that Ireland is not going to be dragged back down into the middle ages.

    If I look back at what the church gave me, it amounts to mental anguish and a pile of unwarranted guilt.

    P.S. ‘Tigger_The_Wing’, ‘tiggerthewing’ or (especially) ‘Tig’ will do – I don’t know why Yahoo insists on strings of numbers in usernames, they were not put in by me. Blech.

  268. #271 efrique
    April 12, 2010

    believers who think we should be miserable because we don’t have an afterlife to look forward to< \blockquote>

    It must be awful to go to a really nice restaurant with these people – they’d be constantly spoiling the meal by loudly complaining at each course that you couldn’t possibly enjoy the food, because once you’re done eating, it’s gone forever, and so instead of enjoying a magnificient but finite meal you should instead be miserable that you won’t be chained to that table for eternity, eating a meal over and over for unending eons of time.

    They also must *hate* planting annual flowers. I mean, sure, it might be pretty, but you can’t *enjoy* it, because the garden only lasts a season. If you plant one you *have* to be miserable instead that it won’t be some eternally unchanging row of marigolds.

    Stop enjoying life! You’re doing it wrong! Be miserable!

  269. #272 Scyldemort
    April 12, 2010

    but that’s a stupid characterization, as I’ve explained. If you think that some other conclusion is rational and consistent with the evidence, then justify that. But you haven’t.

    I was in that statement mostly just being unfair and making an overly broad generalization. Those are fun.

    They aren’t at all the same. Wishing that you could wake up tomorrow and there would be no war or disease is reasonable, but hoping that happens is stupid.

    I think we’re functioning with different meanings (or at least connotations) for the word ‘hope.’ Oh well. Despite this being the internet, the specific shades of meaning possible to the word ‘hope’ are probably not worth arguing about.

  270. #273 efrique
    April 12, 2010

    Dammit, didn’t close the blockquote correctly.

  271. #274 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    The fact is there is no evidence to support the claim that the soul does not exist. If there were, you would be quick to cite it. A huge portion of the strident critics of the concept of the soul are simply arguing from an at times fervent a priori belief in materialism.

    evidence does not work that way.

    there’s no evidence for the soul, and wherever we do know the direct source of feelings, thoughts, beliefs, experiences etc. they are always simply brain functions.

    Therefore, the skeptical, scientific, and parsimonious conslusion is that there is no soul.

    it’s a conclusion, not an assumption, live with it. not our fault reality offends you.

  272. #275 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    The next time you see atheists being treated and/or derided as religious fundamentalists, look no further than this article for the basis of that view.

    Your concern is noted, troll.

    dogmatic disbelief

    It’s not dogmatic, it’s reasoned.

    The fact is there is no evidence to support the claim that the soul does not exist.

    Misplaced burden of proof. And there is plenty of evidence to support that — read the neuroscientific literature. Nothing we see requires souls to explain it, so they are as likely to exist as ectoplasmic angels dancing on pinheads.

    A huge portion of the strident critics of the concept of the soul are simply arguing from an at times fervent a priori belief in materialism. That is not intellectually supportable

    Yes, actually, it is — it rests on Ockham’s Razor.

    Again really critically minded people consider their own biases and preconceptions in the course of contemplating an issue.

    If only you would.

  273. #276 Feynmaniac
    April 12, 2010

    Well, yeah, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting to know. That was what I used to think heaven was like. A person would be able to learn anything and everything about any and all universes that might exist. It would be awesome! Oh well.

    It’s hard to get rid of all that religious nonsense they infected you with when you were young. Sometimes you think it’s all gone…

    Rationally it’s easy to see that hoping for immortality is pretty much in the same category as hoping to be bitten by a radioactive spider and developing superpowers. Psychologically however, the former is treated as more reasonable than the latter. The best you can do is to recognize these absurdities and try to get past them.

  274. #277 listener
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage (#62), I am making no argument for the existence of the soul, just the impossibility of denying what is claimed to be beyond the senses or instruments. The argument was one of logic, not a renunciation of empirical data.
    And, Insightful ape (#66), I was not arguing that a soul exists, or that one has anything to do with behavior, just that science does not claim it can disprove information that cannot be calibrated in some fashion.
    Some may assume this is a polite way to reject a fantastic solution. But even though there is no evidence that such supernatural is required to explain most well-studied phenomena, the scientific method does not allow us to deny something it cannot measure.
    Yet again, this is no argument for the existence of a soul, just one about how science accepts or rejects information, in this case the concept of a soul. I hope that helps…

  275. #278 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter:

    That is not intellectually supportable and it is the exact mindset that creates a reflexive, even angry rejection of any claim of immaterial phenomena without real consideration of the evidence.

    What evidence is there which suggests that (something even remotely resembling) a soul exists?

    As I understand it, this particular God-of-the-Gaps has been almost entirely closed. But I wouldn’t want to be closed-minded and dogmatic.

    Whatever it may be, it needs to be consistent with our understanding of neurology. Agreed? Then what could a soul possibly be or do? If there is nothing to observe and nothing left for it to do, then the concept is meaningless. It doesn’t require dogmatism to hold that meaningless concepts are false.

    Please describe your super-sophisticated and intellectually-defensible idea of a “soul”, so we may proceed from there.

  276. #279 Feynmaniac
    April 12, 2010

    I must say too I see a very narrow concept of the soul being pilloried here, one tied to the Abrahamic faiths.

    If you have any other concepts of the soul we’ll be happy to shoot those down as well.

  277. #280 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter,

    Since Jadehawk, truth machine, and Mr T have already explained that the burden of proof is on those positing a soul and that neuroscience has shown that the things we attribute to the “soul” are actually functions of the brain, I don’t have much to add except that dogmatic agnosticsm is stupid and intellectually indefensible. We do know lots of things, and everything we do know points to there being no god/s and no soul. Deal with it.

  278. #281 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I think we’re functioning with different meanings (or at least connotations) for the word ‘hope.’

    If so then yours is wrong. But in fact we aren’t — it’s clear enough from #199 what you mean, and as I said it’s stupid to hope that, just as it’s stupid to hope, rather than wish, that you will see your deceased loved ones again.

  279. #282 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    Feynmaniac,

    Rationally it’s easy to see that hoping for immortality is pretty much in the same category as hoping to be bitten by a radioactive spider and developing superpowers.

    I used to hope for just such an event. Being a superhero would be almost as cool as gaining unlimited knowledge. Come to think of it, the latter would be a sort of super-power like Magician Humphrey in the Xanth series.

    Yes, I read a lot of soft sci-fi and fantasy. When I was younger I really did wish such things were real and/or possible. The mundane world was just so freaking plain. Now, it’s a bit better. I have new fantasies about universal health-care and real banking regulation to keep me going. :)

  280. #283 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I don’t have much to add except that dogmatic agnosticsm is stupid and intellectually indefensible

    Indeed. It applies a very different epistemological standard to certain things, like god and souls, than it does to others like ghosts, angels, Asgard, Cerberus, WMDs in Iraq, someone other than John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln, etc.

  281. #284 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    As I said previously, science cannot prove theories, which are generalizations that cannot be proved by any number of observations

    Such as Atomic Theory. However, it can be said that phenomenon exist for which there is no formal theory elucidating the mechanism or the explanation for thier existence. So we can agree that Science can prove phenomenon exist. But, are atoms and species phenomenon? I’m curious as to whether if i were to have a gold bar, i could prove it’s existence. Well, in the sense that the wieght density and qualities of gold are phenomenon, i would have to finally agree on this. In fact, that is how science goes about proving things exist. by their phenomenon.

    Tiktaalik, being a specific hypothesis, and a very direct observation, doesn’t apply in the same way.

    There is a difference in observing an electron shell and veryfying that the atom has the properties we think it does (there is continual research into this, as we both know). But i think we have been talking past each other, in that atoms don’t unequivicably prove atomic theory, but they are observed. However, we are obsorving something and putting it in this catagory of theoretical objects. Consider the Megallenic cloud being reclasified from stars to galaxies. I think there is a similar problem of scale in terms of steller mass and supermassive black holes.

    Species aren’t theoretical physics concepts. As much more simplistic things (existing as a whole, and having a much more limited range of possible attributes than steller or quantum objects), they can be said to be directly observed as factual with little to no real dispute about this -the bones are the bones. this is not to say that Life is like this, as we all know it is diversified to fill every niche and exploit every bizzare and unusual ecosystem.

    you ignored also my point that we have observed superatoms. But we have been discussing the object and it’s qualities, respectively, and which is why we have reached this impass. I made a bit of a hasty statement, despite having qualified in the very beginning that:

    But, to deny that black holes or atoms exist is stupid, sheer ignorance. Or like saying that simply becasue the earth isn’t a perfect sphere our science hasn’t progressed beyond a flat-earth level of ignorance. Utter bullshit.

    I think your reverse pedantry is as foolish as my own, in that what i am saying is not incongruous with reality or logic but you take time out to attack it as if it were. I never said we should make mountains of these molecule-sized issues, but you delight in that it would seem.

  282. #285 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    just the impossibility of denying what is claimed to be beyond the senses or instruments.

    It’s not impossible — I deny the existence of six undetectable things before breakfast.

    The argument was one of logic, not a renunciation of empirical data.

    People use that word without seeming to have the faintest idea what logic is.

  283. #286 https://openid.org/a1kmm
    April 12, 2010

    People can be separated into the physical matter they are made out of, and the information controlling its organisation. It is the information contained in a person which is the most important. For example, their genetic information, but also their memories and ideas embodied in the way their neurons are connected.

    Given that the information stored in a person is synonymous with one’s identity, it is quite reassuring to know that some of this information can continue to evolve indefinitely. Our unique genes and memes / ideas can continue to exist if they are passed on prior to death.

  284. #287 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Tiktaalik, being a specific hypothesis, and a very direct observation, doesn’t apply in the same way.

    Tiktaalik is enough to make my point, sily. And atoms have been observed via instruments. They are as real as the galaxies seen in Hubble’s Deep Field images.

    you ignored also my point that we have observed superatoms

    Because I don’t give a flying fuck about your diversions. My response to David Marjanovi? stands — science does prove things.

  285. #288 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    Indeed. It applies a very different epistemological standard to certain things, like god and souls, than it does to others like ghosts, angels, Asgard, Cerberus, WMDs in Iraq, someone other than John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln, etc.

    I have a theory:

    John Wilkes Booth is in Asgard. I spoke with him not long ago. He monitors the WMD stockpiles there and keeps Cerberus as a pet/bomb-sniffing dog. I thought it was awfully strange that Cerberus would be there, rather than in Hades, but Booth has assured me that this is correct. I have since done the calculations proving that this is True. By the way, Booth sends his warmest regards.

    However, angels and ghosts are totally made-up. I see what you did there, and I do not appreciate it. That’s really just a cheap shot, trying to use those to discredit my super-sciencey Theory.

    Prove me wrong, you filthy dogmatic materialists, or give me my Nobel Prize in Metaphysics!

  286. #289 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    #286:

    I thought Quantum mechanics was the study of infromation. After all, the whole concept of “messenger” particles is that they carry information, particlarly those relating to force. I don’t make the distinction between material and immaterial information. It is all information to me.

    Also, the idea of storying or re-creating a person as a mere program on a computer should be both funny and unusual, but not strike one as unlikely given the current progress of computer science. A probable solution to overpopulation? no…no, no one will go for it :-/ despite the glory of indefinite lifespan and all that jazz.

  287. #290 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    the scientific method does not allow us to deny something it cannot measure.

    erm… actually, the scientific method requires you to discard any and all superfluous explanations. and something you cannot measure is indeed entirely superfluous, since being un-measurable means it doesn’t have any noticeable effect on the world.

  288. #291 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Rationally it’s easy to see that hoping for immortality is pretty much in the same category as hoping to be bitten by a radioactive spider and developing superpowers.

    I think not; the latter does not require the properties of a thing to be independent of it and to outlast it.

  289. #292 ciphergoth
    April 12, 2010

    startlingmoniker, GodlessNotClueless: If that’s how you feel, have you looked into cryonics? The scientific case against it is much, much weaker than most people would guess, see my blog: http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/07/survey-anti-cryonics-writing/

    Religion promises things like flight or healing the sick, but science actually delivers those things. Cheating death also sounds like a religious idea, but there’s no reason to assume in advance that science can’t deliver that too.

    You should make a decision on whether or not you’re going to sign up for cryonics. I use that turn of phrase because what people often get no further than vaguely thinking it might be a good idea right until they die and are cremated. Actually look into it until either you are signed up or you have actually made a decision not to sign up.

  290. #293 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Also, the idea of storying or re-creating a person as a mere program on a computer should be both funny and unusual, but not strike one as unlikely given the current progress of computer science.

    What if we “re-create” you while you are still alive?

    Another reason to consider the self to be the whole person, a specific object, not some property of the person such as its mind.

  291. #294 Walton
    April 12, 2010

    I realise I’m a little late to the party, but I can confirm what Caine and Jadehawk said above. a.human.ape is a misanthropic asshole, with a history of advocating violence and torture against religious people. He has also made openly homophobic comments towards one of the regulars.

  292. #295 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    the scientific method does not allow us to deny something it cannot measure

    Oh yeah? How’s it gonna stop us?

    What allows me to deny such things is a sensible ontology that is causally closed.

  293. #296 efrique
    April 12, 2010

    truth machine #269

    Actually, having been under general anaesthetic a number of times, my experience is on first waking generally more consistent with no perception of time passing, until I get my bearings and think on it a while. I suspect my brain adjusts its conclusions after the fact.

    Indeed, on one occasion, the perception of no time passing was so strong I badgered a nurse about why they had just wheeled me out to recovery without doing the procedure. Once she’d assured me they’d actually done it and I started to become aware of some mild discomfort, I was clearer about something having gone on, but when I first awoke, I would have sworn I had only been out for a few seconds.

  294. #297 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    “And atoms have been observed via instruments. They are as real as the galaxies seen in Hubble’s Deep Field images”- granted many of those galaxeis don’t exist anymore, we’re seeing the very distant past

    An Atom is a quantum mechanical entity. A glaxy is not. The whole “superposition” and all that kinda ruins the boundries of what an “atom” is, most of the time. But on larger scales, things decohere into the classical mechanical (or General reletavistic) entites. So you observed that there is both no atom and an atom. Therefore there is an atom. You are forgetting there is an inherrent wave/particle duality. Tiktaalik i doubt has the ability to be in many places and times at once, with the probability of finding him on the ground at point A at 40% and points B and C at 10% That wouldn’t be much of a tiktaalik. In Quantum mechanics there is either a “no-clouds” or “lots-of-clouds” way of viewing matter, individual particles only being something convenient to focus on. Oh dear, the lateness is getting to me

    Also Bose-einstien condensates seem to make mockery of the idea that we have observed “atoms” when in fact the entire matierial behaves as it if were one atom. All these things have been observed as well, but you are ignoring the fact that the theory and the actual thing are both very unlike our normal conceptions. Tiktaalik we can leave alone. He is a prediction. We would be stupid to disbelieve he isn’t a historical fact, but there is no way short of sending a time-travel envoy out to capture one of actually proving the beast (assuming we would be staying within the same space-time). I don’t care. Let us say he was proven and drop it. David Marjanovi? i’m sure will continue this tomorrow. I will await the verdict, as he is much more intelligent than I and much more knowledgeable. And he has a Molly! :D

    “What if we ‘re-create’ you while you are still alive?”

    I want a hard copy as well.

  295. #298 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    “Another reason to consider the self to be the whole person, a specific object, not some property of the person such as its mind.”

    Think Blue Brain project…

  296. #299 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I missed this:

    the whole idea of Inductive Reasoning upon which science is based

    Science is based on inference to the best explanation.

  297. #300 DLC
    April 12, 2010

    If a soul exists, what is it comprised of, how is it propagated, how is it modulated, controlled or otherwise manipulated ?
    how much does one weigh ? Come on, don’t hand-wave or blather, give me some evidence!

  298. #301 evergreenotter
    April 12, 2010

    Mr. T, I will respond to you since you delivered the least angry/belittling response to my post.

    As I understand it, this particular God-of-the-Gaps has been almost entirely closed. But I wouldn’t want to be closed-minded and dogmatic

    An sincere scientist or thinker never takes a case-closed attitude towards complex phenomenon and sentient consciousness may be the most complex subject of all. Neuroscientists themselves debate whether a materialist explanation of consciousness is ever going to be sufficient. Some of your fellow disbelievers try, however, to dishonestly suggest that neuroscience research is uniform in its explanations of human consciousness as a justification for their anti-soul belief.

    Whatever it may be, it needs to be consistent with our understanding of neurology. Agreed?

    No, if the soul is real it would be immaterial and thus not necessarily require any physical manifestation. The fact such a simple distinction escapes you demonstrates my point about objections being based on unquestioned materialist beliefs/biases.

    Then what could a soul possibly be or do?

    This is why I pointed out the narrow Abrahamic mindset on what the soul is. Go read about early Buddhism or Hinduism for an alternative perspective on what the soul could potentially be.

    If there is nothing to observe and nothing left for it to do, then the concept is meaningless.

    “Nothing to observe ” rests again on an a priori assertion of pure materialism. “Nothing left for it to do” is claiming knowledge that neither you or I possess. This is is exactly why I label positions like yours intellectually insupportable.

    It doesn’t require dogmatism to hold that meaningless concepts are false.

    No, but “meaningless” is entirely subjective in this case because the existence of the soul cannot be disproven by logic or math where one could in fact objectively say a statement was “meaningless”. The existence of the soul likely cannot be proven true or false. But dogmatism about the later position is not intellectual superior to the former.

    Please describe your super-sophisticated and intellectually-defensible idea of a ‘soul’, so we may proceed from there.

    You almost sound like “truth machine” lashing out at me as a “troll” because I questioned the most popular view on this thread. I never said I believed in a soul. I am merely pointing out that dogmatic disbelief in an immaterial phenomenon (key qualifier) is as intellectually indefensible as blind belief. That observation obviously really upsets some atheists who do not like being reminded how much they resemble religious people at times.

  299. #302 The Laughing Man
    April 12, 2010

    “the scientific method does not allow us to deny something it cannot measure”–???

    It doesn’t allow it either. And why would we say that Russel’s Teapot actually Is orbiting Jupiter? we can’t deny it, but it would be the epitome or arrogance to embrace it as Absolute Truth…or even something other than a delusion that is best left ignored.
    Oh wait, i got my fictitious entities crossed. I meant Yehweh, I swear!

  300. #303 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    he is much more intelligent than I and much more knowledgeable. And he has a Molly! :D

    That makes two of us.

    I want a hard copy as well.

    Uh, the point is that a copy is a copy, not the original. It’s a bit like the unix “fork” system call — the child process is a copy of the parent, but it’s a different process. If we make a virtual copy of you in some digital virtual universe, the two immediately diverge; the copy isn’t you.

    Think Blue Brain project…

    Non sequitur. And the brain isn’t the whole person either.

  301. #304 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    their anti-soul belief.

    there’s no such thing as anti-soul belief. there’s disbelief in its existence, and rejection of it as an unneeded and unsupported hypothesis. but nice strawman, anyway.

    No, if the soul is real it would be immaterial and thus not necessarily require any physical manifestation.

    if it doesn’t interact with physical matter (because if it did, it would be measurable, i.e. it would manifest physically), it’s a useless and superfluous hypothesis. Plus, if it doesn’t interact with physical matter, it can’t be the solution-of-the-gaps your non-materialist neuroscientists would like it to be, because the brain is physical, and therefore a soul as you’ve just defined it wouldn’t interact with it.

    do try to be at least consistent with yourself.

  302. #305 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Neuroscientists themselves debate whether a materialist explanation of consciousness is ever going to be sufficient.

    Uh, no. You seem to have confused neuroscientists with philosophers of mind.

    You almost sound like “truth machine” lashing out at me as a “troll” because I questioned the most popular view on this thread.

    You didn’t “question” it, troll.

    I am merely pointing out that dogmatic disbelief in an immaterial phenomenon (key qualifier) is as intellectually indefensible as blind belief.

    See, not questioning, asserting. What you are doing is repeating a strawman — it isn’t dogmatic — and employing some intellectually indefensible drivel in your attempt to counter the arguments made.

    That observation obviously really upsets some atheists who do not like being reminded how much they resemble religious people at times.

    Not questioning, asserting, you trolling ass.

  303. #306 christophe-thill.myopenid.com
    April 12, 2010

    There’s a very specific reason why many people believe in an afterlife. It’s because they think that, after their death, they won’t be much different. Their “soul” will still be almost the same thing as their mind is today, retaining memories, affections, personality, etc. Which of course, even in the hypothesis of an afterlife, is absurd.

    It would mean that you are reunited with your spouse in the happy hereafter. But what if, like people I know, you were married several times, were very much in love each time, and widowed each time ?

    It would mean that, if you die with Alzheimer’s, then you spend the eternity wandering the celestial fields and being unable to remember how to find the way back to your favorite cloud. Or does it mean that you regain your best and fittest personality, from the time before you got ill? But where do you get it back from?

    I seem to remember that Jesus himself answered the first question. His answer was basically that “in heaven there’s no husband or wife”. The idea was that the thing that survives has no personality and is not really “you” in any human sense. Seems to me that if most believers were aware of this, they would feel disgust and dispair, and they would think that it’s not very different from no afterlife at all.

    And after this realization, Occam’s razor might spring into action…

  304. #307 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    “Neuroscientists themselves debate whether a materialist explanation of consciousness is ever going to be sufficient.”

    Uh, no. You seem to have confused neuroscientists with philosophers of mind.

    Or maybe not, but it’s like saying that biologists themselves debate whether evolution is sufficient to explain biodiversity:

    http://centerfornaturalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/science-wars-dualism-vs-materialism.html

    The intelligent design controversy is perhaps the biggest front on the science wars, followed by disputes over the paranormal, but a new front is opening up around the issue of materialism or physicalism. Is science biased in favor of the materialist-physicalist assumption, the idea that nature fundamentally contains only material things? A small but vocal group of self-styled anti-materialist and dualist neuroscientists held a mind-body symposium at the UN last year, arguing that science has indeed been hijacked by dogmatic materialists, who wrongly discount evidence for categorically non-physical phenomena. New Scientist ran a good article about it, quoting some well-respected mainstream scientists and philosophers who, unsurprisingly, see the anti-materialists as the dogmatists, intent on warping science to serve their agenda.

    These opposed positions are mirrored in two responses to the 2009 Edge question, What will change everything?. One is by biologist Rupert Sheldrake, who says materialism?s days are numbered: certain questions, for instance about the nature of consciousness, will never be answered unless science is liberated from its assumption that the physical world is all there is. He says ?Confidence in materialism is draining away. Its leaders, like central bankers, keep printing promissory notes, but it has lost its credibility as the central dogma of science.? The other is by biologist P. Z. Myers, who says that materialism rules, and that eventually people will adjust to the idea they don?t have souls, widely believed to be the precious immaterial essence of our being: ?Mind is clearly a product of the brain, and the old notions of souls and spirits are looking increasingly ludicrous?yet these are nearly universal ideas, all tangled up in people’s rationalizations for an afterlife, for ultimate reward and punishment, and their concept of self.? Science writers John Horgan and George Johnson discuss Sheldrake, Myers and the materialism/anti-materialism conflict at Bloggingheads, and there?s been a protracted debate between materialist Steven Novella and dualist Michael Egnor, both neuroscientists, at their respective blogs here and here.

    Rupert Sheldrake, the promoter of “morphogenetic fields”? And Michael Egnor the creationist brain surgeon? Uh, yeah.

  305. #308 evergreenotter
    April 12, 2010

    @”truth machine” a sample of your responses:
    “I don’t give a flying fuck about your diversions”
    “Oh yeah? How’s it gonna stop us?”
    “Your ‘hope’ is stupid.”
    “What makes me grumpy is idiots like you…”
    “Not questioning, asserting, you trolling ass.”

    First of all the internal hypocrisy in the last comment, one directed at me, is simply marvellous to behold. Mazel tov.

    I clicked on your userlink only to find the almost clich picture of Einstein with his tongue out. The sad irony lost on you is that with your tone of constant angry condescension and personal insults, you appear to be the exact opposite of Einstein in personality. In fact, you (and I would very surprised if you are a woman) appear to fall somewhere in the men’s rights activists / ‘Nice Guy?’ range of Internet social grace.

  306. #309 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    First of all the internal hypocrisy in the last comment, one directed at me, is simply marvellous to behold. Mazel tov.

    I didn’t claim that I was questioning when I was in fact asserting, you dishonest trolling git.

    In fact, you (and I would very surprised if you are a woman) appear to fall somewhere in the men’s rights activists / ‘Nice Guy?’ range of Internet social grace.

    You are new here. And you are very very stupid.

  307. #310 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter, are you going to address the substance of responses to you, or just whine about tone? And throw out red herrings about TM’s presumed personality?

  308. #311 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    “Oh yeah? How’s it gonna stop us?”

    Good grief but this twit is clueless. Refer to the context of that statement to see how so.

  309. #312 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter:

    Whatever it may be, it needs to be consistent with our understanding of neurology. Agreed?

    No, if the soul is real it would be immaterial and thus not necessarily require any physical manifestation. The fact such a simple distinction escapes you demonstrates my point about objections being based on unquestioned materialist beliefs/biases.

    I’m not saying that if a soul exists, it must be material or physical. I’m saying that it has to be consistent with empirical observations. Nothing can exist AND at the same time be inconsistent with the physical world. This is only based on the assumption that the physical world is real. If you can’t agree with this, I can’t help you.

    Then what could a soul possibly be or do?

    This is why I pointed out the narrow Abrahamic mindset on what the soul is. Go read about early Buddhism or Hinduism for an alternative perspective on what the soul could potentially be.

    No. I’ve read my share of Buddhist and Hindu texts, and I’ve also read about Buddhism and Hinduism. What isn’t helpful is you making some vague gesture in the general direction of Eastern mysticism.

    Please just don’t be so coy. So far, you’ve given me very little to think about or discuss. Explain your idea, maybe define a couple of terms, or perhaps link to a book or article that you think does the subject justice. It doesn’t really matter if you believe any of it or not, because I’m more interested in the science behind this question than reading even more reams of bad philosophy.

    If you want to continue to evade the question, that’s fine too. If you don’t believe in souls, then perhaps instead you could explain why not. That might be an interesting exercise. I’m just feeling generous, and open to dismantling whichever whacky idea you might throw at me.

  310. #313 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter:

    @”truth machine” a sample of your responses:

    You’re being a concern troll, someone who is much more concerned with tone and style over substance. Pearl Clutchers&trade don’t do well here, because they do what you are doing – whining about tone and style because you can’t actually argue your case. I suggest you go over to the Intersection. They’ll love you.

  311. #314 John Scanlon FCD
    April 12, 2010

    Steve M:

    Even if one does not remember dreaming, I’ve always had a feeling of time having elapsed upon awakening. I attribute this to unremembered dreams.

    Just a couple of times in my life I’ve experienced waking (refreshed by a good long sleep) without the feeling of time having elapsed. The first time I was definitely less than seven and more than three years old (sorry, I didn’t make a note of the date), and it struck me at the time as a much better arrangement than the usual rigmarole of lying awake or half-awake in the dark, or experiencing dreams that made no sense, were sometimes frightening and usually difficult to recall anyway. I assume that any intervening dreams being unremembered at the time of waking is a necessary condition for this kind of ‘instant sleep’, but neither sufficient nor implying that no dreams took place.

    I just made up the phrase ‘instant sleep’, but what it really feels like is time travel.

  312. #315 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Mr. T, please preview your posts, ’cause your blockquote errors make them hard to parse.

  313. #316 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    it struck me at the time as a much better arrangement than the usual rigmarole of lying awake or half-awake in the dark, or experiencing dreams that made no sense, were sometimes frightening and usually difficult to recall anyway.

    interesting, I always remember feeling exactly the opposite about it. Basically I was being cheated out of the fun part of the day and was instantly propelled to the part where I had to get up and be productive :-p

  314. #317 Roger Migently
    April 12, 2010

    Pastor Deacon Fred of the Landover Baptist Church has asked about the case of someone who has Multiple Personality Disorder. One of the personalities has deeply and sincerely accepted christ into his heart and has given his life wholly to god and lives a pure, clean and holy life BUT the other is a raving, rampant atheist. If he dies while the atheist personality is manifesting, is he Saved? Or not? Does he go to heaven? Or to hell? Does his soul live forever or die forever? Or half and half? How does that work? Instead of putting him in the eternal burning fiery furnace does god put him on the backburner while he thinks about it for a bit?

    Someone said about George W’s adventure in Iraq,
    ?Maybe a President who didn?t believe our soldiers were going to heaven might be a little less willing to get them killed.?

    And now to dog the farter, rod the bum and sod the sunday roast be all horror and gory, world without them, Ramen.

  315. #318 negentropyeater
    April 12, 2010

    The existence of the soul likely cannot be proven true or false. But dogmatism about the later position is not intellectual superior to the former.

    The same can be said about all things with zero evidence:

    pink unicorns
    green genie of the bottle
    leprechauns
    teapot orbiting the sun
    flying spaghetti monster
    etc…

    Do you consider that someone who doesn’t believe in pink unicorns is being dogmatic about it?

    Give me ONE reason why it is different with the soul?

    Keep thinking, you won’t find any.

  316. #319 Rorschach
    April 12, 2010

    This is where the concept of a soul falls apart, mental illnesses, neurodegenerative siseases etc.

    Seems to me that “soul” is just the little cousin of religion, gives one the warm and fuzzies, but in the end is a concept that explains nothing.

  317. #320 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I am merely pointing out that dogmatic disbelief in an immaterial phenomenon (key qualifier) is as intellectually indefensible as blind belief. That observation obviously really upsets some atheists who do not like being reminded how much they resemble religious people at times.

    Aside from the fact that claiming on this blog that atheists are dogmatic and resemble the religious is always trolling, a sure sign of a troll is repeating the exact same claim after it has already been rebutted, and ignoring the rebuttal:

    A huge portion of the strident critics of the concept of the soul are simply arguing from an at times fervent a priori belief in materialism. That is not intellectually supportable

    Yes, actually, it is — it rests on Ockham’s Razor.

    Ockham’s Razor slices away immaterial epiphenomena like “souls”.

  318. #321 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    I apologize for yet another blockquote error. I’ve gotten lazy about previewing since using Firefox’s text formatting toolbar.

    It should be fairly obvious (and should look just like the second nested-blockquote), but let me try that first part again:

    evergreenotter:

    Whatever it may be, it needs to be consistent with our understanding of neurology. Agreed? [me]

    No, if the soul is real it would be immaterial and thus not necessarily require any physical manifestation. The fact such a simple distinction escapes you demonstrates my point about objections being based on unquestioned materialist beliefs/biases. [evergreenotter]

    I’m not saying that if a soul exists, it must be material or physical. I’m saying that it has to be consistent with empirical observations. Nothing can exist AND at the same time be inconsistent with the physical world. This is only based on the assumption that the physical world is real. If you can’t agree with this, I can’t help you.

    I’d like to go further with this line of thought, but it would be nice if we could first agree on this very minimal assumption. It would be a problem if a soul is supposed to act in a way contrary to how humans actually think or behave.

  319. #322 John Scanlon FCD
    April 12, 2010

    I should add that general anaesthesia, in my experience, is totally unlike what I’m talking about: it’s associated with a period of fever-like delirium before proper waking. I went under for an eye op at the age of five, and neither experience reminded me of the other.

    Also that the first time I had one of these ‘instant’ sleeps was a far more profound and instructive experience than anything I was ever told by parents, priests or teachers (at least prior to university). Got me thinking about thinking…

  320. #323 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    The existence of the soul likely cannot be proven true or false. But dogmatism about the later position is not intellectual superior to the former.

    The same can be said about all things with zero evidence

    Indeed. evergreenotter’s claim that disbelieving that for which there is no evidence is not intellectually superior to believing that for which there is no evidence is just plain fucking stupid.

  321. #324 negentropyeater
    April 12, 2010

    Seems to me that “soul” is just the little cousin of religion, gives one the warm and fuzzies, but in the end is a concept that explains nothing.

    Souls aren’t meant to explain anything, but to comfort those who are afraid of death. Souls, or more generally spirits, were probably invented from the moment humans became conscious of death. Those are not the little cousins of religion, but their earliest common ancestor, where religions started.

  322. #325 WowbaggerOM
    April 12, 2010

    Caine, Fleur du mal wrote:

    I suggest you go over to The Intersection. They’ll love you.

    You beat me to it.

  323. #326 negentropyeater
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter,

    No, if the soul is real it would be immaterial and thus not necessarily require any physical manifestation. The fact such a simple distinction escapes you demonstrates my point about objections being based on unquestioned materialist beliefs/biases.

    Say I postulate there exists a parrallel universe that has no physical manifestation in ours.

    Say I believe that in this parrallel universe the President of the United States of the planet greenotter of the otter galaxy is called evergreenotter.

    Please don’t object to this because otherwise I’m going to accuse of objecting to it based on biased materialist beliefs.

  324. #327 evergreenotter
    April 12, 2010

    Aside from the fact that claiming on this blog that atheists are dogmatic and resemble the religious is always trolling, a sure sign of a troll is repeating the exact same claim after it has already been rebutted, and ignoring the rebuttal:

    “Always trolling”? Talk about setting up a perpetual rationalisation for your tone and behaviour. That attitude just exudes insecurity.

    Most importantly you did not rebut anything. Ockham’s Razor is a worthwhile method of considering many issues but does not offer irrefutable logic. The fact you invoke it twice as an ipso facto justification of your position only elucidates your dogmatism further.

    People like you just replace spiritual religion with materialist religion and then spin everything to fit your preconceived narrative.

  325. #328 Andreas Johansson
    April 12, 2010

    David Marjanovic wrote:

    This is Epicurean teaching, and, funnily enough, Paul the Apostle accepted it.
    He then added the supernatural spirit in order to allow for an afterlife and other, well, spiritual affairs. This is where all the confusion about soul and spirit comes from.
    Source here, but don’t click on that link unless you want to stay up all night.

    It’s not trivial to be unprejudiced against an author who makes preliminary remarks like this one:

    These two ideals are still competitors in our modern world. The open type of society which was sponsored by Epicurus has allied itself with Christianity. The closed type of society which was sponsored by Plato has taken its stand against religion.

    I may read the rest of it as time and interest permits, but the introduction and beginning of the first chapter mostly left me suspicious of the author’s objectivity. (Another thing that rang a warning bell is the notion that Paul “had no alternative but to adopt” Epicurus’ teachings. Science when do sect-founders find it necessary to adopt ethical positions just because they’re meritorious or widely acknowledged?)

  326. #329 WowbaggerOM
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter wrote:

    People like you just replace spiritual religion with materialist religion and then spin everything to fit your preconceived narrative.

    Yeah, except for the ‘religion’ part, since it’s nothing of the sort. Oh, and the ‘spin everything to fit your preconceived narrative’ part – because, you know, science being about a continual search for knowledge and incorporating new evidence and all.

    Take your ‘alternative soul concept’ and cram it up your pissant concern-trolling ass – with walnuts.

  327. #330 negentropyeater
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter,

    Ockham’s Razor is a worthwhile method of considering many issues but does not offer irrefutable logic. The fact you invoke it twice as an ipso facto justification of your position only elucidates your dogmatism further.

    Correct, Ockham’s razor is just an important heuristic but it does not offer an absolute proof, an irrefutable justification. But you can never prove the inexistence of things for which there is no evidence. You cannot prove there doesn’t exist a parrallel universe with no physical manifestation in ours in which evergreenotter is the president of the United States of the planet greenotter of the otter galaxy.

    But would you accuse someone who doesn’t believe in this evergreenotter president of dogmatism?

    Please give me ONE reason why it is different with the soul?

  328. #331 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter:

    People like you just replace spiritual religion knowing everything with materialist religion knowing nothing and then spin everything to fit your preconceived narrative.

    I’m willing to grant that I can’t prove with Absolute Certainty? that Russell’s Teapot isn’t orbiting the sun. Likewise I can’t prove there is no FSM, or whatever brand of Buddhist/Hindu soul most handily evades empirical investigation. That’s just fine with me.

    There’s no good reason why we should be expected to prove or disprove claims which are not supported by any kind of evidence, and terms which have no coherent meaning. If they are not supported, they are discarded. If someone comes along and finds evidence in support of the exact same claim, then what was discarded can finally be evaluated properly. Hopefully you can tell how this is fundamentally different from dogmatism and closed-mindedness.

    So far, you’ve provided nothing in the way of evidence. You apparently don’t even necessarily believe that there is any to be found. Instead, you wish to retain some kind of intellectual purity by characterizing us as religious dogmatists. Fine — go ahead and waste your time evaluating the infinite amount of meaningless crap people can conjure up.

  329. #332 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    phoenixwoman #220, thank you for linking to that. The song is so powerful on its own and Johnny only adds to it.

    As for the everlasting soul that somehow continues your brain function and your concsienceness after you die. Not even theists REALLY believe in that.
    -mark.elkin.home #221

    From my experience, you are certainly wrong about many theists. Except for the few theists in this thread who have said otherwise, I have not had much privilege of hearing theists say that corporeal life is all there is—which implies that they do believe in a soul, and many theists have made it clear to me that they do believe in a soul, especially the ones who believe in the power of baptism and being saved (and I wouldn’t doubt if Risen Cracker Crunchers thought that chomping on bits of Jebus had some significance for their eternal souls, either).

  330. #333 WowbaggerOM
    April 12, 2010

    negentropyeater wrote:

    Please give me ONE reason why it is different with the soul?

    Oh neg, that’s such a closed-minded, dogmatist response – typical of an adherent of a materialist religion who’s spinning things to fit their preconceived narrative.

    Isn’t it obvious that the soul exists?

  331. #334 Andreas Johansson
    April 12, 2010

    @aratina cage: It’s probably unsafe to assume that theists saying they believe in an afterlife means that they “REALLY believe” in such, if “REALLY believe” means something more than verbal affirmation. Taking myself as an example, I certainly claimed to believe in an afterlife, but I dunno if I ever acted as if death was not the end.

    Further, I’ve often heard theists, who if asked if they believe in the afterlife would unhesitantly affirm, speak as if this life is all there is when the topic is not doctrine. They compartmentalize between their “official” faith and how they think in “secular” contexts.

  332. #335 evergreenotter
    April 12, 2010

    “Please give me ONE reason why it is different with the soul?”

    The soul is something humans have been contemplating since recorded history and likely before it. Before you reject that as subjective, consider how much of medical and psychological research relies on people’s reported experiences that cannot be physically measured but inform our understanding of a related issue.

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration. Claims of near death experiences would be a prime example of an issue that may have a purely materialistic explanation but to date has not allowed researchers to utterly dismiss an immaterial one as some people here would have them do.

    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

  333. #336 WowbaggerOM
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter wrote:

    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

    Why?

  334. #337 Rorschach
    April 12, 2010

    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

    People have been asking you for evidence for 300 posts now, and all we get is assertions and woo.What evidence for a soul are you talking about? Show it already or shut up, man.

  335. #338 windy
    April 12, 2010

    Go read about early Buddhism or Hinduism for an alternative perspective on what the soul could potentially be.

    Shouldn’t that be perspectives since they contradict each other?

  336. #339 WowbaggerOM
    April 12, 2010

    Rorschach wrote:

    Show it already or shut up, man.

    Materialist! Materialist! Materialist!

  337. #340 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter @ 335:

    Claims of near death experiences would be a prime example of an issue that may have a purely materialistic explanation

    We are all having a near death experience. It’s called life. I’ll hazard a guess here that you don’t know much neuroscience. I’d suggest looking into it, except you don’t seem to want to learn, you simply want to argue that souls exist because you want them to exist.

    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

    Wrong. It’s definitely not proof, and it is not a strong basis for taking a lack of evidence seriously. You’re the one indulging in made-up random hyperbole, trying to stuff your “alternate soul” into any tiny crack you think you’ve found.

  338. #341 John Scanlon FCD
    April 12, 2010

    Andreas Johansson, did you notice the publication date? – 1954. The author was born in 1876, so he’s not talking about today’s Christianity in any of its forms but, in passing and with a hint of irony, comparing the ideal Christian nation in his head (not 1950’s USA, obviously, which was practically fascist) with Stalin’s USSR. Give him a fair go. Here’s that link again (thanks David).

  339. #342 Sili
    April 12, 2010

    What if we “re-create” you while you are still alive?

    That would certainly improve my sexlife tremendously.

  340. #343 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration.

    Evolution is worthy of serious consideration.

    Would you care to explain how humans could possibly evolved to have souls?

    Do only humans have souls, or primates, or vertebrates, or perhaps all living things? Are they not something that evolved but happened by some other means? Does reality matter to you in the least when deciding whether souls are worthy of serious consideration? Do Luke Skywalker and Frodo Baggins have souls?

  341. #344 negentropyeater
    April 12, 2010

    The soul is something humans have been contemplating since recorded history and likely before it.

    True. As I said earlier, it appears as if it is something humans invented from the moment we became conscious of death. A by-product of our over active imaginative brain.

    Before you reject that as subjective, consider how much of medical and psychological research relies on people’s reported experiences that cannot be physically measured but inform our understanding of a related issue.

    You seem to confuse two things:
    People’s reported experiences, which is something that is clearly physical. It can be measured, analysed, interpreted, etc…
    The things people believe in such as the soul which has no physical manifestation in reality.

    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

    The only difference between the soul and the evergreenotter president is that the former is something many people want to believe in because many people are afraid of death, the latter not because not many people find it wishful to believe in an evergreenotter president. But it doesn’t change the fact that both are simply products of our imagination for which there is no evidence, they are both the result of wishful thinking.
    If you want to believe in either, fine, nobody can stop you. But it is a travesty to accuse someone of dogmatism for pointing out that they are both the results of wishful thinking with no justification for the belief in their existence.

  342. #345 John Morales
    April 12, 2010

    Epicurus has been referred to, but this quote is worthy of repeating:

    Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatever causes no annoyance when it is present, causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer.

    (Letter to Menoeceus)

    [Pedantic minutiae 1.]

    Gilgamesh: He was endowed with beauty by the sun god Shamash and with strength and courage by the storm god Adad, making him two-thirds god and one-third man.

    [Pedantic minutiae2.]

    Imagine a god mates with a human; the issue is half-god, half-human.

    If that issue then mates with another god, the issue would be two-thirds god, one-third human (in a naive mathematical sense).

  343. #346 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage (#62), I am making no argument for the existence of the soul, just the impossibility of denying what is claimed to be beyond the senses or instruments. The argument was one of logic, not a renunciation of empirical data.
    -listener #277

    But souls are not beyond the senses or instruments. You are playing the same game with souls that sophisticated theologians do with gods when asked to provide evidence for their god and suddenly we find that God is indescribable, immeasurable, beyond the senses. No doubt your ideal definition of a soul has now morphed to elude being torn apart by empirical evidence like watching a person’s mind deteriorate and eventually disappear with the onslaught of Alzheimer’s, or by the innumerable cases of debunking of paranormal and psychic claims, or by the logical difficulty in explaining how a soul plays any part in the mechanics of our bodies. I shall now swim further down the thread and I suspect I will find you have turned into a bubbling cauldron of quantum stone soup by the time I reach the end.

  344. #347 Andreas Johansson
    April 12, 2010

    @John Scanlon: No, I didn’t notice the date, but I’m not sure it matters very much. “Closed” Christian societies were, if anything, commoner then than now. If there was a hint of irony in his statement, it went clear over my head.

  345. #348 John Scanlon FCD
    April 12, 2010

    Oh, BTW
    Google CO2+NDE
    FTW

  346. #349 Janet Holmes
    April 12, 2010

    We are literally soulless machines made of meat, honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution.

    Yes evolution is ruthless and pitiless, note the grammatical form, we are describing two qualities which are absent. Ruth and pity. Evolution has neither, it is ruthless and pitiless. Ruth meant “friend” in the original Hebrew and in archaic English meant compassion or pity, so really ‘ruthless’ and ‘pitiless’ mean the same thing. Clearly evolution cannot have such qualities and is without them.

  347. #350 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage:

    a bubbling cauldron of quantum stone soup

    With bacon. Right?

  348. #351 Mr T
    April 12, 2010

    Google CO2+NDE

    On the other hand, instead of a naturalistic explanation, we could just ignore everything else that we know about the world and go with evergreenotter’s vague soul concept… which may or may not be borrowed from some kind of Eastern-woo (I’m still not sure exactly what it’s even supposed to be, but I guess that part doesn’t really matter). Since we apparently can’t deny it with Irrefutable Logic, we may as well go hog-wild. This soul shit sounds just crazy enough to work.

  349. #352 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    John Scanlong @ 348:

    Google CO2+NDE

    Just read about it at Science Daily. Very interesting stuff. Ain’t science grand?

  350. #353 Fred The Hun
    April 12, 2010

    Yahoo @ 78,

    The evidence at first appears very convincing yet my faith quickly turns to doubt. I want to know what is true!

    Sounds like you might already have taken the first steps down the path to rationalism.

    Don’t let the curmudgeons of Pharyngula fool you, most of them are damn smart, have a bark that is much worse than their bite, have pretty soft hearts and will most definitely answer your questions if you pose them in such a way that you indicate a true willingness to learn.

    Good luck in your quest for the truth!

  351. #354 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    @aratina cage: It’s probably unsafe to assume that theists saying they believe in an afterlife means that they “REALLY believe” in such, if “REALLY believe” means something more than verbal affirmation.
    -Andreas Johansson #334

    I don’t agree. They do believe there is something more to it, they really do.

    Taking myself as an example, I certainly claimed to believe in an afterlife, but I dunno if I ever acted as if death was not the end.

    You mean the end of life or the end of life as you know it? Of course very few people who believe in an afterlife, save for Matricites and reincarnationists, would think that an afterlife would look anything like the one they are currently living, and in that sense death is an end to participation in the world and a loss of interaction with people and things they love and enjoy.

    Further, I’ve often heard theists, who if asked if they believe in the afterlife would unhesitantly affirm, speak as if this life is all there is when the topic is not doctrine. They compartmentalize between their “official” faith and how they think in “secular” contexts.

    Again, I think you could be equating what for them is the ending of the here and now with their idea of a continued existence.

  352. #355 simonator
    April 12, 2010

    I pointed out to my believing co-workers thateven though we start from very different places, we came to the same conclusion: that “life is precious.” They belive that it’s precious because it’s a gift from God. I believe it’s precious becuase it’s so short.

  353. #356 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    Caine,

    With bacon. Right?

    :D Yes, of course. How could I forget such an important ingredient? And as expected, now that I have arrived at the end, listener has not reappeared so I can only agree with Chopra about listener‘s state of existence.

  354. #357 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage:

    so I can only agree with Chopra about listener’s state of existence.

    LOL. One thing about woospeak, you can twist it all up to make it mean whatever you want.

  355. #358 Feynmaniac
    April 12, 2010

    I like it when Chopra here defines consciouness as a “superimposition of possilbilites” and the physicsist responds: “Alright, I know what each of those words mean….”

  356. #359 Sastra
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter #327 wrote:

    People like you just replace spiritual religion with materialist religion and then spin everything to fit your preconceived narrative.

    When you get right down to it, the “dogmatic” stance which the naturalists are defending is the belief that supernatural assumptions should be considered to be hypotheses, and treated like hypotheses. They are reasonable inferences made from evidence, and might be true, or might be false. We need to approach them then as clearly and objectively as possible, with due consideration made for our tendency to make errors, and always hold in mind that, because we might be wrong, we need to be able to say what would change our minds.

    This is supposed to be the dogmatic stance. So, what then would it look like when this ‘dogmatism’ is rejected?

    The alternative, non-dogmatic, religious stance is to approach supernatural assumptions not like hypotheses, but like certainties of the heart, or direct personal experiences. What if you were right, but couldn’t prove it to others? Wouldn’t you still be right? Yes, yes you would. And don’t you have a right, to believe you’re right, when you are right? Yes, yes you do.

    How dare other people dogmatically reject this ability to be able to know, what you know.

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration. Claims of near death experiences would be a prime example of an issue that may have a purely materialistic explanation but to date has not allowed researchers to utterly dismiss an immaterial one as some people here would have them do.

    You need to take account of the fact that the evidence has indeed been carefully examined, and successfully incorporated into a coherent materialist explanation involving human cognitive errors of bias, interpretation, recall, and normative heuristic shortcuts; this explanation is consistent with the way the brain works in other, similar situations, and is testable. Materialist researchers do not “dismiss” the evidence for paranormal phenomenon: they explain it otherwise — and do this so well, that once again, you’re left with the Argument from Maybe.

  357. #360 Feynmaniac
    April 12, 2010

    Link fail @ 358. That should be here at ‘Scientist Takes on Deepak’s Science’.

  358. #361 Andreas Johansson
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    I don’t agree. They do believe there is something more to it, they really do.

    Some do, unquestionably, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume anyone is in that group merely because they say they are.

    You mean the end of life or the end of life as you know it? Of course very few people who believe in an afterlife, save for Matricites and reincarnationists, would think that an afterlife would look anything like the one they are currently living, and in that sense death is an end to participation in the world and a loss of interaction with people and things they love and enjoy.

    I mean that, for example, when my grandfather died, I didn’t seek solace in the thought I’d see him again in Heaven, nor find worry in the idea he might not have gone there. Abandoning faith in the afterlife hasn’t had any identifiable effect on how I react to the death of a loved one.

    Again, I think you could be equating what for them is the ending of the here and now with their idea of a continued existence.

    Perhaps, but if so they compartmentalize between two different sorts of belief in the afterlife rather than between belief and non-belief, which still supports the notion that self-conscious declarations of belief do not necessarily reflect the assumptions they apply unconsciously in everyday speech and behaviour.

  359. #362 Gregory Greenwood
    April 12, 2010

    Evergreenotter @ 335;

    Lets try a different tack. You wrote;

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration. Claims of near death experiences would be a prime example of an issue that may have a purely materialistic explanation but to date has not allowed researchers to utterly dismiss an immaterial one as some people here would have them do.
    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

    On this basis one might point out that most cultures have within their mythology a belief in a creature that sustains its existence by, through one means or another, stealing the ‘life force’ of human beings. In most cases these creatures receive enhanced capability or ‘supernatural’ powers as a side effect of this process.

    Such myths are incredibly widespread, having been present in almost every major historial civilisation (including those that never had any contact with one another, such as the Ancient Egyptians and the Maya). One need look no further than the similarity in the mythology surrounding the Middle Eastern desert Djinn, the Hyena riding witches of North African mythology, and the mittel-European Strigoi for a demonstration.

    Since;

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration.

    Does your logic not imply that we should afford the possible existence of vampires ‘serious consideration’. There is no scientific paper that conclusively disproves their existence to the standard of proof that you seem to require in relation to the soul.

    Or, if the fang brigade does not float your boat, what about ghosts? Wraiths and phantasms are also found in a great many different cultures and in many different historical contexts. Belief in this particular manifestation of the post-death vapour-ware soul is almost ubiquitous throughout human history in one form or another (especially if we expand the definition to include the ‘shades’ of the pre-christian world)

    Perhaps you should invest in a little garlic, a few wooden stakes, and maybe a cute, Buffy-esque crossbow. Or perhaps a Proton Pack. You know, just in case.

  360. #363 JBlilie
    April 12, 2010

    To live in the moment is the most rewarding result of loosing the concept of the soul. To be more involved with those people and situations you are experiencing right here and right now is the true reward in life…not what might or maybe be in the minds of others in relation to their imaginings. The mere ability to apprehend what we do know of this world is true joy.

    Well said. Also, the few, precious moments I’ve spent truly in the moment (during extremely intense activities such as sex, technical climbing, steep skiing, white water kayaking at my limits (and I’m told but never experienced, combat)) have been some of the most interested, arresting, special, rewarding times of my life. If only we could hold that level of focus and mental participation all the time.

    Probably the cortisol would kill us in a matter of months. We evolved to have significant rest periods, seems to me.

  361. #364 KOPD
    April 12, 2010

    Oh here’s a bit of my Bible:
    In my distress I cried unto the Lord, and he heard me.
    Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.
    What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?
    Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper.
    Woe is me, that I sojourn in Me’sech, that I dwell in the tents of Ke’dar.
    My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.
    I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

    And here are some quotes from Star Trek:
    “It has always been easier to destroy that to create” — Spock
    “I have been, and ever shall be, your friend. Live long, and prosper.” — Spock
    “Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again” — Picard
    “Thank you for the advice, but I am trying to find two individuals with a snake.” — Data

    (It annoys me that blockquote strips line breaks.)

  362. #365 mikerattlesnake
    April 12, 2010

    a little advice that I didn’t notice anyone give for our AP student upthread:

    JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN USE YOUR AP CREDITS TO DO SO, DO NOT SKIP FRESHMAN YEAR BIOLOGY.

    Your AP class managed to leave out the most fundamental concept of modern biology and replaced it with nonsense. Guaranteed. I don’t know how they got certified to give you college credit, but you didn’t earn it (by no fault of your own).

    Don’t do the usual teenage thing and get by with as little work as possible. I used my AP credits to skip calculus and I never looked back, but I also had a good calculus teacher in high school. There’s a lot of awesome in the world, don’t just rely on teachers to provide you with information. In the most ideal circumstance, a great teacher gives you a good jumping off point and the skills with which to learn MORE. Don’t stop with the question or skip over answers you don’t like. Look for EVIDENCE and learn statistics. Our inability to understand numbers leads us to irrational beliefs.

  363. #366 KOPD
    April 12, 2010

    Phoenixwoman:

    Johnny saved the best for last

    He sure did. I have both versions of that song and listen to them often.

  364. #367 lol8ta_120
    April 12, 2010

    Have y’all ever heard of Andy Kaufman?
    Some of you are brilliant at helping me reinvent his routine.
    I’m off to wrestle some women now.
    Enjoy your tight-knit community, your cliched slang, and remember that man can never be too surly or turf-obsessed.

    Kisses!

  365. #368 Rorschach
    April 12, 2010

    How dare other people dogmatically reject this ability to be able to know, what you know.

    Sums it up.

  366. #369 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    Right on, Mr. Myers–what a funny coincidence, I was just musing on this subject this weekend!… I agree absolutely that the afterlife is the shadiest part of religious doctrine and have shed it over time. I believe in considering what we’ll leave behind us, and I hope to leave things that may delight and provoke people.

    …hours later…

    Enjoy your tight-knit community, your cliched slang, and remember that man can never be too surly or turf-obsessed.

    Kisses!

    Someone grab that loose thread and tie it down! It seems to be unraveling.

  367. #370 KOPD
    April 12, 2010

    In fact, you (and I would very surprised if you are a woman) appear to fall somewhere in the men’s rights activists / ‘Nice Guy?’ range of Internet social grace.

    This had me laughing. :-)
    Thank you for brightening up my Monday morning.

  368. #371 Andreas Johansson
    April 12, 2010

    @aratina cage: Also, I forgot to ask – who or what are Matricites? Can’t find an online definition.

  369. #372 lol8ta_120
    April 12, 2010

    @ aratina cage and KOPD

    Ow, what fun! Monday is such crud, sometimes I have to do something.

    I contend that anyone new looking at that post at 160, which quoted something that made no mention of homophobia, might’ve concluded that a.human.ape was the more peaceable one, and would not even have bothered with the link. Personally, if someone wants to sell me on something, he/she needs to mind his articles.

    It’s like some people don’t know that the world may be watching them.

  370. #373 KOPD
    April 12, 2010

    I contend that anyone new looking at that post at 160, which quoted something that made no mention of homophobia, might’ve concluded that a.human.ape was the more peaceable one, and would not even have bothered with the link.

    Well, considering that the quote was “Have you managed to get rid of your vile homophobia…” with “vile homophobia” being the link text, it’s pretty obvious that it was a link to an example of said commenter’s previous displays of vile homophobia. Therefore your contention must be that some people are fucking morons. I happen to agree with you on that. I am glad we have some common ground.

  371. #374 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    Andreas Johansson,

    I was attempting to coin a term for people who think that life could be all part of a program like it is in the Matrix because their reality could seemingly go on unending from program to program, but it differs from the afterlife posited by people who believe in reincarnation to human form because there is no guarantee of life being cyclic in the Matrix despite the lack of finality.

    #361 gets me thinking: the thing about beliefs is that they are modifiable, replaceable, and deletable; you can even question them on the spot and still hold them later. So when someone tells me directly or indirectly that they believe in an afterlife, I tend to not doubt their sincerity, but I don’t imagine them incapable of changing that belief.

    I understand that getting past the thought of an afterlife did not affect you, but unlike how it happened with you, I remember that I did find solace in the thought of an afterlife (not souls in Heaven, though—I was always heterodox) after several deaths of people I was close to, and since I have abandoned that erroneous belief, I do react differently to death. I see it as much more of a closure now, I think.

  372. #375 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    lol8ta_120 @ 372:

    I contend that anyone new looking at that post at 160, which quoted something that made no mention of homophobia, might’ve concluded that a.human.ape was the more peaceable one, and would not even have bothered with the link.

    Your contention is wrong, lolidiot. a.human.ape’s comment in this thread was he liked to point out greed and nastiness in christians’ belief. As a.human.ape was making a value judgement on others, I asked if he had managed to rid himself of his vile homophobia. The link was provided for those who had not encountered a.human.ape’s misanthropic crap before.

    a.human.ape has said vile things about gay people (and there are quite a lot of gay people among the regulars here); has voiced the viewpoint that the poor in Haiti should be left to die, because they are poor and has gleefully advocated torturing people.

    You have extremely poor reading skills, lolidiot, and even worse comprehension skills.

    Personally, if someone wants to sell me on something, he/she needs to mind his articles.

    I’m not trying to sell you anything, you ignorant dipshit. It was typo, try to deal. For someone who plans to hang on to such a pathetic line as a shield to hide their stupidity, it’s interesting you simply cannot manage to call me by my name, even when it’s right in front of you.

    By the way, what happened to that classic flounce out of here, where you declared you weren’t coming back? Seems you lied. Trolls generally do.

  373. #376 dave.kielpinski
    April 12, 2010

    LaughingMan,

    Sorry, but I find your comments incredibly irritating. I regularly trap and observe single ions (atoms) in my quantum computing lab. If I didn’t have an extremely precise model of exactly how these atoms behave, this wouldn’t be possible. Same goes for Bose-Einstein condensates, which I have also worked with.

    Unfortunately, popular science magazines are completely incapable of educating anyone about quantum mechanics to the point that they can speak sensibly about it.

  374. #377 A Facebook User
    April 12, 2010

    You’re not dead until you’re forgotten.

    The only thing I need to give my life purpose is children. And I mean all children. I don’t even have any myself, I’m 45 and don’t expect to have any. But my reason for doing good, and leaving the world a better place than when I came into it, is the existence of future generations.

  375. #378 Andreas Johansson
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    #361 gets me thinking: the thing about beliefs is that they are modifiable, replaceable, and deletable; you can even question them on the spot and still hold them later. So when someone tells me directly or indirectly that they believe in an afterlife, I tend to not doubt their sincerity, but I don’t imagine them incapable of changing that belief.

    I don’t think I was insincere – as in consciously telling an untruth – when I claimed to believe in an afterlife. I do think the compartment that did wasn’t the one in charge of practical matters. To be said to “REALLY believe” in something could, I think very reasonably, be considered to require letting that belief govern practical behaviour.

    But the semantics of that phrase aren’t very important. To put it into your terms, what I’m saying is that beliefs aren’t merely modifiable, replaceable and deletable – they’re also context-dependent. (Compare, perhaps, Greta Christina’s story about thinking her magic symbolic when with skeptics, but real when with fellow believers.)

  376. #379 The Naturalist
    April 12, 2010

    What’s the difference between dying and being dead? Plenty. Theists talk of the the fear of dying, when what they really mean is the fear of being dead. Of course dying is scary—the pain, the loss, the sorrow of loved ones. But, being dead is easy! Its just nothing.
    Theists deliberately confound these two to exploit peoples fears (what’s new).
    To an atheist, being dead is just like not being born, the nothing that sandwiches our wonderful life in the middle.

  377. #380 monado
    April 12, 2010

    Here’s another piece of non-evidence for souls:
    High levels of CO2 in the blood cause Near-death Experiences (lights, tunnels, etc.). You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. However, this shows that personal experiences often cited as proof of life after death are in fact much more likely to be effects of blood chemistry on the brain.

    Recommended books:

    Evolution for Everybody by David Sloan Wilson

    Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

    and perhaps Sould Made Flseh by Carl Zimmer

    and of course At the Water’s Edge by Carl Zimmer

  378. #381 monado
    April 12, 2010

    That should be Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer. It’s about the discovery that consciousness resides in the brain—which was not intuitively obvious.

  379. #382 Matt Penfold
    April 12, 2010

    That should be Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer. It’s about the discovery that consciousness resides in the brain?which was not intuitively obvious.

    Excellent book not only for the science, but for an insight into Civil war England.

  380. #383 one dev
    April 12, 2010

    I have always disagreed with your paradigm ever since I found your blog, but I have to say: you consistently state your perspective clearly.

    I think it excellent that you are able to coherently codify so many of your thoughts in a publicly consumable manner. I certainly appreciate it.

    I also wanted to thank you for giving me things to think about; even though I don’t agree with most of the things you say, I do appreciate the discussion points you bring up. They are ever interesting and often important.

    Thanks,
    a believer in Jesus Christ

  381. #384 and7barton
    April 12, 2010

    I think one of the reasons many believe in an “afterlife” is that we can’t imagine NOT being conscious. What kind of experience can “Non-experience” be ?
    I guess the answer would be to think about what you were conscious of BEFORE you were born (which you’d surely remember something of if you HAD been some kind of non-physical entity) – Of course, the answer is – Precisely NOTHING.
    Unfortunately, I find that a little depressing.

  382. #385 monado
    April 12, 2010

    Maybe this belongs in the Endless Thread, but I think this is closer to having a relevant topic. Comic singer Roy Zimmerman is going to be here, there, and everywhere in the next few weeks, if you want an experience of skepticism and good cheer.

    $15 general / $12 member of Illinois Coalition for Justice, Peace and the Environment / $5 students

    Friday, April 23 8 PM
    KENSINGTON, CA
    Roy Zimmerman: Real American
    Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley
    1 Lawson Rd
    $15 general / $10 students

    Friday, April 30 7:30 PM
    SCHENECTADY, NY
    with Anne Feeney and Evan Greer
    Eighth Step at Proctor?s
    432 State St
    tickets and info: 518-434-1703

    Saturday, May 1 1 PM
    HALEDON, NJ
    May Day Festival
    American Labor Museum
    1 Lawson Rd
    83 Norwood St

    Saturday, May 1 8 PM
    PHILADELPHIA, PA
    with Anne Feeney and Evan Greer
    Crossroads Music
    801 S 48th St
    $10 – $30 sliding scale

    Sunday, May 2 8:30 PM
    NEW YORK, NY
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    Cornelia Street Cafe
    29 Cornelia Street
    $15 at the door

    Friday, May 7 8 PM
    SEATTLE, WA
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    Kenyon Hall
    7904 35th Ave SW
    $14
    reserv. and info – 206-937-3613 or kenyonhall@earthlink.net

    Saturday, May 8 8 PM
    SEATTLE, WA
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    Phinney Neighborhood Center
    6532 Phinney Ave
    $14
    produced by the Seattle Folklore Society

    Sunday, May 9 7:30 PM
    BELLINGHAM, WA
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    Bellingham Unitarian Fellowship
    1708 I St
    $15 suggested donation

    Saturday, May 15 6 PM
    MOSCOW, ID
    2nd Annual Intoleristas Wingding
    Kenworthy Performing Arts Center
    508 S Main
    admission is free!

    Sunday, May 16 7:30 PM
    EUGENE, OR
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    The Unitarian Universalist Church in Eugene
    477 E 40th Ave
    $15 suggested donation

    Monday, May 17 7 PM
    ASHLAND, OR
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
    87 4th St
    $15

    Monday, May 17 7 PM
    ASHLAND, OR
    Roy Zimmerman: Reality Show
    Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
    87 4th St
    $15

  383. #386 ambook
    April 12, 2010

    I haven’t read through all the comments (got up through about 250, though, when I was awake at 4:30 in the morning) and want to thank PZ for the original post. Even with the high cortisol anxiety thing of being awake in the middle of the night, the discussion was actually really comforting and has helped me clarify some of my thinking. I actually think that atheism is MORE about not believing in “souls” than it is about not believing in a god. The idea that some version of “me” should hang around forever is sort of weird and creepy – I would rather the pieces that went into making the “me” system go off to make other biological or non-biological systems. I remember in my early 20s (ok, under the influence of having gone on an intensive Zen retreat), realizing that the “stuff” in my television and my body were all part of the Big Bang, which is actually a more amazing idea than most of the conventional creation myth stuff that I’ve ever been exposed to…

    Now I’m going to enjoy being this particular system at this particular point in the universe, a gorgeous spring day in the mid-Atlantic.

  384. #387 monado
    April 12, 2010

    Onedev, thanks for dropping by. Thoughtful consideration is a gift — to you and to us.

    If anyone wants to know how to do something in HTML, find an unusual word in or near what you want to do, then press Ctrl-u to display the page source (a much longer text page). Do a text search on your unusual word. Then see what the HTML codes are around the format that you want to emulate. Close the page source window to return to the displayed web page. It often helps.

  385. #388 monado
    April 12, 2010

    and7barton #384, if you’ve ever fainted or been knocked out, I think you have a good idea of what death is like–like turning off a light. If you died suddenly, you wouldn’t even notice. There’s nothing to fear except missing the rest of your own story. What we imagine–an experience of being dead–doesn’t happen. We can’t experience death because we won’t be there to do so. It’s like, as someone said, thinking that 70 miles per hour still exists after the car has crashed.

  386. #389 RamblinDude
    April 12, 2010

    Feynmaniac #360

    Interesting debate. Thanks for posting. (Deepok is incredibly irritating)

  387. #390 monado
    April 12, 2010

    Listener. It’s one thing to concede that invisible pink unicorns are not unthinkable. It’s another to decide that therefore it’s sensible to live your life as if Invisible Pink Unicorns are always watching and to do only what they would approve of.

  388. #391 lol8ta_120
    April 12, 2010

    Dear KOPD:
    Hi, I’m only writing to you. I think I may just stick around for you.
    You’re a splendid literary critic.
    We may have a lot in common, really, as far as cultural influences go.
    What actors do you like?
    Fire me a joke sometime.
    Long ago, I was taught that humor was a good indicator of reading and comprehension skills.
    I was also taught to view a writer as a performer.
    Has the theory changed?

  389. #392 monado
    April 12, 2010
  390. #393 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Ockham’s Razor is a worthwhile method of considering many issues but does not offer irrefutable logic.

    It doesn’t have to, you intellectually dishonest git; the opposite of “unsupportable” is not “irrefutable”.

    The fact you invoke it twice as an ipso facto justification of your position only elucidates your dogmatism further.

    Oh, right, pointing out the justification for my position elucidates my dogmatism! That I have justifications proves that my view is unsupportable!

    Fucking dishonest moron.

    People like you just replace spiritual religion with materialist religion and then spin everything to fit your preconceived narrative.

    This is not only ad hominem, it is retarded.

  391. #394 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration.

    Strawman; it’s been given serious consideration.

    Claims of near death experiences would be a prime example of an issue that may have a purely materialistic explanation but to date has not allowed researchers to utterly dismiss an immaterial one as some people here would have them do.

    Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. We also cannot utterly dismiss the possibility that invisible fairies guide evolution … but science isn’t in the business of “utterly” dismissing anything, and can’t, because you can’t prove a universal empirical negative.

    The breadth of a phenomenon is not proof of the claim but it certainly a strong basis for taking the evidence more seriously than some random hyperbole you deliberately made up.

    Idiotic strawman. First there is no “phenomenon”, only belief in the phenomenon. And there is no evidence. But the issue of souls has been taken quite seriously and has received deep scrutiny throughout human intellectual history — and has been rejected as mistaken and misguided by the rational community, you intellectually dishonest git.

  392. #395 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    P.S.

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration.

    The only “phenomenon” we have evidence of is the psychological phenomenon of people’s belief in such things souls and ghosts — and that phenomenon is worthy of very serious consideration and has received it.

  393. #396 KOPD
    April 12, 2010

    @lol8ta_120

    I am a fan of actors such an Michael Shanks, Nathan Fillion, Amanda Tapping and Russell Crowe. Mary Lynn Ryjskub has her moments, but she seems to only have one facial expression and it’s one that makes her look constipated. But she is pretty good at delivering witty lines with a nice sharp barb to them. I’m a fan of sci-fi shows such as Star Trek and Stargate, though each has spin-offs that I think should have been brutally executed immediately. I do not like long walks on the beach, because I don’t like long walks of any kind. Maybe a nice bicycle ride along the boardwalk would be pleasant, but walking bothers my knee. Oh, and I’m an Ares.

  394. #397 lol8ta_120
    April 12, 2010

    Dear Caine:
    Please don’t take it so personally. I seized on your post because I thought I could fit it into my funny-man, song and dance number.
    I came on here to boldly shill for everything I believe in: literacy, living language, reason, ok, ok, ok, poetry.
    I furthermore decided to come here to get help with my dilemma: I pray to the Christian God.
    Yet I agree with the general tide of the atheist/rationalist movement, love the empirical stuff in so far as I am able to understand it, support their moral reasoning all the way when it comes to the Catholic Church, for example.
    It’s a collective, let’s work together movement, isn’t it? I couldn’t care less what people here are individually trying to do: I want scientists to sell their stuff.
    In case you haven’t noticed, people aren’t buying.
    Why??? I get exercised about it. I hate having boring discussions with people who confuse atheism with a new form of fundamentalism; it’s so obviously free-thinking. Fortunately I have a comeback…I usually do.
    I think it’s laudable to point out instances of other people’s confusion, but do it like it counts! And then do it again! Details, I think. Love ‘em. They’ll make or break a good limerick.

    Sigh.
    Flowers of Evil…was that Baudelaire? And are you a flaneur?

  395. #398 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    lol8ta:

    Flowers of Evil…was that Baudelaire?

    Yes.

    And are you a flaneur?

    Can’t say I am, I don’t live urban. I’m also not male.

    Off topic posts belong in the endless thread.

  396. #399 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    You’re not dead until you’re forgotten.

    Then I guess we should let all the murderers out of prison.

  397. #400 David Marjanovi?
    April 12, 2010

    @David Marjanovi? 96:
    Why does that mean the terms should be dropped? There’s more to the world than just phylogeny. Although tetrapods evolved from fish, fish have a number of positive characters they lack, like gills. You wouldn’t want to use them as a taxon, perhaps, but it makes perfect sense to say our ancestors were fish but we aren’t.

    In the same way, “monkey” means “primate with a tail”. So long as you don’t assume that means they form a single evolutionary group, what’s misleading about that?

    Using a taxon name of course implies that the taxon is monophyletic. That’s how we end up with studies of biodiversity that consist of counting genera or families or orders.

    “Positive characters”? It’s normal for vertebrates to have gills. Only the tetrapods and a few others have lost them. Similarly, it’s normal for vertebrates to have a tail; lack of a tail is what’s special.

    “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Dobzhansky). “Nothing in evolution makes sense without a good phylogeny” (G. C. Gould & McFadden). You can’t make sense of phylogeny if you can’t talk about it, and naming paraphyletic taxa is actively misleading in that respect.

    If you believe in a scientific theory, you’re doing it wrong.

    Now you’re just playing word games.

    What? I consider this an important point; if you take a scientific theory on faith, you’re doing it wrong.

    Now watch me playing a word game:

    I like to remind Christians that they are greedy and cowardly to believe in heaven, and that they should be grateful for the one life they have.

    “Grateful”? How, when there’s nobody to give thanks to? I’d have said “happy with” instead of “grateful for”.

    If I go back to sleep for another 10 years, can you guarantee that Big Crunch will still be a dead duck?

    It’s only science, so I can’t guarantee anything ? but I hereby bet 10 ? on it. :-)

    However, when, in addition to asserting that the soul is material and mortal, he (following his idol Epicurus) also tries to argue away the fear of death, the whole project is, I think, misconceived.

    The reason why is stated better by Philip Larkin than anyone else I’ve ever read:

    Aubade
    by Philip Larkin

    I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
    Waking at four

    I think you can stop right here. :-)

    How I explain my atheism to evangelical christians…

    “If I believe Jesus is my personal Lord and saviour, I go to heaven, right?”

    “Right!”

    “Well, I need to spend eternity in hell so I can comfort and minister to all the souls that ended up there. It is what God wants me to do. So I have to reject Jesus and be an atheist, otherwise I will end up in heaven.”

    The vacant stare I get in response is fucking awesome!

    LOL! Day saved. :-)

    To be fair on apes, dolphins have been known to do a lot of this too. And non-ape monkeys. And elephants. Well, maybe not the pack rape part for the elephants – the logistics boggle the mind for that -

    LOL! X-D

    but hierarchy, clans and war – yep.

    War? Among elephants? Reference, please.

    How do I get unregistered from this blog?

    WTF? You aren’t registered at any blog. You have a Movable Type identity.

    Also, follow the link in comment 160.

    even Hinduism can be undersood (not in it’s current polythiestic mode- which is much younger than the Vedas and Upanishads)

    The oldest Vedas have gods much like the Greek ones.

    Science cannot prove, only disprove.

    This really isn’t true. e.g., science proved that there are atoms and black holes, and science may prove that there’s a Higgs boson.

    I wouldn’t use the word “prove” about facts, I use it for ideas. Facts aren’t proven, they’re discovered, I’d say… they’re observed, complete with error margins…

    I should have been clearer, however.

    Just pretend that you will live forever. Keep doing that until you’re dead, at which point you will be unscareable.

    Brilliant. :-)

    the whole idea of Inductive Reasoning upon which science is based

    …er, what? Science deducts predictions from ideas and then looks if the predictions can be shown to be wrong. Where the ideas come from ? throwing dice, induction, dreaming ? doesn’t matter.

    I couldn’t help but notice that you included every major primate group except the lorisiformes. We are not amused. I may be forced to bite you with toxic saliva for this slight.

    ARGH! I hate it when I confuse Lemuriformes and Strepsirhini. But, anyway, you’ll notice how simplified the entire tree is ? lots and lots of extinct clades are omitted. Also, I may be forced to bite back; I have thicker enamel than thou.

    I deny the existence of six undetectable things before breakfast.

    :-D

    Win!

    Science is based on inference to the best explanation.

    How does this differ from falsification + parsimony?

    Neuroscientists themselves debate whether a materialist explanation of consciousness is ever going to be sufficient.

    [citation needed]

    “Always trolling”? Talk about setting up a perpetual rationalisation for your tone and behaviour. That attitude just exudes insecurity.

    What does it matter if truth machine is an annoying asshole? What does it matter if he’s scared shitless, as long as he’s not scared witless?

    What matters is whether he’s wrong. As far as I can see, he’s not wrong.

    Do try to distinguish what people say from how they say it.

    If that issue then mates with another god, the issue would be two-thirds god, one-third human

    Well, no ? three quarters…

    It annoys me that blockquote strips line breaks

    Write them back in: <br>

    Also, this only happens in the first quoted paragraph. Somehow, the ScienceBorg Overlords don’t seem to have imagined that anyone would ever quote more than one paragraph at once, it seems…

    who or what are Matricites?

    Matrix. That’s the stem matric- followed by the nominative singular ending -s.

    lolidiot

    <snort>

  398. #401 Katharine
    April 12, 2010

    Yahoo @ 78 –

    “I think I need a crash course on reality. Must everything that we as humans consider truth be verifiable by the scientific method? I take back my silly statements from earlier because I realized how stupid I was for saying them, but I am still confused with what is absolute truth. Growing up as a Christian has distorted my beliefs with what is true. I fear that I could be chastised by my family and friends for refuting the existence of God. I do ask myself whether an afterlife exists because the Bible is just not enough to support its existence. My Christian schoolteachers constantly refer to archaeological evidence to support the existence of supernatural events of the Old Testament. The evidence at first appears very convincing yet my faith quickly turns to doubt. I want to know what is true!”

    Kiddo, here’s a recommendation:

    You’ll probably be chastised by your family and friends for it. If your friends chastise you for it, get new ones that are tolerant. If your family chastises you for it, brush it off – your beliefs are your business, not theirs. (For what it’s worth, my mother is a christian and my father is kind of quakery; I’m an atheist and the three of us get along fine.)

    Yes, everything that posits the existence of something must be verifiable by the scientific method. It occurs to me that if you do not think this is the case, there is a great deal you do not yet know about science. In this case, start getting comfortable with the unknown; don’t fear it, embrace it and answer the questions it raises by seeking out knowledge.

    By the way, a good deal of archaeology, it turns out, refutes a good deal of biblical stuff – for example, some of the cultural particulars of crucifixion in Roman times (it is unlikely the christians’ supposed deity-manifest had nails driven through his palms or through the front of his feet, if he had nails driven through them at all – also, it’s doubtful he even existed, and whether or not he did I of course don’t think he was anything other than an ordinary old crazy. Also, the word ‘chrestos’ in those ages meant both ‘good’ and ‘simple-minded’, so you can sort of get an idea of what christianity actually thinks about smart people.)

    Truth is that which is borne out by evidence. You seek it out and find it out for yourself. You may be let down by those who you thought would support you; you may pick up new allies.

    There is nothing depressing about not having an afterlife; after all, we won’t be conscious to figure out what happens after we die, and frankly, I’d say your supposed ‘heaven’ sounds really boring (if it existed, I’d rather go to hell). Plus the purpose we have for our lives is what we give to it. Make your own purpose. Don’t be lazy. Living without making a purpose for yourself is laziness.

    Oh, and by the way, creationism is bullshit – genetic, molecular, embryological, and fossil evidence prove that we evolve. Apes are far nobler animals than many think, too. Marvel at the beauty of the world around you. If you take a biology class in college, you will learn how beautiful the world is and how much more beautiful it looks through a clear lens. And we’re not controlled by ‘fate’ so much as our brains interacting with the environment and our past experiences. ‘Free will’ is a bit of an illusion. It’s complex, though.

  399. #402 SteveM
    April 12, 2010

    re 269:

    That’s not my experience from the three occasions I’ve undergone it, and I doubt that it really is yours, as you know that time did elapse, and the brain constantly spins mini-theories to fit against its perceptions. On top of the prior knowledge, there is the shift in location and circumstance upon awakening, and numerous differing somatic states. Even people who awake from comas are aware that time has elapsed, but they are shocked at how much has elapsed.

    No, it really was my experience. Opening my eyes seemed to me to occur “instantly” after closing them. Yes, it does then become apparent that time has elapsed, but the experience of awakening seems to have occured almost instantly after becoming unconscious. Of course that is a poor way of saying it, since there is no sensation of unconscious (or becoming unconscious). What I have experience the several times I have had general anesthesia is being awake, then instantly waking up somewhere else. This has never happened to me in sleep, even those times when I’d wake up with no memory of dreaming.

    Okay, I do admit I’m talking about “normal” sleep. I have experienced these “micro sleeps” or “instant sleeps” when very sleep deprived and the brain just “shuts off” for a few moments. Those seem to occur with no feeling of time elapsing.

  400. #403 SteveM
    April 12, 2010

    re 253:

    On a not totally not unrelated note, i read an article in Discover about the chance or reverse quantum causality, in that when experiments were designed to only weakly perturb the wavefunctions of the systems they studied, they found that thier future measurments affected thier past measurments. Only by enough, however, to be dismissed as rather large error. hopefully someone else has read it and can help out on this (i will have to look it up if i am going to talk in depth about it)

    Yes, I read that article, and no I’m not going to help you out. It was a profoundly stupid article only redeemed by the fact that the last few paragraphs said that it is not just dismissed as large error bars but that if they refine the experiment to reduce the error bars the “effect” vanishes. This is just peridaelia (or however it is spelled) they are finding patterns in noise that aren’t “really” there. There is still no evidence of “backwards” causality.

  401. #404 CJO
    April 12, 2010

    Also, the word ‘chrestos’ in those ages meant both ‘good’ and ‘simple-minded’, so you can sort of get an idea of what christianity actually thinks about smart people.

    Not sure of the relevance of this. Greek “Christ” is a translation of Semitic “Mesiach” (Messiah) meaning, lit., “annointed”. Chrestus/Chrestos was a common given name in the Greek-speaking world at the time, which was taken to mean “good” (hard to see why parents would frequently name their children “simple minded” so I’m going to call [citation needed] on that one, though a conflation of the two concepts is not unheard of: see the etymology of English “silly”).

    So a certain amount of confusion about the term “Christ” used as a name should be expected on the part of cultural Greeks otherwise unfamiliar with Christianity, but I’m not sure why a corruption of the name should be illustrative of the anti-intellectual streak in Christianity, as much as it certainly was and is a reality.

  402. #405 KOPD
    April 12, 2010
    It annoys me that blockquote strips line
    breaks

    Write them back in: <br>

    I tried that. Well, actually what I tried was <br/>. I see what it is now. For some reason <br> and <br /> work, but not <br/>. Strange. Well, thank you for that. Now I know what to do. :-)

  403. #406 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    “Grateful”? How, when there’s nobody to give thanks to? I’d have said “happy with” instead of “grateful for”.

    David, did you watch the ABC clip of Dawkins’ talk at the GAC (first link in the post)? Excerpt:

    I’m suggesting we have a similar lust to calculate debt… it’s such a powerful lust that it goes off in a vacuum…

    Overall, I really like his idea about the instinct to calculate debt/gratitude. He continues:

    So that’s a possible evolutionary reason why we feel an urge to give thanks even when we know that there is nobody to thank.

  404. #407 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    What? I consider this an important point; if you take a scientific theory on faith, you’re doing it wrong.

    “believe in” does not imply faith; it just doesn’t. Belief is merely assent to a proposition; that assent may be based on reason, or not. For instance, I believe that you are able to comprehend basic English — I believe that based on evidence. This can be rephrased as “I believe in your ability to comprehend basic English”. Of your ability to understand more complicated semantics, such as “believe in” or “prove” or “fact” …

    I wouldn’t use the word “prove” about facts. Facts aren’t proven, they’re discovered, I’d say…

    … I’m not so sure. It’s a fact that there is no greatest prime, and I can prove it. It’s also a fact that I know pi to more than 10 decimals and I can prove it: 3.14159265358979…

    How you wouldn’t use these words is an irrelevant idiosyncrasy and what you would say about them is mistaken.

  405. #408 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    SteveM #402,

    I’ve had a similar experience (or rather an appalling lack of experience). The countdown to unconsciousness was still fresh in my mind even when I bolted awake (I had only made it from “ten” to “nine” before slipping away). It was very disconcerting. Yes, I do think that total cessation of thought under anesthesia is a reasonable comparison to “what it is like to be dead” and the only thing scary about it is the reawakening.

  406. #409 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Sorry, due to an editing error I omitted some text from a quote above; it wasn’t intentional or significant:

    I wouldn’t use the word “prove” about facts[, I use it for ideas].

  407. #410 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Enjoy your tight-knit community, your cliched slang, and remember that man can never be too surly or turf-obsessed.

    this is the third time you’ve flounced. it’s getting boring. make up your mind, are you staying or leaving?

    I contend that anyone new looking at that post at 160, which quoted something that made no mention of homophobia, might’ve concluded that a.human.ape was the more peaceable one, and would not even have bothered with the link.

    I’d really love to know why the opinion of a new reader who can’t be bothered to follow a single link should matter. it’s not good skeptical practice to not follow the given evidence/check footnotes.

  408. #411 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Jadehawk, see #397 for lolidiot’s latest.

  409. #412 Menyambal
    April 12, 2010

    Talking about sleep as temporary non-existence, I didn’t mean to imply that I completely ceased to exist, I meant that my mind, what I think with and that I recursively think of as “me”, shut off and ceased to be self-aware when I slept. I do still say that while sleeping, I cease to be me for a while. I cease to be.

    It is sometimes instant and not even noticed, like SteveM on anesthesia. For example, I keep audiobooks on an old speaker cellphone under my pillow for squirrelly nights (seriously, it helps–Frederick Davidson reading PG Wodehouse is my favorite). Some nights when I can’t sleep, and am prepared to swear that I never slept a wink, I will notice that the book that I was listening to had apparently “jumped” a chapter or so, instantly.

    It isn’t the phone malfunctioning, it is me dropping in and out, without even noticing a damned thing. Without the book serving as a timekeeper, I would swear I never slept.

    Where was I while Bertie and Bingo consulted Jeeves? I wasn’t anywhere. I simply was not. Or not was.

    This body continued breathing and storing away the fat, but I wasn’t in it. The program to reboot me was there, and I think it worked. After death, I will no longer be, and the reboot program will deteriorate, and this body will continue getting even more disgusting.

    I say that what many call the “soul” is “me”, the part of this body that notices the itchy feet and slipping glasses. If the soul is something else, I don’t give a tuppenny damn what happens to it. And if the “me” ceases to exist after death, I won’t be around to notice. And if I continue to exist after death as a disembodied soul, I won’t know where to put my hands. And if I wind up in Heaven I will be bored spitless.

  410. #413 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Jadehawk, see #397 for lolidiot’s latest.

    saw it, couldn’t be bothered with it, since it makes no bloody sense. I hate it when people use “poetical” or stream-of-consciousness writing in information-exchanges. the two forms don’t mix well (unless you’re Cuttlefish, that is)

  411. #414 anotherhuman
    April 12, 2010

    wow this discussion blew up! 400+ comments!

    I agree that fear is what pushes the best person to become spiritual. And I totally understand. The point of life is to live. Yes, that’s the whole complicated purpose of life, to survive.

    We, just like any other living thing, have programmed deep into our DNA the code to NOT DIE! If you see something bad, defend yourself, run, hide, do something, anything to keep alive! Because that’s the goal. Don’t die.

    But, as self-aware beings, we have observed and understand that we all age and then die. No one can argue that point. Eventually, you WILL die.

    Well, dammit, now what do you do?? You freak. Your mind starts blowing through ways to keep alive and then… you’re told that you have a soul, and there’s an afterlife awaiting your soul on the other end! Yeah! Awesome!

    Good job. You’ve now satisfied your mind into thinking that you won’t ever really die. And now you can choose whatever religion satisfies this need the best to your preferred lifestyle. The fear is covered over with prayer to whatever mystical being strikes your fancy.

  412. #415 David Marjanovi?
    April 12, 2010

    it is unlikely the christians’ supposed deity-manifest had nails driven through his palms or through the front of his feet, if he had nails driven through them at all -

    Are these details even in the Bible to start with?

    Also, the word ‘chrestos’ in those ages meant both ‘good’ and ‘simple-minded’

    Well, yes, and plenty of Romans noticed. However, the word you need is “christos”, with iota rather than eta; it means “anointed”, compare chrisam oil.

    peridaelia (or however it is spelled)

    Pareidolia.

    So that’s a possible evolutionary reason why we feel an urge to give thanks even when we know that there is nobody to thank.

    Thanks, but… as far as I can tell, I don’t feel any such urge. :-)

    How you wouldn’t use these words is an irrelevant idiosyncrasy and what you would say about them is mistaken.

    Right back at you. :-)

    … I’m not so sure. It’s a fact that there is no greatest prime, and I can prove it. It’s also a fact that I know pi to more than 10 decimals and I can prove it: 3.14159265358979…

    By “fact” I mean “piece of physical reality”, not “piece of math”. Math is different ? it can prove.

    Here is the definition of “fact” I use. (The page is good in general, except for getting the definition of “principle or law” completely wrong.)

    saw it, couldn’t be bothered with it, since it makes no bloody sense. I hate it when people use “poetical” or stream-of-consciousness writing in information-exchanges. the two forms don’t mix well (unless you’re Cuttlefish, that is)

    Seconded.

  413. #416 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Jadehawk:

    I hate it when people use “poetical” or stream-of-consciousness writing in information-exchanges. the two forms don’t mix well

    Same here. Yeah, some people can do it well, but lolidiot is not one of them.

  414. #417 Kel, OM
    April 12, 2010

    What? I consider this an important point; if you take a scientific theory on faith, you’re doing it wrong.

    Of course, but the issue is the conflation of the word belief to mean faith. I’d argue that it doesn’t. To say one “believes” evolution to be true or “believes in” evolution doesn’t necessarily imply a faith position.

  415. #418 Katharine
    April 12, 2010

    “We, just like any other living thing, have programmed deep into our DNA the code to NOT DIE! If you see something bad, defend yourself, run, hide, do something, anything to keep alive! Because that’s the goal. Don’t die.”

    Technically, if you think about it, it’s not so much ‘not die’ as in ‘live long enough to reproduce’.

    Some of us don’t want to reproduce anyway.

  416. #419 CJO
    April 12, 2010

    Are these details even in the Bible to start with?

    No. All four gospels have just “they crucified him.” John gets into the most detail, reporting that they didn’t break his legs because he was already dead (unblemished sacrifice per Exodus 12) and that they pierced his side with a spear, from which blood and water flowed (eucharistic/baptismal imagery).

    The later specificity of being nailed to the cross probably arose from the passages in the prophetic literature and the Psalter about the righteous one being pierced. And it makes better torture-porn.

  417. #420 SteveM
    April 12, 2010

    re 419:

    No. All four gospels have just “they crucified him.” John gets into the most detail, reporting that they didn’t break his legs because he was already dead

    Gospel of John:

    24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

    25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

  418. #421 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Katharine @ 418:

    Technically, if you think about it, it’s not so much ‘not die’ as in ‘live long enough to reproduce’.

    Right. The drive is to be healthy enough and live long enough to breed, and to continue living long enough to ensure the safety of your offspring.

    Some of us don’t want to reproduce anyway.

    Yep. I’m childfree, never wanted them. Even so, the basic drive to continue existing is still there, and when you basically derive joy out of your life, you continue to have an incentive to stay alive which goes further than the simple drive to breed.

  419. #422 SteveM
    April 12, 2010

    re 420:

    oops, that was John, chapter 20.

  420. #423 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    By “fact” I mean “piece of physical reality”

    That I know something is a “piece of physical reality” — it’s a fact about the physical states of my brain; sheesh. And again, your restrictions on the use of these words are irrelevant idiosyncrasies — a “fact” is something that is true; “there is no greatest prime” is a fact, as is “all bachelors are unmarried”.

  421. #424 CJO
    April 12, 2010

    Ah, that’s right. I’d forgotten that John’s post-resurrection Jesus bore the marks of the nails in his hands.

    Thanks Steve.

  422. #425 anotherhuman
    April 12, 2010

    Technically, if you think about it, it’s not so much ‘not die’ as in ‘live long enough to reproduce’.

    Some of us don’t want to reproduce anyway.

    Well yeah, that’s very true. It’s very curious how not everyone wants to reproduce, since that’s how our DNA survives. I mean it seems like you give anyone long enough and they’ll have a deep desire to have kids.

    But then there are a lot of emotionally self-destructive actions we can take upon ourselves. Such as eating poorly, or suicidal depressiveness.

  423. #426 David Marjanovi?
    April 12, 2010

    and that they pierced his side with a spear, from which blood and water flowed (eucharistic/baptismal imagery).

    Also a sign that heartbeat had ceased quite some time earlier. The story puts a lot of emphasis on Jesus really dying.

    It’s very curious how not everyone wants to reproduce, since that’s how our DNA survives. I mean it seems like you give anyone long enough and they’ll have a deep desire to have kids.

    But kids don’t come from wanting to have kids. They come from fucking.

  424. #427 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    anotherhuman:

    I mean it seems like you give anyone long enough and they’ll have a deep desire to have kids.

    It doesn’t work that way. I knew I didn’t want kids before I was 10 years old. Some people want them, some don’t, some will go either way.

    But then there are a lot of emotionally self-destructive actions we can take upon ourselves. Such as eating poorly, or suicidal depressiveness.

    Please tell me you aren’t being an assclown here and suggesting that not wanting to have kids is an emotionally self-destructive action.

  425. #428 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    But kids don’t come from wanting to have kids. They come from fucking.

    yeah, the whole concept of “wanting kids” has only really become meaningful with the advent of reliable contraception. previously, the only alternative was a convent.

  426. #429 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    Thanks, but… as far as I can tell, I don’t feel any such urge. :-)

    It doesn’t need to be said that you are an exceptional human being. ;)

  427. #430 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    P.S.

    Here is the definition of “fact” I use.

    FACT It is very difficult to define exactly what a fact is. Many popular dictionaries try very hard to define a fact, and most still get it wrong.

    This is stupid and arrogant; the dictionary definitions of “fact” are considerably more accurate in their description of linguistic usage than are you and Poling.

    But this is a silly sidetrack; you introduced the word “fact” to refer to my examples of ” there are atoms and black holes” and “there’s a Higgs boson”; those are facts by the definition you offer. And the existence of atoms has been proven by science, as I said. See #376 for how irritating it can be to deny it.

  428. #431 echidna
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter,

    So wishful thinking and projection is common across cultures. That’s nice, but it really doesn’t provide any evidence for the existence of a soul.

  429. #432 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Of course, but the issue is the conflation of the word belief to mean faith. I’d argue that it doesn’t. To say one “believes” evolution to be true or “believes in” evolution doesn’t necessarily imply a faith position.

    Correct, as was your previous accusation of word games. Belief does not imply faith and its downright illiterate to claim it does. And we’ve had this discussion here before … this would be a good place for SC to step in and note that we should not yield the perfectly good word “believe” to the faithheads, has she has done before.

  430. #433 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 12, 2010

    KOPD #396

    I’m a fan of sci-fi shows such as Star Trek and Stargate, though each has spin-offs that I think should have been brutally executed immediately. I do not like long walks on the beach, because I don’t like long walks of any kind. Maybe a nice bicycle ride along the boardwalk would be pleasant, but walking bothers my knee.

    Do you like pina coladas?
    Getting caught in the rain?
    And the feel of the ocean?
    And the taste of champagne?
    Do you like making love at midnight
    In the dunes of the Cape?

  431. #434 David Marjanovi?
    April 12, 2010

    yeah, the whole concept of “wanting kids” has only really become meaningful with the advent of reliable contraception.

    This goes both ways. Every once in a while, it happens that a couple wants to have children but doesn’t have any for years, and then it turns out both partners come from so religious families they don’t know how to make children. Not everyone finds that out on their own.

    A few decades ago, the Yanomami in the Amazon rainforest knew full well about sex, and had lots of it (plenty of rape included), but had no idea it was the cause of pregnancy.

    And the existence of atoms has been proven by science, as I said.

    It happens that an idea turns out to be a fact. This applies to the Earth being (approximately) spherical, which was a hypothesis in antiquity but is a trivially observed fact nowadays, and to the former hypothesis that atoms exist.

  432. #435 David Marjanovi?
    April 12, 2010

    this would be a good place for SC to step in and note that we should not yield the perfectly good word “believe” to the faithheads, has she has done before.

    I don’t yield it. I distinguish believe from believe in, and I’m surprised you don’t seem to have noticed.

  433. #436 anotherhuman
    April 12, 2010

    Please tell me you aren’t being an assclown here and suggesting that not wanting to have kids is an emotionally self-destructive action.

    I figured that comment would strike a nerve. Well forget how I worded it, and just focus on the question of: if we are made to reproduce, why do some of us avoid it? Your answer would be: because I enjoy my life the way it is and don’t want/need kids.

    Well, ok. Good. Don’t do something you don’t want to. There are plenty of parents out there, who should not be parents and are raising horrible kids because they didn’t want kids to begin with. So it’s not whats right or wrong with your decision. I’m just saying you’re emotions are taking the lead on that decision, the same way the person who is depressed goes against the almighty desire to live because they are following their emotions, and not their animal instincts.

    You want sex because your animal instincts wants to make kids. Even if you think you don’t, your body is still trying to make babies every time you get turned on.

  434. #437 SC OM
    April 12, 2010

    And we’ve had this discussion here before … this would be a good place for SC to step in and note that we should not yield the perfectly good word “believe” to the faithheads, has she has done before.

    Huh. I thought that was your argument. I was just talking about evidence-based and non-evidenced-based belief on that irritating thread at Thoughts from Kansas and I felt like some of the points were yours. It’s been so long I’m confused… Could we (and Knockgoats) really be one another’s sockpuppets and just not realize it?

    :)

  435. #438 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 12, 2010

    evergreenotter #335

    The soul is something humans have been contemplating since recorded history and likely before it. Before you reject that as subjective, consider how much of medical and psychological research relies on people’s reported experiences that cannot be physically measured but inform our understanding of a related issue.

    When a seemingly immaterial phenomenon occurs in multiple cultural and historical contexts it is worthy of serious consideration.

    Intelligent, diligent people have searched for evidence of the soul for millennia. While there’s been plenty of wishful thinking, “well, everyone knows…”, and dogmatic utterances, actual evidence for souls’ existence has been lacking. This doesn’t mean souls are absolutely disproved, but it does indicate the probability of souls is vanishingly small.

  436. #439 CJO
    April 12, 2010

    A few decades ago, the Yanomami in the Amazon rainforest knew full well about sex, and had lots of it (plenty of rape included), but had no idea it was the cause of pregnancy.

    Really?! Are we sure some bad ethnography wasn’t involved here? There have certainly been instances in which the subjects of study were found to be having a spot of fun with their observers.

  437. #440 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    It happens that an idea turns out to be a fact.

    Uh, is that supposed to contradict what I said? because it doesn’t. Again, science proves things by predicting them and then verifying the predictions.

    was a hypothesis in antiquity

    Uh, by science predicting atoms I’m talking about Dalton et. al., not Democritus. And again I offer Tiktaalik — the idea came from science and that it “turned out” to be a fact isn’t some random coincidence but rather was a result of valid theory. You can insist that science doesn’t prove anything, but you can only support that by playing word games or worse.

  438. #441 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    anotherhuman:

    I’m just saying you’re emotions are taking the lead on that decision, the same way the person who is depressed goes against the almighty desire to live because they are following their emotions, and not their animal instincts.

    You’re indulging in a lot of wrong here. “Animal instincts” aren’t all that great. As for my emotions “taking the lead” in my decision to be childfree? Wrong. It was something I thought about rationally. I do not have an “animal” maternal instinct. I thought about the possibility of breeding anyway, I considered all my options. That’s hardly an emotionally led decision. As I said, I knew from a young age I did not want children. I’m now 52. I have never once regretted not breeding.

    You want sex because your animal instincts wants to make kids. Even if you think you don’t, your body is still trying to make babies every time you get turned on.

    Wrong again. I enjoy sex because it’s pleasurable. I also enjoy it as another form of intimacy with my partner, whether that partner has been male or female. And wrong on the “my body wants to make babies!” front too. I was sterilized before I was 20, I went through menopause at 36. Before I was sterilized, the thought of possibly becoming pregnant was a *huge* turnoff for me. Always has been.

    Anyway, the bottom line is: yes, you are an assclown. You could have said that with way fewer words.

  439. #442 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 12, 2010

    CJO #439

    A few decades ago, the Yanomami in the Amazon rainforest knew full well about sex, and had lots of it (plenty of rape included), but had no idea it was the cause of pregnancy.

    Really?! Are we sure some bad ethnography wasn’t involved here?

    Just another example of anti-storkist dogma.

  440. #443 PZ Myers
    April 12, 2010

    There is no “have kids” instinct. There isn’t even a “have sex” instinct. There is a pretty good hardwired stimulus/response pathway between your genitals and your brain. That’s been good enough for our evolution.

  441. #444 Brownian, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Long ago, I was taught that humor was a good indicator of reading and comprehension skills.

    As recently as post 397, I was reminded of how often a poor, inexperienced, or otherwise-having-a-bad-day comic will resort to inchoate audience-baiting to cover for a routine that’s failing.

  442. #445 CJO
    April 12, 2010

    It’s methodological anti-storkism.

  443. #446 Brownian, OM
    April 12, 2010

    You want sex because your animal instincts wants to make kids.

    The evidence makes it pretty clear that my neighbour’s dog’s instincts wants it to make baby shins.

  444. #447 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I distinguish believe from believe in, and I’m surprised you don’t seem to have noticed.

    Sorry David, but you are the one who is not noticing . Kel rightly pointed out that you were “playing word games”, since you wrote “believe in” in response to Kel’s point against conflating belief with faith, which was a response to Al B. Quirky, who only put ‘believe’ in quotes, not ‘believe in’. But go ahead, keep playing if it amuses you.

  445. #448 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Another example is “I believe in the efficacy of the scientific method”, which means the same thing as “I believe that the scientific method is efficacious”, but the latter is a lot more awkward. Both are based on reason and evidence. “believe in” often involves faith but it doesn’t necessarily involve faith. To insist that someone who says that they “believe in” a scientific theory is “doing it wrong” based on a restricted interpretation of the words “believe in” rather than on whether they actually have rational reasons to accept the theory is to play word games.

  446. #449 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    P.S.

    The cases where “believe in” involve faith are usually statements of existence, since as “I believe in God” or “I believe in the afterlife”. But clearly “I believe in the theory of evolution” is not a merely claim that the theory of evolution exists, it’s claim that the theory is valid — a belief that is usually evidnce-based. “I believe in evolution” is an existence claim of sorts, but means something like “I believe that evolution occurs” — a belief that is usually evidence-based.

  447. #450 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I’m just saying you’re emotions are taking the lead on that decision, the same way the person who is depressed goes against the almighty desire to live because they are following their emotions, and not their animal instincts.

    Uh, you are aware that emotions are a product of evolution, aren’t you? I’ve seen plenty of people denigrate emotions versus “logic”, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone denigrate them versus “animal instincts”.

  448. #451 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Huh. I thought that was your argument.

    My argument is primarily that belief doesn’t imply faith; I seem to recall that you introduced the idea that we were giving in to the faithheads by refusing to use the word, but I could well be mistaken — I can’t find the thread I was thinking of.

    I was just talking about evidence-based and non-evidenced-based belief on that irritating thread at Thoughts from Kansas and I felt like some of the points were yours. It’s been so long I’m confused… Could we (and Knockgoats) really be one another’s sockpuppets and just not realize it?
    :)

    If so, you have some retracting to do over at Deltoid. :-)

  449. #452 strange gods before me ?
    April 12, 2010

    I figured that comment would strike a nerve.

    Pat yourself on the back, then.

    Well forget how I worded it,

    Fuck you.

    if we are made to reproduce,

    There’s your problem, or one of them. We aren’t “made to reproduce.” We aren’t made to do anything. Purposes do not exist, except in the imagination.

    I’m just saying you’re emotions are taking the lead on that decision, the same way the person who is depressed goes against the almighty desire to live because they are following their emotions, and not their animal instincts.

    Emotions plus rational decision-making are taking the lead, you mean. And there’s nothing wrong with that, nothing that qualifies to be equated with poor dietary habits.

    Animal instinct in many cases is mediated by emotion, so can hardly be superior to emotion.

    The tendency to do whatever one’s emotions suggest is so powerful among mammals that it doesn’t even need to be transmitted as instinct. Instinct is necessary only for those behaviors that animals would be too fucking stupid to figure out on their own; this does not exactly suggest that instinct is the ultimate purity by which all impure human motivations should be measured.

    You want sex because your animal instincts wants to make kids. Even if you think you don’t, your body is still trying to make babies every time you get turned on.

    PZ beat me to this, but your instincts do not even know what “making babies” entails. Instincts do not know anything, or desire anything. There are not two separate sets of desires, one based in emotion and one based in instinct.

    On the contrary, humans have very few instincts. Infants root for a nipple instinctively. That’s the only one I can recall, and perhaps an ethologist could list a few more for us, but the list would demonstrate that instincts among humans are few and rarely exhibited.

  450. #453 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    You want sex because your animal instincts wants to make kids.

    Have you ever masturbated? Did you do it because your animal instincts want to make kids? How can animal instincts even want anything? That’s a category mistake.

    Even if you think you don’t, your body is still trying to make babies every time you get turned on.

    Category mistake, misattributed teleology, and dualistic division between self and body.

  451. #454 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    truth machine, OM:

    Category mistake, misattributed teleology, and dualistic division between self and body.

    Yes, yes, yes. Apparently, what I wanted when it came breeding didn’t matter. Guess it’s a good thing I fought it out with my so-called instincts, eh? Geez.

  452. #455 matthewpopester
    April 12, 2010

    Though he is right to say that having no soul is not a depressing thing, it is hard to take someone seriously on a discussion of this nature when half his discussion consists of emotive language. It sounds more like an angry rant than like a reasoned discourse.

    Regardless, religion is not irrelevant; research shows that it has useful societal and psychological functions. Psychologically, religion reduces stress and helps people deal with emotional trauma and decision making. Sociologically, it reinforces societal norms, promotes societal solidarity, and provides a basis for morality.

    I don’t really want to dig through my lecture notes to find references right now, but if you search APA and ASA publications, you’ll find studies on it.

    Also, going by the principle’s in Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason.

  453. #456 SC OM
    April 12, 2010

    [Yay! strange gods is back! (Got your email btw, but have been incommunicative for a while now for a number of reasons. Plan to write soon.)]

    My argument is primarily that belief doesn’t imply faith; I seem to recall that you introduced the idea that we were giving in to the faithheads by refusing to use the word, but I could well be mistaken — I can’t find the thread I was thinking of.

    Ah, now that I think about it, I believe (:P) you’re right. I do recall making that argument.

    If so, you have some retracting to do over at Deltoid. :-)

    I may well. You pretty much took the words out of my fingertips in your comment to Lee this afternoon.

    :)

  454. #457 strange gods before me ?
    April 12, 2010

    it is hard to take someone seriously on a discussion of this nature when half his discussion consists of emotive language.

    You poor thing. Want me to kiss it and make it better?

  455. #458 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Regardless, religion is not irrelevant;

    Irrelevant, illogical, and unnecessary. Sounds like religion. Not needed buy intelligent rational folks.

  456. #459 strange gods before me ?
    April 12, 2010

    Thanks, SC! Feels good to be noticed. :)

    Yay! strange gods is back!

    Intermittently, and still busy as hell.

    (Got your email btw, but have been incommunicative for a while now for a number of reasons. Plan to write soon.)

    No problem!

  457. #460 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    matthewpopester @ 455:

    provides a basis for morality.

    You think so, do you? Tell me, how do you feel about the standards of morality the catholic religion lays down? Child abuse, child rape, aiding, abetting and covering up criminal actions, spending obscene amounts of money to tell people that condoms are not effective in HIV prevention, leading to a consistent stream of deaths, channeling money into making sure gay marriage won’t happen, refusing shelter, food and medical aid to the ill and dying unless they accept god according to catholicism and so on?

    Yeah, that’s a fine basis for morality, you dimwitted apologist.

  458. #461 echidna
    April 12, 2010

    Matthewpopester said:

    Sociologically, it reinforces societal norms, promotes societal solidarity, and provides a basis for morality.

    Oh, that’s a good joke. The social norm that priests and bishops, cardinals and popes are holy men, who are irreproachable.

  459. #462 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    Psychologically, religion reduces stress and helps people deal with emotional trauma and decision making.
    -matthewpopester

    You cannot generalize that from one possibly true case to all religions for all people.

    Sociologically, it reinforces societal norms, promotes societal solidarity, and provides a basis for morality.

    OK, now you are just lying.

    atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason.

    Typical theist fumble. By putting it that way, by using the equation of atheism with religion to denigrate atheism, you cheapen your own religion.

  460. #463 Brownian, OM
    April 12, 2010

    It sounds more like an angry rant than like a reasoned discourse.

    “Air is mainly composed of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, which together constitute the major gases of the atmosphere.”

    “Fucking air is mainly composed of nitrogen, that shit-fucking gas oxygen, and argon, which together constitute the major motherfucking gases of the atmosphere, assholes!”

    By gum, the first is truer than the second! Thanks, Dr. Tone!

    Regardless, religion is not irrelevant; research shows that it has useful societal and psychological functions. Psychologically, religion reduces stress and helps people deal with emotional trauma and decision making.

    Slavery helps everyone take a load off (well, not the slaves). Are people in error when they argue against it?

    Sociologically, it reinforces societal norms, promotes societal solidarity, and provides a basis for morality.

    So does racism and genocide. Nothing says societal solidarity like ethnic homogeneity.

    Also, going by the principle’s in Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason.

    Did Durkheim call atheism a religion that worships science and reason, or are you making an appeal to authority? If not, then please describe how atheism fits Durkheim’s criteria, paying attention to explaining the existence atheists who care not a fig for science and reason.

    For someone who places so much primacy on religious belief and then goes on to call us believers, you certainly aren’t very accommodating of our rituals.

  461. #464 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage:

    Typical theist fumble.

    Yes. I’ve come to loathe the atheists worship
    parroting line as much as the atheists=hedonistic lifestyle parroting line.

    Both of them are cop-outs as well as being stupid. I don’t worship anything. If I felt I needed to worship, I’d be a theist.

  462. #465 KOPD
    April 12, 2010

    This topic reminds me of an underrated song.

  463. #466 Brownian, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I don’t worship anything. If I felt I needed to worship, I’d be a theist.

    It’s pretty damning of theist’s beliefs, if they’d ever stop quoting others long enough to think on it.

    See, what “atheism is just another religion” means is that they think deep down everybody needs to worship something, and thus it hardly matters what that something is.

    It places one’s religious beliefs on par with where somebody was born. “Hell, as long as I was gonna believe in something (I mean, everybody’s got a religion, even those atheists) it might as well b—hey, that’s not fair; my religion is true!”

  464. #467 WowbaggerOM
    April 12, 2010

    matthewpopester wrote:

    It sounds more like an angry rant than like a reasoned discourse.

    Funny, it looks like both to me. The two aren’t mutually exclusive to the intellectually honest.

    Regardless, religion is not irrelevant; research shows that it has useful societal and psychological functions.

    Do these studies you allude to specify why such benefits can only be achieved via religion and that the same ‘useful functions’ could not be achieved by other, secular means?

    Sociologically, it reinforces societal norms and promotes societal solidarity..

    Are all societal norms good things? Racism was a ‘societal norm’ in a ‘solid society’, after all; homophobia and sexism, sadly, still are in many places – mostly because of religion.

    …and provides a basis for morality.

    Wrong. Religion has simply taken credit for the morality resulting from human social evolution and given it to gods – much like the gods were once also responsible for thunder, lightning and rainbows. Now that we understand nature better we can stop giving credit where it isn’t due, and put it back where it belongs – with evolution.

    atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason.

    A stone may ‘seem’ to keep away tigers* – to someone lacking in critical thinking skills. And, as others have noted, by making such a statement you’re criticising in atheism something you consider a virtue in religion – why?

    *Hat-tip to The Simpsons for that particular analogy. I don’t want to pay the Bear Tax, either.

  465. #468 aratina cage
    April 12, 2010

    Caine,

    Yeah. It is almost like they know that we have something better (evidence to point to for our beliefs [see the discussion about beliefs above] and liberation from the Irate Sky Ape perhaps?) and they are jealous of it. I wonder what it means to “worship something” to people like matthewpopster.

  466. #469 strange gods before me ?
    April 12, 2010

    For someone who places so much primacy on religious belief and then goes on to call us believers, you certainly aren’t very accommodating of our rituals.

    Lol!

  467. #470 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Brownian, OM @ 466:

    It places one’s religious beliefs on par with where somebody was born. “Hell, as long as I was gonna believe in something (I mean, everybody’s got a religion, even those atheists) it might as well b?hey, that’s not fair; my religion is true!”

    Amen. I’m always struck by just how weak they always make their “great faith” out to be.

  468. #471 PZ Myers
    April 12, 2010

    Complaining about my “emotive language,” too. Fuck you very much, Mr Spock, another of my least favorite stereotypes.

  469. #472 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    it is hard to take someone seriously on a discussion of this nature when half his discussion consists of emotive language. It sounds more like an angry rant than like a reasoned discourse

    Emotion is not antithetical to reason. And in re this specific article, the denial that it is reasoned is intellectually dishonest, and simply looks like a rationalization for dismissal as not serious.

    atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason

    You seem not to know the meanings of most of those words. Atheism is the disbelief in gods (and, often, souls), not a form of totemism, and valuing or appreciating something, or even taking it as a principle, is not the same as worshipping it.

  470. #473 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    What am I, PZ’s sockpuppet?

    :-)

  471. #474 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 12, 2010

    matthewpopester #455

    Also, going by the principle’s [sic] in Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason.

    mile Durkheim’s essence of religion is the concept of the sacred, that being the only phenomenon which unites all religions. Sacred can be defined as “considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas.”

    “‘A religion’, writes Durkheim, ‘is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.'”

    I have never read Durkheim, only Pals’ commentary on him. However, it appears to me atheism fails to meet Durkheim’s definition of religion. I can intellectually understand the concept of sacred but I, personally, don’t find anything to be sacred. As for “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things,” I don’t have one. “There’s no evidence for deities” is too simple a belief to have any practices relative to it.

    There’s the further point that not all atheists are rational materialists who “worship science and reason.” In fact, I don’t know of anyone who “worships science and reason.” Nope, we don’t pass muster for a Durkheimian religion.

    Daniel Pals, Seven Theories of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Page 54.

    Ibid.

    Op cit, page 58.

  472. #475 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    aratina cage:

    I wonder what it means to “worship something” to people like matthewpopster.

    I don’t know. I do know that people who go through life feeling as though every tiny action must be given up to a god, in order to glorify said god are beyond sad and pathetic.

    It’s a real shame to live life like that; never being responsible for a single thing, running under the assumption that every iota of daily minutiae is all god god god god god god god god.

  473. #476 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    truth machine, in the matrix, you’re everyone’s sockpuppet!

  474. #477 strange gods before me ?
    April 12, 2010

    Googling for “bear tax” reveals the damage this unnecessary tax is wreaking upon small businesses.

    “bear tax compliance costs”

    “bear tax service”

    “bear tax burdens”

    “bear tax amnesty plan”

    Amnesty or no, this bear tax is fundamentally an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. I’m angry enough to become a teabagger.

  475. #478 DominEditrix
    April 12, 2010

    Caine @460:

    Tell me, how do you feel about the standards of morality the catholic religion lays down?

    Oh, all those little children tempting those innocent priests into raping them were weapons of the Devil, who, along with those Christ-killing Jewish folk are trying to take down the One True Church?. The OTC’s morality and standards are pure and superior, what with being God-given and all, but ever since that Eve woman and the pomegranate apple, life has been soooo hard for priests righteous men who are constantly being lured, seduced, bewitched and otherwise forced into violating their Very Good and Moral beliefs.

    [I have this bridge, goes both ways, Brooklyn/Manhattan..]

  476. #479 'Tis Himself, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Caine, Fleur du mal #475

    It’s a real shame to live life like that; never being responsible for a single thing, running under the assumption that every iota of daily minutiae is all god god god god god god god god.

    matthewpopester’s god is likely to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who’s deeply concerned about matthewpopester’s sex life.

  477. #480 Brownian, OM
    April 12, 2010

    What am I, PZ’s sockpuppet?

    Brilliant. Still laughing.

  478. #481 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    I mean it seems like you give anyone long enough and they’ll have a deep desire to have kids.

    It seems like you abandoned this silly claim.

  479. #482 Ol'Greg
    April 12, 2010

    Psychologically, religion reduces stress and helps people deal with emotional trauma and decision making.

    Speak for yourself and yourself alone.

    Because it was not so for me. In fact reducing stress and healing from severe trauma was not helped in any way by religion for me, and in fact getting away from religion helped me tremendously.

    I really learned to value my life more, and recognize how I had not taken control of my own life. Powerlessness, learned helplessness, dependence on men, all these things I had to learn to conquer. Religion didn’t help me make a single good decision in my life. It just didn’t.

    Recognizing how and why I was in so much pain, and then figuring out what to try and do about it has taken a lot of time.

    Realizing that I have one shot at life to try and take care of myself meant a lot more, realizing that I don’t inherently have less potential or less intrinsic worth than some people helped a lot, and realizing I could act to try and control at least some of my life helped a lot. Not to mention that, also recognizing that other people all around me are reacting and changing due to their own life experience helped me to forgive, and forgiveness (although not in a mistake-repeating way) is important because it hurts to carry around too much anger.

    Dunno about the rest of that junk but I think religion gets way too much credit for psychological healing. It takes real work that you do yourself and no amount of self-delusion will help you when you really have to face your own problems honestly.

  480. #483 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    DominEditrix @ 478:

    ever since that Eve woman and the pomegranate apple, life has been soooo hard for priests righteous men who are constantly being lured, seduced, bewitched and otherwise forced into violating their Very Good and Moral beliefs.

    Oh, that’s right. Thank you for reminding me, it’s all our fault, having the nerve to exist with girly bits. I don’t know what old El Shaddai was thinking, he should have done the smart thing and blitzed the evil of female right off the planet, and set up half the men with handy birthin’ bits. Then there would be no problems at all. Yep.

  481. #484 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    ‘Tis Himself, OM:

    matthewpopester’s god is likely to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who’s deeply concerned about matthewpopester’s sex life.

    You’re probably right. To me, that’s an excellent reason to drop the god myth.

  482. #485 Ol'Greg
    April 12, 2010

    If we had no true purpose than why isn’t everybody behaving like the primates we evolved from?

    My mom makes this argument some times but not about evolution, she’s ok with that. Just about needing there to be a reason, a point, and for her she can’t accept most reasons (heck she’s not even happy with God wants it).

    I’m not sure how to approach those kinds of questions because there’s always just “been” for me, and that’s meant a lot. I mean there are lots of reasons so I have trouble understanding why there has to be some supreme reason and why all the little reasons can’t matter enough for some.

    But I’d ask you, if you’re still around, what a “true purpose” is anyway? And why you assume other primates wouldn’t have one if there was one?

  483. #486 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    This goes both ways. Every once in a while, it happens that a couple wants to have children but doesn’t have any for years, and then it turns out both partners come from so religious families they don’t know how to make children. Not everyone finds that out on their own.

    just how sexually repressed (or repulsed by your spouse, i suppose) do you have to be to not accidentally figure this out?

    rubbing against each other is fun; rubbing against each other naked is even more fun. and once you get there, sex sooner or later just happens.

    do they just refuse to ever get naked, thus never get to the rubbing genitals part?

  484. #487 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Ol’Greg, the 17 year old who made the primate comment did come back and confess to a great deal of doubt in regard to his christian beliefs. A lot of people offered help and suggestions; he/she hasn’t been back since.

  485. #488 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    Jadehawk, remember the ‘Secret Garden’ post? The nun or whatever explained that you get babies by embracing your lawfully wedded husband? If people have been brought up sufficiently smothered sheltered, they can literally think it’s all about the huggin’.

  486. #489 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    If people have been brought up sufficiently smothered sheltered, they can literally think it’s all about the huggin’

    Yeah, but such beliefs can come about quite innocuously.

  487. #490 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Though he is right to say that having no soul is not a depressing thing, it is hard to take someone seriously on a discussion of this nature when half his discussion consists of emotive language. It sounds more like an angry rant than like a reasoned discourse.

    tone-troll

    Regardless, religion is not irrelevant; research shows that it has useful societal and psychological functions. Psychologically, religion reduces stress and helps people deal with emotional trauma and decision making. Sociologically, it reinforces societal norms, promotes societal solidarity, and provides a basis for morality.

    um… no. community has useful sociological and psychological functions. And in a society otherwise as fractured and enamored with the myth of individualism, religion is one of the last existing communities.

    I don’t really want to dig through my lecture notes to find references right now, but if you search APA and ASA publications, you’ll find studies on it.

    do those notes of yours mention the difference between toxic (exclusive) community, and healthy (inclusive) community? because in many cases, religion tends towards the former more than the latter, especially in the USA.

    Also, going by the principle’s in Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, atheism seems to be a religion that worships science and reason.

    projection. nobody is worshiping anything. there’s nothing “sacred”, no unified (or otherwise) system of beliefs,and there’s no unifying moral guidelines of atheism. you totally fail on this one.

  488. #491 Ol'Greg
    April 12, 2010

    Ol’Greg, the 17 year old who made the primate comment did come back and confess to a great deal of doubt in regard to his christian beliefs. A lot of people offered help and suggestions; he/she hasn’t been back since.

    Oh well. Sorry for skimming. I wish him well.

  489. #492 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Jadehawk, remember the ‘Secret Garden’ post? The nun or whatever explained that you get babies by embracing your lawfully wedded husband? If people have been brought up sufficiently smothered sheltered, they can literally think it’s all about the huggin’.

    no amount of facepalming can do justice here

  490. #493 Ol'Greg
    April 12, 2010

    just how sexually repressed (or repulsed by your spouse, i suppose) do you have to be to not accidentally figure this out?

    I don’t know about contemporary examples that don’t involve mental impairment, but supposedly (and this could be one of history’s great fables) Anne of Cleaves truly did not understand that she could not get pregnant from being held or kissed by Henry VIII, which probably helped her ego a bit considering Henry apparently found her completely unattractive.

    It’s not unthinkable that some one who isn’t that sexual by nature could be raised also with so little understanding of it that they don’t notice.

  491. #494 DLC
    April 12, 2010

    PZ Myers #471 :

    “. . .Mr Spock, another of my least favorite stereotypes.”

    I know what you mean — Spock was too often McCoy or Kirk’s whipping boy “Damn you and your Logic, Spock!” — but he was one of my favorite characters, insisting on a logical reason for any belief, and always cool under the worst of circumstances. Perhaps my fondness for the Mr Spock character is Illogical, but I always liked him.

  492. #495 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 12, 2010

    truth machine:

    Yeah, but such beliefs can come about quite innocuously.

    Oh yes, they can. In cases like that though, it’s not a deliberate smothering, it’s more a case of convenience until a child is older.

    There were girls I went to catholic school with who were subject to intense conditioning and sheltering on the sex front. The only thing these girls knew, upon becoming women and getting married was that now, somehow or another, a baby would happen. They had no knowledge whatsoever in regard to the act of sexual intercourse.

  493. #496 truth machine, OM
    April 12, 2010

    Every once in a while, it happens that a couple wants to have children but doesn’t have any for years, and then it turns out both partners come from so religious families they don’t know how to make children. Not everyone finds that out on their own.

    Sometimes even turning to the web doesn’t help.

  494. #497 Pareidolius
    April 12, 2010

    Had to check out that dogpile on a.human.ape. I totally skipped the whole “I wouldn’t miss it if there were no gay men in the world” flame war from the link @160. Guess ape didn’t make the dungeon yet. That whole thing was a trip down the rabbit hole of severe emotional disorder. This homo’s totally signing up for Josh’s Fightin’ Faggots? Brigade [NorCal Troop N42.]

  495. #498 Jadehawk, OM
    April 12, 2010

    It’s not unthinkable that some one who isn’t that sexual by nature could be raised also with so little understanding of it that they don’t notice.

    hmmm, yes, I can see that. if you don’t actually have much of a drive to do any rubbing, then you’re not going to figure it out…

    There were girls I went to catholic school with who were subject to intense conditioning and sheltering on the sex front. The only thing these girls knew, upon becoming women and getting married was that now, somehow or another, a baby would happen. They had no knowledge whatsoever in regard to the act of sexual intercourse.

    that’s some impressive sheltering.

    anyway, clearly my unsheltered central European upbringing did not prepare me for the possibility of such strong conditioning that could prevent one from figuring this out, accidentally or otherwise.

  496. #499 Pygmy Loris
    April 12, 2010

    But then there are a lot of emotionally self-destructive actions we can take upon ourselves. Such as eating poorly, or suicidal depressiveness.

    I think one of these things is not like the other. Depression is a mental illness, not a choice, jackass.

  497. #500 Sven DiMilo
    April 12, 2010

    Mr. Spock is Teh Man. (Well, half Teh Vulcan, but still.) He said what Kirk needed to hear, not what Kirk wanted to hear. He spoke logic to power. And he was often fascinated.

  498. #501 anotherhuman
    April 12, 2010

    There is entirely too much self pride getting in the way of all intelligent responses to my second and third entry. I was looking for a discussion, and instead I got a whole bunch of butt-hurt reactions. Look, never was I saying depression was a choice. I was strictly pointing out that when someone is so emotionally upset, they are capable of ending their one and only life. And I believe the point of every life is to live, therefore emotions must be more powerful than hundreds of thousands of years of programming in your DNA to keep living.

    Also, people. Dogs humping legs doesn’t change my mind about that dog’s instinct to have sex so it can reproduce. Nor does the “argument” that masturbating is strictly done for fun. Wise up. Get past your pride and think about it. Where is your urge to masturbate coming from. You saw someone do it once and you thought that would be fun? Dammit. That urge is deep within you, just like the baby’s urge to root for the nipple like someone else said. Your body wants sex, your body makes you think about getting off, you take action to make that urge go away. Even if you have become habitual about it, that’s you’re own doing. But, the basic ANIMAL INSTINCT (hahahah i said it again, we’re animals hahahha!! Oh that hurts to hear doesn’t it. Oh so much pride so much pride) is to spread and intermix DNA. And to do that you must mate. End. Jesus christ!

  499. #502 Rey Fox
    April 13, 2010

    “I was looking for a discussion.”

    Sorry, that’s down the hall. It’s Being Hit On The Head Lessons in here.

  500. #503 Jadehawk, OM
    April 13, 2010

    Your body wants sex, your body makes you think about getting off, you take action to make that urge go away. Even if you have become habitual about it, that’s you’re own doing. But, the basic ANIMAL INSTINCT (hahahah i said it again, we’re animals hahahha!! Oh that hurts to hear doesn’t it. Oh so much pride so much pride) is to spread and intermix DNA. And to do that you must mate.

    you’re a fucking moron. we’re fully aware we’re animals. we’re also fully aware that we are our bodies, and that hormones don’t have desires or plans. There’s no instinct that “wants” us to reproduce and for that “goal” “makes” us want to have sex.

    biology simply doesn’t work that way. an instinct is not a willful, planning entity.

  501. #504 windy
    April 13, 2010

    Yeah, but such beliefs can come about quite innocuously.

    I remember being momentarily confused when I first heard that a man and a woman “sleeping together” can make her pregnant. I was already familiar with the regular mammalian way from nature documentaries, so this alternative mode of reproduction seemed unlikely.

  502. #505 hkdharmon
    April 13, 2010

    huh? how do you get 3 genders out of a mythological being that’s 2/3 god, 1/3 human?

    Well, if the guy had a full god parent and a human parent, he would be half and half.
    1/3, 2/3 suggests some sort of weird supernatural threesome between two gods and a lucky (or unlucky) mortal.

  503. #506 Menyambal
    April 13, 2010

    I ran the numbers once on that 2/3 god, 1/3 human business, although I may have used human races instead–I think someone said that they were 2/3 Cherokee. I could not make 2/3 out of any number of ancestors and mixes. But, now that I think of it, I left out incest.

    There’s something to think about as I try to sleep.

  504. #507 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    There is entirely too much self pride getting in the way of all intelligent responses to my second and third entry.

    Hey, jump straight for the ad hominem. But the fact is that you posted a bunch of stupid shit and we’ve explained why it’s stupid.

  505. #508 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    Where is your urge to masturbate coming from. You saw someone do it once and you thought that would be fun? Dammit. That urge is deep within you, just like the baby’s urge to root for the nipple like someone else said.

    Hmm … perhaps anotherhuman isn’t actually human and has never masturbated and doesn’t know anyone who has. More likely, though, anotherhuman is just plain stupid — certainly too stupid to understand PZ’s “There is a pretty good hardwired stimulus/response pathway between your genitals and your brain”. People discover masturbation (like one of David’s facts) — sometimes in fact by seeing someone else do it or or having someone else tell them about it — and when they do they find it very pleasurable and that creates an urge to do it again. Again, as PZ said, “That’s been good enough for our evolution”.

    Your body wants sex

    Again with the category mistakes and misattributed teleology. You are wired in such a way that you get pleasure from sex, which makes you want it.

    the basic ANIMAL INSTINCT [... idiocy that completely misjudges the audience snipped ...] is to spread and intermix DNA

    There is no such instinct, you arrogant fool; such behavior is far to abstract and forward-looking to be instinctual. Rather, there is a set of mechanisms — generated by evolution — that produce that result; instincts are just one mechanism that generate behavior.

  506. #509 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    P.S.

    By anotherhuman’s reasoning, shooting meth must be instinctual — why else would anyone do it? And we should all know the kama sutra instinctually — no need to see, or read about, doing something pleasurable in order to do it.

  507. #510 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    There is entirely too much self pride getting in the way of all intelligent responses to my second and third entry.

    I really had no idea what this cretin was talking about until I got to

    hahahah i said it again, we’re animals hahahha!! Oh that hurts to hear doesn’t it. Oh so much pride so much pride

    BWAHAHAHAHA! This is a fucking evolutionary biology blog, moron! You know, where we evilutionists think that people are some sort of monkey with fish and worms for grandparents.

    Really, if you’re “looking for”a discussion”, you’re going to have to go find people who share your intellectual level.

  508. #511 Aaron Baker
    April 13, 2010

    Talking about masturbation is almost as much fun as masturbating itself; but rather than pile on another hapless visitor to the site, I’ll share another poem I like:

    On Wenlock Edge the wood’s in trouble
    His forest fleece the Wrekin heaves;
    The gale, it plies the saplings double,
    And thick on Severn snow the leaves.

    ‘Twould blow like this through holt and hanger
    When Uricon the city stood:
    ‘Tis the old wind in the old anger,
    But then it threshed another wood.

    Then, ’twas before my time, the Roman
    At yonder heaving hill would stare:
    The blood that warms an English yeoman,
    The thoughts that hurt him, they were there.

    There, like the wind through woods in riot,
    Through him the gale of life blew high;
    The tree of man was never quiet:
    Then ’twas the Roman, now ’tis I.

    The gale, it plies the saplings double,
    It blows so hard, ’twill soon be gone:
    Today the Roman and his trouble
    Are ashes under Uricon.

    –A.E. Housman

    The others I’ve posted haven’t gotten much response (sniff). Maybe some of you can share what you think about gloomy old Housman (a sentimental favorite of mine).

  509. #512 JPS, FCD
    April 13, 2010

    Greetings, Aaron,

    I’ve been a fan of Housman since high school. Never thought he was gloomy — just realistic. I missed your other Housman postings, or I’d have replied earlier.

    But men, by whiles, are sober,
    And think by fits and starts —
    And when they think, they fasten
    Their hands upon their hearts.

    (Quoting from memory, don’t have the preceding stanzas handy.)

  510. #513 https://me.yahoo.com/a/tL1MkU0ghY0gNMrxrvSjJFsEYJYQ0ZIPjQ--#5f870
    April 13, 2010

    a view of nature and human nature totally supportive of science

    PZ…2,300 years ago Epicurus (340-270 BCE) devised a philosophy of nature based on atomism and a philosophy of life (an ethic) based on a rational pleasure principle. You’re simply “rediscovering” views coherently presented at length by Lucretius.

    Xianity has hated Epicurus ever since Paul (fl 50-60 CE) was laughed at when he tried to “convert” Stoic and Epicurean philosophers to his new god (Acts17:18 NIV). Whatever xians hate deserves a closer look as something likely to be good.

    …live like a god among ordinary people. – Epicurus

    Epicurus’ conclusions drawn from his atomism are distilled into four statements. Tetrapharmakos = 4-fold cure for anxiety: what’s the best life to lead?; what about gods, suffering, death?

    Don`t fear god,
    Don`t worry about death;
    What is good is easy to get, and
    What is terrible is easy to endure. — Philodemus (100 BCE)

    Epicurus’ own advice to a follower:

    Think about these things…yourself, and with a companion like yourself, and you will never be disturbed while awake or asleep.

    But you will live like a god among ordinary people. For those who live among immortal blessings are not like mortal beings.

    the anti-supernaturalist

  511. #514 https://me.yahoo.com/a/tL1MkU0ghY0gNMrxrvSjJFsEYJYQ0ZIPjQ--#5f870
    April 13, 2010

    ? a thought experiment in freedom of conscience you can try at home

    Dare to exercise your rights to disbelief and to be free from religion. Consider what rejection of ?spiritual? discourse brings with it. There would be no supernatural agents, locations, states, or objects of any kind whatsoever:

    1. No supernatural agents: minds, souls, spirits, ghosts, godlings, gods, God (Allah, YHVH), cosmic soul, the absolute.
    2. No supernatural locations: hell, purgatory, heaven, buddha realms, moral world order, Platonic/Plotinian world of forms
    3. No supernatural states: the numinous, sin, grace, revelation, life after death, illumination, nirvana, buddha mind.
    4. No supernatural events: mysterium tremendum, redemption, resurrection, rapture, mystical union, karma, or reincarnation.
    5. No supernatural objects: crystals, semen, menstrual blood, sun, stars, moon, cross, icons, statues, bread, beer, wine.

    the anti_supernaturalist

    The de-deification of western culture (including science) is our task for the next 100 years.

  512. #515 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    aratina cage (#346), as far as I know, everything imaginary – or something that might as well be there – is beyond the senses and measurement.
    -listener

    Imaginary things exist between your ears. I just read that Intel has been making inroads into distinguishing between imagined things people are thinking about. The technology is already here, though it is at an early stage, to definitively discriminate between things you imagine. So you are wrong.

  513. #516 listener
    April 13, 2010

    this is what aratina was responding to:

    aratina cage (#346), as far as I know, everything imaginary – or something that might as well be there – is beyond the senses and measurement.
    And, yes, monado (#390), that is exactly my point: that scientists don?t have to allow for that variant invisible pink unicorn, the soul, to weigh into their calculations. Though there is an infinitesimal chance of invisible pink unicorns existing, we don?t spend time arguing for their existence or otherwise, or including it in calculations. In fact, you don’t even expend time on derision when it can be better spent elsewhere.
    Truth machine (#394) addressed some of what I am saying when he wrote that “science isn’t in the business of “utterly” dismissing anything [by which he clarified elsewhere he means ideas], and can’t, because you can’t prove a universal empirical negative.”

    I am surprised to learn that we can distinguish between things people imagine are real – such as a god or a soul – and things that people imagine up intentionally. I don’t know if the circuitry is as definite as that.
    While I have considerable confidence in the scientific method, I worry that its practitioners can sometimes to almost religious zealotry. For me, science is about evidence, and about opinion not too many levels beyond that evidence. Using that model, I would be loath to argue for or against gods, souls or the unfortunate unicorns I keep dragging out.
    If you say you have the evidence that souls don’t exist, that is certainly worthy of congratulation. But till such time as there is clear evidence that souls, gods or those pink unicorns don’t exist, we could perhaps try to stick to what we can actually measure.
    Regards…

  514. #517 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    listener #516,

    Where do you draw the line between what’s real and what isn’t? Ponies are real, so why not flying ponies, or My Little Ponies™, or fire-breathing ponies? Well, they are real in the mind, on paper, or in plastic form, but they are not part of the biological world. They are human creations, creatures of fiction. What does it even mean to ask for evidence that a character in a story is not real or that a colorful plastic toy is not real or that a pony with superpowers is not real? Those things are real in the sense of them being characters in stories, toys, and figments of the imagination, but they are not real features of natural life and never have been.

    There are so many reasons why those things (a flying pony, a My Little Pony, and a fire-breathing pony) cannot be real lifeforms produced by evolution. Souls, too, have no place in evolutionary history and no place in the biological realm. They explain nothing in modern science and are recorded as being imagined historically by humans as explanatory devices at an early stage in our accumulation of knowledge about reality. The concept of a soul has not withstood the test of time. You can safely discard it now as a relic of the past. No amount of clinging to it will make it a real part of biology.

  515. #518 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    I worry that its practitioners can sometimes to almost religious zealotry

    Your concern is noted.

    Using that model, I would be loath to argue for or against gods, souls or the unfortunate unicorns I keep dragging out.

    Sigh. Contrary to the erroneous claim seen in these parts and elsewhere that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, lack of evidence for something stands against it — that is very much “about evidence”. The harder we search for evidence for something, the more the lack stands against it. Absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence, but is it evidence — support for the claim — of absence.

    Beyond that, the default position concerning anything made up for no evidential reason is that it doesn’t exist — this is again very much “about evidence”. The view that we have no basis to argue for or against things that we simply make up — such as pink unicorns — is stupid, a real lack of intelligence, a rather severe failure to think logically and coherently.

  516. #519 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    P.S.

    Listener’s view seems to be that you can’t argue against the existence of anything, even if it defies logic, because science is about evidence, and there’s only evidence of things. It’s a ludicrous position, and not one that has anything to do with actual science.

  517. #520 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    From listener’s #54

    ….cannot claim something does not exist, however improbable the chances…can we prove it wrong?….In the scientific world, we could argue that the proponent have to prove that souls indeed do exist….We cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns from another universe will not cross a brane and invade earth, but it is impossible to deny this admittedly unlikely possibility….

    Were you dropped on the head at birth or something? Why else would you repeat this strawman about proof over and over again? One need not disprove something to disbelieve it.

  518. #521 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    Imaginary things exist between your ears. I just read that Intel has been making inroads into distinguishing between imagined things people are thinking about. The technology is already here, though it is at an early stage, to definitively discriminate between things you imagine. So you are wrong.

    First, I wouldn’t believe everything I read. Second, you’ve committed a serious category mistake, or perhaps a use/mention mistake here — listener referred to imaginary things, whereas you are referring to thoughts about imaginary things. I can assure you that no pink unicorns exist between my ears.

  519. #522 Aaron Baker
    April 13, 2010

    JPS, FCD,

    thanks for your input on Housman. On this thread I haven’t posted anything else by Housman–just other poems by other realists, e.g. Philip Larkin.

    However, here’s a short (not sweet) one by Housman that I especially like:

    Stars, I have seen them fall,
    But when they drop and die
    No star is lost at all
    From all the star-sown sky.
    The toil of all that be
    Helps not the primal fault;
    It rains into the sea,
    And still the sea is salt.

  520. #523 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    truth machine, OM #521

    First, I wouldn’t believe everything I read.

    I’m not sure what reason there is to not believe this one. Could you elaborate? Here is the AP press release and a different one by RedOrbit:

    ‘Mind-reading’ brain-scan software showcased in NY

    Intel Unveils Mind-Reading Software

    From that, I gather that we can indeed measure differences between some things people are thinking about.

    Second, you’ve committed a serious category mistake, or perhaps a use/mention mistake here — listener referred to imaginary things, whereas you are referring to thoughts about imaginary things. I can assure you that no pink unicorns exist between my ears.

    I don’t think the use/mention distinction matters in this case, and I don’t understand how it is a category mistake. What I am saying is that the soul is an imaginary thing and that is all it is and has ever been. The imaginary thing is what believers have been projecting onto reality, and we should be able to detect them in their natural environment, the brain. Imaginary things are thoughts, are they not?

  521. #524 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    I’m not sure what reason there is to not believe this one.

    Uh, general principles of skepticism, and specific knowledge of journalism and the state of neuroscience. You did not report the article accurately; it is not about thinking of “imaginary things”, but rather of words. (And those words, such as “bear” and “hammer”, happen to refer to real things, although that may not be relevant.) It’s important to note that they are not detecting what the subject is thinking about, but rather are detecting which of two predetermined patterns of brain activity are occurring.

    Imaginary things are thoughts, are they not?

    Uh, no; my brain produces thoughts of pink unicorns, but it does not produce pink unicorns. Brain activities are not imaginary, and are not “beyond the senses and measurement”, to use listener’s words, whereas pink unicorns, being imaginary, cannot be sensed or measured. That you don’t get that this is a category mistake makes me feel for you, but I won’t try any harder to get it across to you.

  522. #525 listener
    April 13, 2010

    aratina cage (#517), would not argue for placing souls in evolutionary history or biology, just for the impossibility of denying what apparently cannot be measured. And, if it is still isn?t clear, this is not an argument for the soul (though you believe I?m ?clinging? to it), but for the inability to contest its existence empirically. As for a test of time, I am not sure that survival over time is some kind of test for a theory?s legitimacy.
    Truth machine (#518), you said, ?Absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence, but is evidence ? support for the claim ? of absence.? I don?t think I argued otherwise, though, when dealing with real world data, I would always wonder if there was other evidence we haven?t found.
    I don?t know if, as you said, the ?lack of evidence for something stands against it? ($518). It possibly does nothing to advance the argument?s cause but it does not reject it. Science often deals with entities there is no direct evidence for, but seem possible, or there is evidence for but seem improbable. Consider the graviton, the gorilla, the platypus…. True, it is hard to accept some constructs without evidence, but it would be hard to decide if it existed or not. If my eyes are bound, I cannot tell you whether the picture you may or may not be holding before me is in red tones or not.
    And no, I do believe I can argue ?against the existence of anything, even if it defies logic.? That would be rather easy – if it defied accepted logic. It is just that believers in the supernatural discuss a logic that lies well outside my purview ? and I don?t believe my ego is wedded to proving them right or wrong.
    To me, this is not a ‘ludicrous’ position, it is just that science cannot address untestable hypotheses. This question cannot be addressed using science any more than archaeology can be used to argue for or against Apollo?s alleged role in the Trojan war.
    Your conclusions involving my intellect may be bang on, but I will just put that assessment down to passion.
    If I have yet been unable to make my point ? due to error or an unbridgeable divide ? it is time I ceased and desisted and let others take the argument on to the conclusion they desire.
    Regards?

  523. #526 truth machine, OM
    April 13, 2010

    but for the inability to contest its existence empirically

    Lack of empirical evidence for something is certainly grounds to contest its existence, and it takes some sort of brain damage not to grasp this.

  524. #527 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 13, 2010

    To me, this is not a ‘ludicrous’ position, it is just that science cannot address untestable hypotheses.

    While science per se might not address it, the scientific method can be applied, especially the requirement that positive evidence for the hypothesis be presented. And the burden of proof is upon those making the claims. You want god, souls, homeopathy, or invisible gold dragons to exist? Show some real evidence other than your desire that they exist. That is our point. Lack of evidence is simply that. Continued lack of evidence allows parsimony to say what is being investigated is non-existent/imaginary. Until real evidence is found. Evidence. The problem that theists have, due to their lack thereof.

  525. #528 Anri
    April 13, 2010

    This question cannot be addressed using science any more than archaeology can be used to argue for or against Apollo?s alleged role in the Trojan war.

    Except, of course, that it can. We would begin for searching for archeological evidence of Apollo’s existence, and from there, work out the likelyhood of his interference in any given conflict.

    Did we ever even get a definition of ‘soul’, in any case? Presumably, either a ‘soul’ must be able to influence physical objects (such as nerve cells), and therefore must be detectable – or it cannot, in which case it is indestinguishable from ‘non existant’.

    To put it another way, what’s the difference between something that can neither change nor be changed by the real world, and something that doesn’t exist at all?

    This is the problem with asking questions about the supernatural – one can never seem to pin down just what is meant by supernatural. It always seems to boil down to ‘something that’s there, but isn’t really there, you know what I mean, dude?’ And when that is answered with ‘No, actually, I don’t.’, the typical response is ‘Well, man, you just don’t get it!‘ or some variant (examples: ‘keep an open mind’, ‘stop being dogmatic’, ‘use the Force, Luke’).

    It would be nice if someone would just state what they think the ‘soul’ is, and go from there.

  526. #529 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    truth machine, OM #524

    You did not report the article accurately; it is not about thinking of “imaginary things”, but rather of words.

    You could be right, but from my reading of it they were not thinking of the letters of the words or how the words were put together or the image of the letters as a word, they were thinking about the semantics of the words, about the things the words represent.

    It’s important to note that they are not detecting what the subject is thinking about, but rather are detecting which of two predetermined patterns of brain activity are occurring.

    They were able to predict what the subjects were thinking about:

    The system works best when a person is first scanned while thinking of dozens of different concrete nouns ? words like “bear” or “hammer.” When test subjects are then asked to pick one of two new terms and think about it, the software uses the earlier results as a baseline to determine what the person is thinking. (from the AP report)

    The things the subjects were thinking about were not imaginary, however, but real things. I wonder if fantastical things would work with this experiment.

    my brain produces thoughts of pink unicorns, but it does not produce pink unicorns. Brain activities are not imaginary, and are not “beyond the senses and measurement”…

    Of course it doesn’t, they don’t exist! But your thoughts about them do exist and are all that they are. I am saying that pink unicorns are brain activities.

    That you don’t get that this is a category mistake makes me feel for you, but I won’t try any harder to get it across to you.

    I find it laughable that you have any feelings for me, so please cut the crap. You seem to be saying that thoughts are different from imaginary things and I disagree. Well, I guess I would say that imaginary things have elements of reality to them but do not exist in reality as they do in the mind where they come to life. That said, I’m not educated in philosophy while you are (from what I know of you here) and so I hope I do eventually learn why you are right and I am wrong on this matter.

  527. #530 listener
    April 13, 2010

    Truth machine (#526), I did not say lack of evidence is not grounds to contest its existence. I thought I just said that it still permits for evidence that may not yet be available though I don’t think there can be any evidence for the soul. If I can’t detect subatomic particles I cannot see I don’t claim they doesn’t exist.
    But then you may be right about brain damage – as, I have this nagging suspicion, you perhaps always are.
    Nerd (#527), how could we apply the scientific method to an untestable, unfalsifiable assertion? The burden of proof/evidence only applies in a scientific context. If something cannot be measured, it is not science. Therefore I would not address it – to accept or deny – unless it takes on testable theories that I can indeed test.

  528. #531 Andreas Johansson
    April 13, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    Of course it doesn’t, they don’t exist! But your thoughts about them do exist and are all that they are. I am saying that pink unicorns are brain activities.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either pink unicorns are brain activities about pink unicorns, and do exist, or they’re not brain activities (but putative external objects) and do not exist.

    Put another way: Thoughts about pink unicorns do exist; pink unicorns do not. It follows that pink unicorns cannot be the same as thoughts about pink unicorns, because the same thing cannot simultaneously exist and not exist.

  529. #532 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    Andreas Johansson,

    I do not think I am having it both ways. A material, biological pink unicorn does not exist, but the material memories that go into the brain activity do. This is not true for real material, biological things like bears where you can distinguish between the thought of a bear and a real bear, but just as with pink unicorns, thinking about a bear does not make a bear suddenly instantiate before one’s eyes. And of course we can communicate our thoughts so you can have descriptions and representations of pink unicorns, none of which make them real lifeforms.

  530. #533 Mr T
    April 13, 2010

    aratina cage:

    my brain produces thoughts of pink unicorns, but it does not produce pink unicorns. Brain activities are not imaginary, and are not “beyond the senses and measurement”…

    Of course it doesn’t, they don’t exist! But your thoughts about them do exist and are all that they are. I am saying that pink unicorns are brain activities. [my emphasis]

    The problems is saying “pink unicorns are brain activities” (P = B), which could be interpreted as meaning the same as “brain activities are pink unicorns” (B = P). I will have you know that I, for one, do not consider my brain activities to be pink unicorns.

    Also, Since we think about things other than pink unicorns, it would be more correct to say P ? B, but even then it’s not as if that is necessarily true. There are likely some brains which have and will never think anything about any kind of unicorn. Not mine, unfortunately, but there is still some hope left in this world.

    Another problem is that by itself, P (as an actual or possible organism) isn’t identical to the P in “P ? B”, because actual or possible unicorns don’t exist within or as element of our brain activities — only brain activities relating to them.

    It’s obvious to me what you actually meant here, but generally it’s bad form because it can be confusing. For instance, if they were invisible pink unicorns, I would be totally lost right now.

  531. #534 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 13, 2010

    I thought I just said that it still permits for evidence that may not yet be available though I don’t think there can be any evidence for the soul. If I can’t detect subatomic particles I cannot see I don’t claim they doesn’t exist.

    Yes, machines can substitute for your senses. Now, show us how to build the soul machine…

    The burden of proof/evidence only applies in a scientific context.

    Then you are a fool. Try the legal system. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. Likewise, with the burden of proof is upon the claimants in cases where they claim the existence of bigfoot, deities, Jebus, souls, and other imaginary things. Show the conclusive evidence, or STFU. Welcome to science.

  532. #535 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 13, 2010

    Oh, and the null hypothesis and parsimony say something doesn’t exist without evidence for it. So, either show us your evidence, or go away. Continued yapping about imaginary things is a sign of mental weakness.

  533. #536 Mr T
    April 13, 2010

    Continued yapping about imaginary things is a sign of mental weakness.

    yapyapyapyapyapyapyap

    You know what, I bet that’s the problem: my neighbor’s dog found Jesus.

    It was probably surfing the net and saw that picture of the Jeeb they discovered on a dog’s ass.

  534. #537 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    Mr. T,

    Thank you for taking the time to make the logic clear. I was thinking that saying, “Pink unicorns are brain activities”, is no different from saying, “I am a person”, brain activities obviously being the processing of memories and not a pink horse with a horn stomping around inside someone’s brain. :P

    It isn’t difficult to imagine a pink unicorn, though. Take a horse, color it pink, put a horn on its forehead, and voil, so it is an easy thing to communicate or dream up if you know about horses, horns, and the color pink. The difference between a pink unicorn and a bear is the evidence, the fact that you don’t have to dream up a bear.

  535. #538 listener
    April 13, 2010

    Nerd (#535), I’m not going to argue for the soul, with or without a machine attached, or anything else that I find no reason to believe in, even if I cannot reject the unlikely possibility.
    I don’t know if the statistical ideas you cited, or even the legal system, are not based on the same scientific method we rely on, even if the legal system is clumsier at it.
    But, yet again, I reiterate, the scientific method cannot take on what supposedly cannot be measured, even if they are as imaginary as those invisible pink unicorns.

  536. #539 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 13, 2010

    But, yet again, I reiterate, the scientific method cannot take on what supposedly cannot be measured, even if they are as imaginary as those invisible pink unicorns.

    Wrong. While science itself won’t investigate, the scientific method can be applied. With the proviso you have to demonstrate evidence, physical evidence, for what you claim. Otherwise, it doesn’t exist except between your ears. Like a soul or deity. No evidence for either. Ergo, both are fictional until physical evidence is presented otherwise. Show the evidence or shut up. You see, if you can’t describe something physically, you can’t prove it exists outside your delusional mind. And it can’t interact with the real world. Which makes it worthless as any explanation, except that you are delusional.

  537. #540 WowbaggerOM
    April 13, 2010

    But, yet again, I reiterate, the scientific method cannot take on what supposedly cannot be measured, even if they are as imaginary as those invisible pink unicorns.

    My position is that we’ve got no reason to assume that there exists anything that cannot be measured, so why bother?

  538. #541 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 13, 2010

    Nerd of Redhead, OM:

    You see, if you can’t describe something physically, you can’t prove it exists outside your delusional mind. And it can’t interact with the real world.

    Yep. It’s interesting that those defending the soul never bring up all the instances of people who have searched for the soul, or more specifically, its location in the human body. No one was ever successful, and the so-called location of the soul kept changing. The only soul one can honestly claim to have is the idea of one.

  539. #542 strange gods before me ?
    April 13, 2010

    But, the basic ANIMAL INSTINCT (hahahah i said it again, we’re animals hahahha!! Oh that hurts to hear doesn’t it. Oh so much pride so much pride) is to spread and intermix DNA. And to do that you must mate. End. Jesus christ!

    Underwhelming, anotherhuman. You announce with each new comment that you are far stupider than we previously suspected.

    Do you seriously think that people who hang out on a blog dedicated to biological evolution are ashamed to think of ourselves as animals? You are not talking to drive-by commenters who might be IDiots. Most of the people arguing with you are longtime regular commenters well respected by the community here, and all are atheists who understand evolution. Many take a particular interest in evolution as hobbyists or professionals. I am one of those hobbyists, and I have spent many hours here advocating that people should give more serious consideration to our shared characteristics with non-human animals. If I am proud, I am proud to be an animal.

    One of those professionals is your blog host, PZ Myers, a professor of biology at UMM who specializes in evolutionary developmental biology. PZ left a message for you, though you appear to be too stupid and/or dishonest to address it.

    Obviously you do not understand what an instinct is. Hint: it is not simply “whatever animals do.” Animals also have learned behavior, and in many birds and mammals such behaviors are reliably transmitted with specificity that can be understood as culture. Some behavior, like fucking, is so easily rediscovered by individuals that it does not need to be transmitted by either instinct or culture.

    In order to support your positive assertions, you will have to present peer-reviewed scientific literature that specifically identifies an instinct, in humans, to have children. If you need a few years to go to college first and study the relevant basics here, take your time.

  540. #543 listener
    April 13, 2010

    Nerd (#539), do spend some time reading Popper’s views, though it could be sacrilegious. Or perhaps you are religious in what you deem to be the scientific method.
    And it might help to consider that allowing for another viewpoint does not amount to an endorsement of it – which, given the few criticisms I have seen here of my argument, is what I’m supposed to be doing.
    And if it is the scientific method and falsifiability you wish to discuss, you could perhaps start with a primer, though it does not address the soul: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1.

  541. #544 John Morales
    April 13, 2010

    listener, I find it exceedingly amusing to see your patronisation of Nerd.

    A bit like a chihuahua sniping at a rottweiler, only more so. :)

  542. #545 aratina cage
    April 13, 2010

    listener,

    Look, I could sit here and assert there are such intangible things as jergerwoozies that rumble and rattle causing you to laugh. When I do that, what will you do? Will you believe it? Will you say that you’ll never know since you can’t sense jergerwoozies and then start telling strangers that jergerwoozies might be there, they’ll never know, but they better not say jergerwoozies don’t exist? Why don’t you just come out and say I’m full of crap about jergerwoozies and move on?

    Without any kind of evidence for jergerwoozies and with no reason whatsoever to need something like jergerwoozies for laughing to work, the existence of jergerwoozies is unnecessary and they might as well be treated as if they do not exist.

  543. #546 Caine, Fleur du mal
    April 13, 2010

    listener:

    And it might help to consider that allowing for another viewpoint does not amount to an endorsement of it

    Another coward. You aren’t going to get anywhere by attempting to weasel out of what you’ve said before. It’s very simple – state what it is you believe. Then there’s the basis for discussion.

    You aren’t going to get anywhere trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, so to speak. Try being straightforward, and stop trying so hard to be superior, it’s not working.

  544. #547 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 13, 2010

    Listener, if you don’t want me to think you are full of shit, try this:

    1) You have something that cannot be sensed or detected that you postulate. It doesn’t interact with the real world. Show how it is useful in any sense whatsoever, except for bad philosophy. Examples of this are the invisible gold dragon in the garage, a vague deity, or a soul. You might as well masturbate than talk about it. You can give all sorts of imaginary attributes, and write novels about. But it, and talking about it, changes reality in no way. This is a time waster and shouldn’t even be discussed at an evidence based site like this.

    2) You have something that cannot presently be sensed or detected, but is likely there. Say Yahweh, who did interact with the world according to the babble. Describe the attributes and interactions so it can be tested by science. This is what is required to begin to have an honest discussion. So far, failure for any evidence.

    I don’t do philosophical games. Either pony up the attributes, or let your inane idea drop. Welcome to science.

  545. #548 Menyambal
    April 14, 2010

    Still some talk of defining a/the soul. (By the way, many of the discussions here are based on the varying unspoken definitions of terms, and I think that religionists will switch definitions midstream (but you know that)).

    I was reading a book some time ago, I think it may have been _A_Canticle_For_Liebowitz_, and recall a soldier saying to a priest something like, “How do I know I have a soul? I have never seen or noticed it.” And the priest replies, “You are a soul.”

    Which stuck in my mind partly because it sounded to my teen mind like he said, “You arsehole.” And partly because I like the definition.

    My soul is me, my psyche, my personality, my worries, my thoughts, my love and hate, my desire to make this comment coherent. My soul is everything that is not immediately physical. My soul is what I am in the stilly darkness with my eyes closed.

    My soul is my mind. Yes, I know it lives in my brain, but that is what I mean when I hear the word “soul”.

    Actually, I never use the word “soul”. I would prefer “psyche”, but I most like “mind”. It is what comes to my mind, anyhow.

    So when somebody trots out weird definitions of soul that sound like some sort of brain parasite, or something that isn’t me, I say to hell with the crazy atman or mana or flinkytootle, it never does anything for me–it never even calls.

    Or when Christians talk about my soul changing radically so it can enjoy Heaven, I say to Hell with all of us. It ain’t me.

    For purposes of religious discussion, then, my soul is composing this comment, my body is doing the keyboarding under the direction of my soul, and it’s sending sleepy signals back up. My body is tired, my soul is thinking about going to bed.
    At least that’s how it seems in my mind.

    NOTE: The above is just to define “soul” as “mind”, to allow for discussions of an afterlife, but is not intended to agree that there is an immortal soul.

  546. #549 jslsingleton
    April 14, 2010

    ildinia121 wrote in #4:

    And while Lucretius does believe in a soul, it is in no way supernatural. It is made up of atoms, the same as all other matter, and when we die, it too disperses.

    But “atoms” are category:hardware, while “soul” is category:software. (No wonder it keeps not being found at hardware inventory.) Naturally it stops running when the hardware shuts down.

    Nothing “supernatural” about that. So what’s the fuss?

    It’s just another word for the “mind”, the “anima”, what “animates” the body, makes us “animals” that move around of our own volition instead of plants or minerals that forever stay in one place. (Think of the first of the “twenty questions”.)

  547. #550 Menyambal
    April 14, 2010

    jslsingleton, thank you. That is well said.

  548. #551 negentropyeater
    April 14, 2010

    My position is that we’ve got no reason to assume that there exists anything that cannot be measured, so why bother?

    Just want to nitpick that one because I don’t think it’s entirely correct.

    There are examples of things we have reason to assume they exist but cannot be measured or observed.

    Examples:
    the non observable universe
    the multiverse
    the Higgs Boson
    superstrings
    dark energy
    etc…

    Now note that some of these cannot be measured yet, but might be measured in the future. But more importantly, for all these things there exists a coherent definition, a rational justification for assuming their existence, a theoretical framework …
    The soul is not only a useless concept because it supposedely can’t be measured, but particularly so because it fails on all these accounts. Same is valid with Gods btw.

    If someone could at least give a coherent definition of the term soul, a theoretical framework, a justification for assuming this hypothesis, then we could treat it as any other scientific hypothesis, discuss its merits, work on it if it’s worthy of doing so, debate, etc… But there’s nothing, zilch, just warm wishy washy feelings and gut feels.

  549. #552 listener
    April 14, 2010

    Nerd (#547), getting down to personalities doesn’t address problems, it just vitiates the discussion. And I have no problem dealing with philosophical issues, even the purely hypothetical. Or do I have to measure argument by your standards of victory and defeat, rather than try to find an underlying structure?
    You needn’t welcome me to science; I know to find my way around it, perhaps not with the fuzzy religiosity you invest in it, but certainly with a more clearminded focus, and a wish to understand nuances than win an argument.
    I thought a science blog allowed for the possibility that other viewpoints, even those I don’t necessarily believe in, could co-exist. To date, I was certain it did. If you can convince me differently, I will accept that science, too, is a religion with its own rituals, its own priests, its own fundamentalists.
    But somehow, I don’t believe that’s true, and think that complex thought can exist. Do prove me wrong.

  550. #553 John Scanlon FCD
    April 14, 2010

    Without quasi-mathematical notation, a plainer correction to aratina cage’s misconception above (“You seem to be saying that thoughts are different from imaginary things and I disagree”) is: when you are thinking of a real object (say, a particular bear), it would be very strange to maintain that the bear is the thought you are having. Different set of properties altogether; likewise, imaginary objects* (are imagined to) have properties equally different from those of thoughts.

    *(including the bear I just told you was ‘real’)

  551. #554 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    listener, you refer to Nerd’s comment @547, but don’t actually address it; rather, you’ve evaded its substance.

    BTW, just how you consider Nerd’s requirement for empiricism to be “fuzzy religiosity” is beyond me.

  552. #555 negentropyeater
    April 14, 2010

    I thought a science blog allowed for the possibility that other viewpoints, even those I don’t necessarily believe in, could co-exist. To date, I was certain it did.

    Of course they are allowed. But if someone supports a viewpoint for which he cannot even give a rational justification for why he supports it, then we can’t even discuss its merits, so we reject it.

    If opinions are purely in the domain of the subjective, for instance, I prefer vanilla icecream to strawberry, then fine. If opinions have some elements of objectivity, then we can discuss this. But people need to be prepared to justify them.

    You still haven’t proposed a single cogent point as to why one should assume the existence of things such as souls that cannot be measured, or not even coherently defined, or aren’t at least amenable to some reasonable justification.

  553. #556 John Scanlon FCD
    April 14, 2010

    And listener, YOU’RE NOT FUCKING LISTENING AT ALL! Read the Nerd’s #547 again and take the invective to heart, because you deserve it. Or else read for comprehension.

    jslsingleton: “Naturally it stops running when the hardware shuts down.”
    Yeah, but we could also define ‘soul’ – relative to some particular technology – as what can be uploaded from the individual machine to another system, rather than the running process itself. Might fit the religious concept better that way, and also the idea of cultural immortality mentioned in early comments (like the Woody Allen reference).

  554. #557 WowbaggerOM
    April 14, 2010

    negentropyeater wrote:

    There are examples of things we have reason to assume they exist but cannot be measured or observed.

    True – I should have qualified my statement a little more, since ‘measured’ isn’t (as you’ve demonstrated) specific enough.

    Then again, the difference between what’s on your list and ‘souls’ is that we’ve found something (the complexity of the human brain) that accounts for what we once use the term ‘soul’ to describe; the same can’t be said for things like dark matter and string theory and so forth – at least to my (admittedly limited) knowledge of science we haven’t.

    Or, in short, we’ve moved past the stage of scientific illiteracy that required the postulation of the concept of a ‘soul’.

  555. #558 negentropyeater
    April 14, 2010

    Then again, the difference between what’s on your list and ‘souls’ is that we’ve found something (the complexity of the human brain) that accounts for what we once use the term ‘soul’ to describe; the same can’t be said for things like dark matter and string theory and so forth – at least to my (admittedly limited) knowledge of science we haven’t.

    Sometimes it can also be that it’s the prediction of a theoretical framework (eg Higgs Boson). But I don’t see any form of justification for hypothesing the existence of souls. Not even a coherent definition to begin with.

    It’s actually even worse than pink unicorns.

  556. #559 listener
    April 14, 2010

    Morales, I would assert that he evaded what I’d tried to point out in a rather basic link: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1.
    And I never argued for a soul, so claiming that I postulated one is, in my view, a result of fuzzy logic. And to demand that I clarify whether I believe in a soul or not is not, again in my view, part of the scientific method.
    And that was what I sent over in that link, which was ignored because it was inconvenient. Such belief in one’s own views, that touching faith, I usually attribute only to the religious.
    Yet again: Science does not try to gauge untestable data, deeming it beyond its purview.
    And Scanlon, I hear you, but will wait it out for considered rebuttal, not invective.

  557. #560 WowbaggerOM
    April 14, 2010

    listener wrote:

    And Scanlon, I hear you, but will wait it out for considered rebuttal, not invective.

    Would you like us to note your concern?

  558. #561 Andreas Johansson
    April 14, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    This is not true for real material, biological things like bears where you can distinguish between the thought of a bear and a real bear

    But you can distinguish between the thought of pink unicorns and pink unicorns. The former detectably exist in the real world – the later do not.

    To maintain logical consistency, you have to disagree with at least one of the following statements:

    1. Pink unicorns don’t exist.
    2. Thoughts about pink unicorns exist.
    3. Pink unicorns are thoughts about pink unicorns.

    2 is incontestable – it’s proved true by the existence of this conversation. To reject 1 whole maintaining 2 & 3 is the same as saying that bears and thoughts of bears are the same thing, which should be obviously unacceptable. You should therefore be rejecting 3.

  559. #562 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    John Scanlon FCD,

    a plainer correction to aratina cage’s misconception above (“You seem to be saying that thoughts are different from imaginary things and I disagree”) is: when you are thinking of a real object (say, a particular bear), it would be very strange to maintain that the bear is the thought you are having. Different set of properties altogether; likewise, imaginary objects* (are imagined to) have properties equally different from those of thoughts.

    OK then John, point to a live pink unicorn for me, one that is not a thought. Go ahead, I’m waiting.

  560. #563 John Scanlon FCD
    April 14, 2010

    #562, see #561.

    But see, I’m pointing. Look! See it?

  561. #564 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    listener @559, you posted a link to Misconceptions about science in an attempt to patronise Nerd, a professional scientist who has taught at tertiary level; have you heard the expression “don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs”? :)

    Now, regarding your claims:

    And I never argued for a soul, so claiming that I postulated one is, in my view, a result of fuzzy logic.

    But Nerd did not so claim.

    And to demand that I clarify whether I believe in a soul or not is not, again in my view, part of the scientific method.

    But Nerd did not so demand.

    And that was what I sent over in that link, which was ignored because it was inconvenient.

    You seem very sure of this.
    What specific item in the page you linked to is relevant?

    Such belief in one’s own views, that touching faith, I usually attribute only to the religious.

    What seems like touching faith to you, to me seems like well-founded confidence.

    Yet again: Science does not try to gauge untestable data, deeming it beyond its purview.

    You here evince a misunderstanding of what constitutes data; also, yet again, I refer you to grannies and eggs.

  562. #565 Stephen Wells
    April 14, 2010

    It might perhaps help if nonlistener would specify what they mean by “god”. Without some kind of definition, we can’t even have a helpful discussion. All the gods I know of are fictional characters. Please specify what a non-fictional one is supposed to be. If it’s nothing but a deist universe-causer, then it’s unnecessary, and if it’s a theist universe-influencer, then it’s testable.

  563. #566 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 14, 2010

    I thought a science blog allowed for the possibility that other viewpoints, even those I don’t necessarily believe in, could co-exist.

    Wrong. Some ideas can’t co-exist. Claiming vague ill-defined things exist that don’t interact with the real world in a meaningful way is an example of that. It is mental masturbation, and is totally irrelevant to reality. If you have an idea, present it. Say “this is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up“. The latter makes it science and reality. Failure to be able to do that is woo. Woomeisters are one step below doggie doo. We get too many bad philosophers here who can’t make or get to a cogent argument about reality. So, either present your argument with evidence, so we can discuss it as a part of reality, or you have nothing but illogical woo, and should go away.

  564. #567 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Andreas Johansson,

    But you can distinguish between the thought of pink unicorns and pink unicorns. The former detectably exist in the real world – the later do not.

    What distinguishes an object in thought from an extant object is the evidence for it. No one has made the jump from the pink unicorns we imagine to an unimagined object, and until someone does, pink unicorns will only exist in the imaginations of people.

    To maintain logical consistency, you have to disagree with at least one of the following statements:

    1. Pink unicorns don’t exist.
    2. Thoughts about pink unicorns exist.
    3. Pink unicorns are thoughts about pink unicorns.

    #3 does appear to be heading towards an infinite regression the way it is written. #1 is the kind of thing listener is arguing against saying. #2 is redundant because you cannot separate the thought from the pink unicorn without evidence of the existence of pink unicorns.

    2 is incontestable – it’s proved true by the existence of this conversation. To reject 1 whole maintaining 2 & 3 is the same as saying that bears and thoughts of bears are the same thing, which should be obviously unacceptable.

    When you think of a bear, the thought is not a real bear, but it does represent real things. Fictional things like pink unicorns, on the other hand, do not exist in reality apart from being remnants of human brains as far as we know.

    You should therefore be rejecting 3.

    It would be better to say that pink unicorns have not made it out of the realm of ideas yet. They have not crossed from our imaginations into reality for lack of evidence of their existence. The same is true for souls.

  565. #568 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    John Scanlon FCD,

    #562, see #561.

    But see, I’m pointing. Look! See it?

    I was being rhetorical. Of course you cannot point to evidence for a pink unicorn (and I shouldn’t have said alive but rather evidence that one was alive or is alive).

    There seems to be a contingent of people on Pharyngula who object to the phrase, “God is between your ears.”, on philosophical grounds. This has been news to me.

  566. #569 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    aratina, you’re being obtuse.

    Of course imaginary entities (being abstractions) have no existence outside our thoughts, but that does not imply that those abstractions are our thoughts; rather, they are the result of our thoughts.

    Of course you cannot point to evidence for a pink unicorn

    I beg to differ: here’s evidence.

    It may not be compelling, or even credible; but it is evidence — just like there is evidence for Bigfoot. :)

  567. #570 Andreas Johansson
    April 14, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    What distinguishes an object in thought from an extant object is the evidence for it. No one has made the jump from the pink unicorns we imagine to an unimagined object, and until someone does, pink unicorns will only exist in the imaginations of people.

    “Exists only in the imagination” is metaphor for “does not exist”.

    (You’re not going to claim that brain activities exist only in the imagination, are you? Yet that is the logical consequence of your claims that imaginary objects (such as pink unicorns) exist only in the imagination and that imaginary objects are brain activities.)

    #3 does appear to be heading towards an infinite regression the way it is written.

    If so, appearances are deceiving. It’s simply an specific instance of your general claim that imaginary objects (such as pink unicorns) are brain activities.

    #1 is the kind of thing listener is arguing against saying.

    I’m not responsible for listener’s delusions.

    #2 is redundant because you cannot separate the thought from the pink unicorn without evidence of the existence of pink unicorns.

    You can tell unicorns from dragons, right? Why, then, do you affect to be unable to tell unicorns from actual real objects?

    (I’m using “object” slightly loosely here, to include things that might ordinarily be rather considered processes.)

    It would be better to say that pink unicorns have not made it out of the realm of ideas yet. They have not crossed from our imaginations into reality for lack of evidence of their existence. The same is true for souls.

    One might metaphorically say that, but it doesn’t license one to claim actual identity between things that exist and things that do not.

  568. #571 Andreas Johansson
    April 14, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    There seems to be a contingent of people on Pharyngula who object to the phrase, “God is between your ears.”, on philosophical grounds. This has been news to me.

    I don’t object to it as a rhetorical flourish (tho I may doubt its effectiveness). I do object to it if it’s intended as a literal description of the world.

  569. #572 Feynmaniac
    April 14, 2010

    listener,

    Yet again: Science does not try to gauge untestable data, deeming it beyond its purview.

    Call it rationality or science or whatever, but if you have two hypothesis that are equally consistent with the evidence (e.g, X does exist and X does not exist) then the most parsimonious explanation is the most likely: X does not exist. Furthermore, the more complex X is the less likely it is to be true.

  570. #573 Shala
    April 14, 2010

    If opinions are purely in the domain of the subjective, for instance, I prefer vanilla icecream to strawberry, then fine.

    It’s high time I published The Strawberry Delusion to show those irrational strawberry ice cream lovers just how superior and rational vanilla is.

    It will be a bestseller!

  571. #574 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    John Morales,

    aratina, you’re being obtuse.

    Of course imaginary entities (being abstractions) have no existence outside our thoughts, but that does not imply that those abstractions are our thoughts; rather, they are the result of our thoughts.

    Perhaps I am obtuse on this matter, but I really don’t understand how abstractions exist apart from thoughts.

  572. #575 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Andreas Johansson #570,

    You’re not going to claim that brain activities exist only in the imagination, are you?

    We have evidence for brain activities, but that does not imply that pink unicorns were or are real biological creatures simply because the brain can imagine them.

    If so, appearances are deceiving. It’s simply an specific instance of your general claim that imaginary objects (such as pink unicorns) are brain activities.

    Let me explain what I meant. You wrote, “3. Pink unicorns are thoughts about pink unicorns.” This could be expanded to “Pink unicorns are thoughts about (thoughts about (thoughts about (…))).” If you take away the “about”, you get what can then be reduced to a circularity, “Thoughts are thoughts.”, which is not informative, but pink unicorns are a specific kind of thought distinguishable from other thoughts and so, “Pink unicorns are thoughts.”, is informative in the way “Black bears are mammals.” is informative. So I did not feel utterly stupid saying that pink unicorns are thoughts, but I did think it was rather obvious until truth machine intervened.

    You can tell unicorns from dragons, right?

    I am wondering if there is some underlying idea being held here that thoughts are a big amorphous goo where no two parts are distinguishable from each other instead of highly structured interactions.

    Why, then, do you affect to be unable to tell unicorns from actual real objects?

    Unicorns have not been observed and no evidence has been found for them outside of human imagination (see the link in #569, for instance).

    One might metaphorically say that, but it doesn’t license one to claim actual identity between things that exist and things that do not.

    I do not think I was speaking metaphorically. These things we call unicorns (of any color or transparency) are imaginary, products of our brains.

    I don’t object to it as a rhetorical flourish (tho I may doubt its effectiveness). I do object to it if it’s intended as a literal description of the world.

    I see. That might be why this has gone unchecked during my interactions here until now.

  573. #576 listener
    April 14, 2010

    So it is an appeal to authority, is it, Morales (#564)? Because someone you know has taught at the tertiary level, he automatically knows it all. Absolutely, Morales. And so, as you so pertinently pointed out, I will not teach your friend to suck eggs. Naturally, I expect, my own qualifications will not measure up, since that is the criterion for my view being acceptable.
    You quoted my earlier note where I said ?I never argued for a soul, so claiming that I postulated one is, in my view, a result of fuzzy logic.?
    And responded: ?But Nerd did not so claim.?
    This is what the gentleman wrote (and I suspect from his interesting language in general that he is male, though I could be wrong):

    You have something that cannot be sensed or detected that you postulate.

    And to demand that I clarify whether I believe in a soul or not is not, again in my view, part of the scientific method.
    You say:

    But Nerd did not so demand.

    Well, do check these then:
    (#527) ?You want god, souls, homeopathy, or invisible gold dragons to exist? Show some real evidence other than your desire that they exist.?
    (#535) ?So, either show us your evidence, or go away.?
    (#539) ?Show the evidence or shut up. You see, if you can’t describe something physically, you can’t prove it exists outside your delusional mind.?
    You asked which specific item in the page I linked to is relevant?
    Here it is an interesting bit from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1:
    ?Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities ? like God.? I would argue that the soul too fits in here, though I wouldn?t bet on it.
    But, as you pointed out to me, (#544):

    ?listener, I find it exceedingly amusing to see your patronisation of Nerd.
    A bit like a chihuahua sniping at a rottweiler, only more so. :)

    About my original argument, the gentleman pointed out (#566) that ?some ideas can’t co-exist.?
    True, mutually exclusive ones ? maybe outside the realm of quantum physics ? cannot.
    But he went on to say that ?Claiming vague ill-defined things exist that don’t interact with the real world in a meaningful way is an example of that. It is mental masturbation, and is totally irrelevant to reality.?
    Colorful imagery, but I don?t think that follows.
    I have always argued for the scientific method, even taught it, but this exchange here, and the bad humour surrounding it has made me wonder if faith is only the preserve of the ?woomeisters? who ?are one step below doggie doo.? Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, personal attacks? A great many logical fallacies all thrown in just to win an argument. And that is sad.
    I didn?t ever want to bring this up, but personally, I don?t believe in a soul or a god or anything else that I cannot measure.
    I am more than comfortable accepting my reality to be circumscribed by scientific limits. But for the life of me I don?t know why that matters, why my own reality should be the right one and, not just better, the only one. To me, that intolerance is consistent with most religions.
    I wasn?t just playing devil?s advocate, I truly believe that my view is the only one, and everyone who believes otherwise
    I?ve always avoided commenting here, and, when I uncharacteristically did, was horrified at some of the prejudice and, now, clannishness that I see.
    I argue all the time with people with opposing viewpoints, including creationists and the religious, admittedly often with the intention of converting them to what I think is my balanced view based on some of that ?well-founded confidence? in science. But, because I listen, I do get some good ideas even from the most bigoted of them.
    I’d come here for thoughtful argument, a little room for doubt. Clearly, in the case of you and your friends, there is no room for doubt.
    I don?t think you or some or the other vocal members here speak for all science. I believe that while I stepped forward this time, like me there are many others who usually just follow the argument most often and are not wholly subject to strident evangelism at the cost of reasoned argument.
    As you have always endeavoured to, do prove me wrong.

  574. #577 listener
    April 14, 2010

    There was an incomplete thought, I left in there by error. Here it is, in toto: ‘I wasn?t just playing devil?s advocate, I truly believe that my view is not the only one, and that everyone who believes otherwise is an idiot.’
    Thanks…

  575. #578 Shala
    April 14, 2010

    Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, personal attacks? A great many logical fallacies all thrown in just to win an argument. And that is sad.

    Thy concern is scribbled, peasant!

  576. #579 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    listener,

    I am more than comfortable accepting my reality to be circumscribed by scientific limits. But for the life of me I don?t know why that matters, why my own reality should be the right one and, not just better, the only one. To me, that intolerance is consistent with most religions.

    When you put it that way, it is almost like history never happened. You might be content to allow people under their own delusions to do what they please as if it will have no impact, but others of us are not, and we are willing to argue against and refute those delusions for the better. What is wrong with snapping people out of their delusions? No, we don’t respect delusions here, and if that seems intolerant instead of grounded, too bad.

  577. #580 Feynmaniac
    April 14, 2010

    listener,

    And to demand that I clarify whether I believe in a soul or not is not, again in my view, part of the scientific method.

    I, and probably others here, know that’s your view. We just think it’s wrong.

    Here it is an interesting bit from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1

    The website seems to be from the NSF. Insisting religion and science aren’t necessarily oppose to each other may or may not be good PR, but it’s not reasonable position to hold.

    In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion.

    So what? We’ve heard this before, many times. Just because many people, even very bright people, don’t see a contradction between science and religion doesn’t mean there isn’t one. People are able to hold contradictory ideas in their heads. In fact, they do it all the time.

    I didn?t ever want to bring this up, but personally, I don?t believe in a soul or a god or anything else that I cannot measure.

    This contradicts your entire argument. If science can’t say anything about things we can’t measure then how can you say that you don’t believe in souls, gods, etc.? On what rational basis have you come to reject these ideas? Or do you believe that their existence/non-existence are equally likely?

  578. #581 Andreas Johansson
    April 14, 2010

    aratina cage wrote:

    We have evidence for brain activities, but that does not imply that pink unicorns were or are real biological creatures simply because the brain can imagine them.

    Nobody is saying that pink unicorns are real biological creatures. I’m saying that they don’t exist – you are, incoherently, claiming that they simultaneously do not exist and are brain activities.

    Let me explain what I meant. You wrote, “3. Pink unicorns are thoughts about pink unicorns.” This could be expanded to “Pink unicorns are thoughts about (thoughts about (thoughts about (…))).” If you take away the “about”, you get what can then be reduced to a circularity, “Thoughts are thoughts.”, which is not informative, but pink unicorns are a specific kind of thought distinguishable from other thoughts and so, “Pink unicorns are thoughts.”, is informative in the way “Black bears are mammals.” is informative. So I did not feel utterly stupid saying that pink unicorns are thoughts, but I did think it was rather obvious until truth machine intervened.

    The “about” part was to specify that pink unicorns (on your account) are a specific kind of thoughts, and that that same specific kind of thoughts is the one meant in both 2 and 3. (There’s no contradiction, after all, in asserting that one sort of thoughts exist and that another is identical with something that doesn’t exist.)

    I am wondering if there is some underlying idea being held here that thoughts are a big amorphous goo where no two parts are distinguishable from each other instead of highly structured interactions.

    I hold no such idea and am mystified as to what would make you think I do. My example of dragons v. unicorns would make no sense if I didn’t think the ideas clearly distinguishible.

    Rather, it seems to me that you are failing to distinguish, namely between ideas and their referents.

    I do not think I was speaking metaphorically. These things we call unicorns (of any color or transparency) are imaginary, products of our brains.

    I realize you didn’t mean to be metaphorical. That’s why I’m troubling to try and explain why you are wrong.

  579. #582 listener
    April 14, 2010

    Feynmaniac (#580), you may believe that I need to clarify my own belief before arguing for the opposite. That is fine.
    But as far the Berkeley link goes, the most relevant bit to me was what I see as a Popperian conclusion: ‘Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities ? like God.’
    And when I say I don’t believe in a soul, god or anything else that isn’t evidence-based, I am saying it is just my personal view, based on what I think is the evidence.
    I don’t think that the existence/non-existence of souls are equally likely; in my view, because there is no evidence I can work with, I consider
    the matter irrelevant and beyond discussion.
    But there may be other views that may have their own consistency that I’ve never heard or read about. I may doubt that they exist, but I cannot reject the possibility because it is inconsistent with the worldview I have decided is right.

  580. #583 Feynmaniac
    April 14, 2010

    But as far the Berkeley link goes, the most relevant bit to me was what I see as a Popperian conclusion: ‘Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities ? like God.’

    There are many problems with the Popperian view of science. In this particular case the idea that you are restricted to talking only about natural phenomena. There’s no way you can ever falsify the idea that there’s a greatest prime number or an unmarried bachelor. To pick an example closer to science, it’s still possible there’s aether permeating the entire universe. However, physicists dropped the idea because it was shown to be unnecessary. Many ideas in science have been discarded not because they were shown to be falsified, but because they were shown to be superfluous.

    And when I say I don’t believe in a soul, god or anything else that isn’t evidence-based, I am saying it is just my personal view, based on what I think is the
    evidence.

    I’m confused. It isn’t evidence-based but is based on what you think is the evidence? Can you explain?

    I don’t really care whether you define it as being part of science or not, but do you at least agree that rejecting (or conidering very unlikely) the existence of souls, gods, etc. is the rational thing to do?
    See my comment at #572.

    in my view, because there is no evidence I can work with, I consider
    the matter irrelevant and beyond discussion.

    Do you feel the same way about the Greek gods, invisible pink unicorns, the Flying Sphagetti Monster, etc.?

  581. #584 Paul W., OM
    April 14, 2010

    truth machine @ 451

    Huh. I thought that was your argument.

    My argument is primarily that belief doesn’t imply faith; I seem to recall that you introduced the idea that we were giving in to the faithheads by refusing to use the word, but I could well be mistaken — I can’t find the thread I was thinking of.

    That might have been me, over in the Deep Rifts thread. It’s one of my Don’t Let Them Fuck Up Important Words hobbyhorses. (Another is “moral.”)

    It’s not at all original, though. People always have to clear away that kind of perverted word use undergrowth in any area where they regularly talk about beliefs. (Epistemology, AI, opinion polling, whatever.)

    BTW I agree with you about “believe in” as well. People regularly use that phrase for regular old believing that something exists or is valid. (Or more generally, has some particular attribute under discussion, or satisfies some relevant criterion. E.g., “I don’t believe in recycling styrofoam” meaning that it doesn’t work or isn’t worthwhile.)

    The religious sense is parasitic on that. When you “believe in” Christianity, that may mean that you think it’s true, but it likely also means that you trust it to do what it says on the tin.

    That’s one of the complexities of talking about religious “belief” or “faith.” It’s often mostly not directly about belief per se, but about an attitude like trust or optimism, or commitment involving being trustworthy. (E.g., “Keep the faith” meaning be trustworthy and trust God and/or others, and stay the course through the hard shit, and things will work out for the better.)

    Unfortunately, religious apologists ofen latch onto skeptics’ interepretation of “belief” or “faith” and say that they’ve got it wrong, and religious belief or faith is not mostly about beliefs in the sense of truth values of propositions, but about attitudes and practices or something—it’s not something you think, but something you do.

    I think they sorta have a point. Religous belief/faith often involves issues of commitment and trust that are not the same as belief, and are intertwined with a sense of moral commitment.

    Unfortunately they generally don’t follow that line of reasoning where it really goes, and explore the propositional beliefs presupposed by the attitudes, and reinforced by the practices. (E.g., Doesn’t trusting God presuppose believing in God? Aren’t “transcendental” mystical practices akin to self-hypnosis and self-brainwashing, bypassing our critical faculties and reinforcing such beliefs?) They typically just dis the skeptics, muddy the waters and change the subject. (Karen Armstrong is a great example of that.)

  582. #585 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Andreas Johansson #581,

    Nobody is saying that pink unicorns are real biological creatures. I’m saying that they don’t exist – you are, incoherently, claiming that they simultaneously do not exist and are brain activities.

    How is it incoherent when there has never been any evidence given for biological pink unicorns? The ones that do “exist” are things of the imagination. When you talk about pink unicorns, you are not talking about something that exists outside of human conceptions. It’s the bigfoot problem all over again. People imagine a bigfoot (a thought), become enthralled with the idea, and then go out and sweep the forests for tracks, never noticing that they (or some other person) made it all up to begin with. It’s a delusion to think that real pink unicorns or real bigfoot exist without evidence of their existence.

    There’s no contradiction, after all, in asserting that one sort of thoughts exist and that another is identical with something that doesn’t exist.

    Here’s my question: if something doesn’t exist outside of human imagination but we can imagine it, then what is it?

    Rather, it seems to me that you are failing to distinguish, namely between ideas and their referents.

    Right, I get that. And I am asking you to point objectively to those referents. John Morales called them abstractions, but abstractions make no sense if they cannot be transformed into thoughts; I am thinking that abstractions, at their most basic level, are thoughts or more likely the intelligible instructions for building thoughts.

    I realize you didn’t mean to be metaphorical. That’s why I’m troubling to try and explain why you are wrong.

    Well thank you, but I’m not getting it yet. It still seems to me that we will get nowhere assuming that any one thing we think about has an immediate referent that is external to our minds.

  583. #586 listener
    April 14, 2010

    There are many problems with the Popperian view of science. In this particular case the idea that you are restricted to talking only about natural phenomena. There’s no way you can ever falsify the idea that there’s a greatest prime number or an unmarried bachelor. To pick an example closer to science, it’s still possible there’s aether permeating the entire universe. However, physicists dropped the idea because it was shown to be unnecessary. Many ideas in science have been discarded not because they were shown to be falsified, but because they were shown to be superfluous.

    That is certainly a reasonable argument. And yes, ideas have been discarded for their superfluity. No argument again on that. Aether is a good example of an idea not being roundly discredited by scientists, perhaps because they were spending their time doing something better. Do correct me if I’m wrong there.
    The only area I think I differ with you is to consider that my view of scientific reality is all that there is, just because I don’t know of anything better.
    I am not used to blogging and this is the only time I’ve spent so much time on posting. That may be one reason I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be when I said this:
    And when I say I don’t believe in a soul, god or anything else that isn’t evidence-based, I am saying it is just my personal view, based on what I think is the evidence.
    What I meant was that I go by the evidence as I understand it: evidence I can measure even if I always cannot. For example, I accepted the then reasonable view that new brain cells are not formed until Elizabeth Gould came up with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. So what I had accepted as legitimate evidence changed as I came across more details. My belief in the absence of the supernatural is based only on the evidence I consider legitimate; I allow for other evidence ? the kind the theists believe in ? that I may have not yet encountered, though, again in my personal view, that may be unlikely.
    I do think that rejecting the existence of souls, gods, etc. is the rational thing to do. But I am always uncomfortably aware that I have had to modify and change my views even within science and so have to allow for other possibilities. I have my problems in allowing for absolute certainty.
    And yes, because I have no no evidence of Greek gods, invisible pink unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though they are certainly interesting ideas that over time and with varying levels of crudity helped us get a handle on complex ideas. Other than as conceptual props and interesting ideas, I do consider them irrelevant to my worldview. But again, that is my worldview.

  584. #587 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    my brain produces thoughts of pink unicorns, but it does not produce pink unicorns. Brain activities are not imaginary, and are not “beyond the senses and measurement”…

    Of course it doesn’t, they don’t exist! But your thoughts about them do exist and are all that they are. I am saying that pink unicorns are brain activities.

    You seem to be badly broken.

  585. #588 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    That might have been me

    It wasn’t — that is, it’s not you I was thinking of, but SC.

  586. #589 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    I don’t think that the existence/non-existence of souls are equally likely; in my view, because there is no evidence I can work with, I consider
    the matter irrelevant and beyond discussion.

    But of course there is evidence one can work with — everything that has ever been attributed to the workings of the soul has been shown to have some other cause, and nothing we should expect to be true if souls exist is true; that is why the belief in souls has been abandoned by scientifically educated people. Since souls are reduced to something that has no effect, they are indistinguishable from nothing at all; they are like undetectable-in-principle horns on the foreheads of horses, making the horse actually be unicorns. What’s the difference between horses being horses and horses being that sort of unicorn? Nothing at all — it is mere wordplay.

  587. #590 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    My belief in the absence of the supernatural is based only on the evidence I consider legitimate

    You keep contradicting yourself. Your belief in the absence of the supernatural is evidence-based, just as PZ’s is.

    I allow for other evidence ? the kind the theists believe in

    What “kind” is that?

    that I may have not yet encountered

    We all allow for the possibility that we will encounter evidence that we haven’t yet encountered. But talk of evidence that we haven’t encountered is incoherent, reification of a mere possibility.

    But I am always uncomfortably aware that I have had to modify and change my views even within science and so have to allow for other possibilities. I have my problems in allowing for absolute certainty.

    Again with the signs of having been dropped on the head; “absolute certainty” is a strawman; no one here claims to have it.

  588. #591 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    truth machine,

    You seem to be badly broken.

    You do have a habit of making pointless points like that in between all the good stuff you write.

  589. #592 Paul W., OM
    April 14, 2010

    aratina cage:

    Here’s my question: if something doesn’t exist outside of human imagination but we can imagine it, then what is it?

    Typically, if the human imagining thinks it actually exists, we’d call that a hallucination or a delusion.

    You seem to be abusing the word “exist.”

    In normal usage, to say that something you imagine (like a unicorn or God) exists is to say that it has some form of existence distinct from your conceiving of or imagining it.

    That even applies to largely mental phenomena that we would say actually exist.

    For example, money exists, even though what makes something money is a matter of people regarding it as money and systematically treating it as money.

    Just imagining money isn’t the same thing as money existing. Just imagining that something existent is money isn’t either. I can’t imagine money into real existence, or just imagine some existing thing into being money.

    (More’s the pity, except that without crucial constraints on collectively imagining it into existence or moneyness, it wouldn’t really be money anyway.)

  590. #593 Sastra
    April 14, 2010

    listener #582 wrote:

    But as far the Berkeley link goes, the most relevant bit to me was what I see as a Popperian conclusion: ‘Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities ? like God.’

    I don’t see anything in the methods of science which stipulate, in advance, anything about the natural, or the supernatural, or what it can deal with. How are you defining “supernatural?”

    What if we approached religious beliefs about the supernatural, as if they were hypotheses about the nature of reality? Surely, religious believers themselves think they have confirming evidence: they don’t claim to have randomly free-associated imaginary pleasant things they enjoy pretending to believe in just for their own amusement. (Well, hardly ever: in the Calvinball that is religion, never say never.)

  591. #594 Feynmaniac
    April 14, 2010

    listener @ #586,

    I had more points, but truth machine wrote them better than I could @ #590.

    The only area I think I differ with you is to consider that my view of scientific reality is all that there is, just because I don’t know of anything better.

    That’s not exactly my view. My view would be that given our current evidence we have to designate things that haven’t been seen and for which there is no positive evidence as extremely unlikely. If in the future there is new evidence or a new theory that adds weight to a concept then we change our mind. However, the rational thing to do for now is to dismiss these things as improbable.

  592. #595 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 14, 2010

    Listener, science doesn’t do absolute knowledge. You have been repeatedly told that. Absolute knowledge requires 100% certainty. Science can’t get there, but with some theories, like atomic theory and evolution, it is on an asymptote that can approach very, very closely, but never achieve that 100%. 99.99999% is good enough.

    The scientific method can be used for almost anything with slight modifications. The most important thing to keep in mind is that without evidence to date, hard physical evidence, the proper starting point is that an object doesn’t exist. This is not an absolute statement. Here the knowledge asymptote approaches zero probability though. It still allows for the presentation of new evidence to demonstrate that the object, say a soul, actually exists.

    Science is not as dogmatic as you appear to think. The scientific method is a powerful tool for building knowledge. It sheds the bullshit arguments looks at the hard facts. It constantly tests and refines itself. Science will listen to ideas, but ideas without evidence are rejected. Which is why it works so well.

  593. #596 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    You do have a habit of making pointless points like that

    It wasn’t pointless; saying “I am saying that pink unicorns are brain activities”, even after having it pointed out that that is a category mistake, indicates a serious cognitive failure.

  594. #597 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    if something doesn’t exist outside of human imagination but we can imagine it, then what is it?

    It’s fictional. By your lights, Tom Sawyer and the Loch Ness monster are brain activities. But that’s a category mistake; Tom Sawyer is a character in a book, and the Loch Ness monster is a mythical creature. If the Loch Ness monster turns out to be real, does that make it no longer a brain activity? That’s nonsensical (and one must be badly broken to think that way). Thoughts of the Loch Ness monster are brain activities, regardless of whether it exists or not. Thoughts of Tom Sawyer and of Tom Cruise are both brain activities, while Tom Sawyer is a character in a book and Tom Cruise is a Scientologist and an actor.

  595. #598 Mr T
    April 14, 2010

    aratine cage:

    Here’s my question: if something doesn’t exist outside of human imagination but we can imagine it, then what is it?

    Rather, it seems to me that you are failing to distinguish, namely between ideas and their referents.

    Right, I get that. And I am asking you to point objectively to those referents.

    Let’s compare an imaginary squid to an imaginary unicorn. The squid you’re imagining doesn’t exist as a squid, but as an imagination based on your experiences. If you say, “This imaginary squid exists”, you’re referring to a thought’s existence, which doesn’t depend on a thing existing external to your thoughts. That real squid exist in nature at all is a different matter from whether you can have thoughts about them. Also, the existence of real squid has only a tenuous relationship with your thoughts about them. Even if there is a real squid which you can directly observe and subsequently remember, your sensation/perception of it is not identical to the thing itself.

    Likewise, you can imagine a “unicorn”, but it is not a real unicorn, just an imagination as in the case of the squid. Entirely separate from that is the fact that there are no real unicorns. Of course you can’t observe real unicorns because real ones do not exist, but at the same time your imagination of them does exist.

    When I think of a pink unicorn, I can draw on experiences like seeing illustrations of them, verbal descriptions, augmenting memories of seeing horses with additional concepts like “pink” or “has a horn on its head”, and so on. I can only throw all of that crap together as my best attempt at imagining one. Other than that, I can think about how I’ve never seen one in real life, nor to my knowledge has anyone else. Rhinoceroses also spring to mind. A fictional referent like a cartoon or a myth is enough to produce an imaginary unicorn, but that does not entail that unicorns exist, or don’t exist, or that these imaginary unicorns are fundamentally different experiences than those of imaginary squid.

  596. #599 listener
    April 14, 2010

    Feynmaniac (#594), I, too, believe things I can’t see (despite some effort) as being unlikely.
    I believe we differ only on details, such as my acceptance of a viewpoint that I cannot assess from within the limitations I have set upon myself – that being the scientific method as I understand it.
    And while I, too, dismiss these things as improbable in my worldview, I am willing to allow it is not impossible if another valid worldview existed.

  597. #600 listener
    April 14, 2010

    Nerd (#595), thank you for that… Am in absolute agreement with with most of what you said.
    For me, the nuance comes in here:

    Science will listen to ideas, but ideas without evidence are rejected. Which is why it works so well.

    As I see it, ideas without evidence are rejected in a scientific framework. Being limited to it, I would agree with you there. But I do know that non-Euclidean space exists, and that quantum theory allows for either/or states. Given that there is a chance – any chance – of another reality outside the scientific framework as we understand it, I allow for it without necessarily succumbing to it.

  598. #601 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    And I am asking you to point objectively to those referents

    Consider “the current queen of England” and “the current king of England”. The former has a physical referent and the latter does not, but that doesn’t make the latter one a “thought” or “brain activity”. Both the former and the latter are descriptions, just as “pink unicorn” is. For every description, there is a set of things in the real world that fit it, and some of those sets are empty — that’s the case for “the current king of England”, “pink unicorns”, and “souls” (almost certainly).

    “you are, incoherently, claiming that they simultaneously do not exist and are brain activities.”

    How is it incoherent when there has never been any evidence given for biological pink unicorns?

    Uh, you say that pink unicorns are brain activities, and that pink unicorns do not exist. But those brain activities exist; therefore the claim is incoherent. That shouldn’t be hard to follow by anyone who isn’t broken.

    Let’s go back to what listener wrote:

    as far as I know, everything imaginary – or something that might as well be there – is beyond the senses and measurement.

    This is quite true; that which is imaginary (that which does not exist) or that “might as well be there” (which I take to mean something with no physical consequences) is beyond the senses and measurement. You wrote:

    Imaginary things exist between your ears. I just read that Intel has been making inroads into distinguishing between imagined things people are thinking about. The technology is already here, though it is at an early stage, to definitively discriminate between things you imagine. So you are wrong.

    No, you are incredibly dense. The report is about distinguishing between thoughts — different mental activities — and those mental activities are quite real, not imaginary. It isn’t possible for an apparatus to distinguish between two different imaginary things because imaginary things do not exist.

  599. #602 listener
    April 14, 2010

    Sastra (#594), religion is a often a bit like Calvinball but, for that same reason, I don’t know if they can reasonably be judged using the scientific method. They fall outside the purview of science and, because of that, I would not apply scientific rules to what claims to be supernatural.

  600. #603 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    truth machine #601,

    No, you are incredibly dense. The report is about distinguishing between thoughts — different mental activities — and those mental activities are quite real, not imaginary. It isn’t possible for an apparatus to distinguish between two different imaginary things because imaginary things do not exist.

    This, what you said right here, is my stumbling block. You are granting imaginary things the status of nonexistence; I am not fully disagreeing but am arguing they are existent as thoughts but not as real objects seeing as how there is no evidence for any real objects to which they can refer.

  601. #604 Pluto Animus
    April 14, 2010

    Better minds have coined better arguments, but here’s one I’m proud of:

    To anyone who tells you that the idea of permanent death, with no afterlife, is a depressing idea, ask them:

    Which is more depressing: the idea that some pain lasts forever, or the idea that all pain is temporary?

  602. #605 KOPD
    April 14, 2010

    they are existent as thoughts

    No they don’t. Thoughts of them exist, but they do not “exist as thoughts”. Apples and oranges. Thoughts are thoughts, imaginary objects are imaginary objects. Saying pink unicorns exist as thoughts of pink unicorns is no more true than saying George Washington exists as a painting of George Washington. Sure, such paintings exist, but to say that a painting of George Washington is George Washington is silly because George Washington is not a painting.

  603. #606 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 14, 2010

    Given that there is a chance – any chance – of another reality outside the scientific framework as we understand it, I allow for it without necessarily succumbing to it.

    I don’t deny the possibility, just that physical evidence, not personal revelation (how is that determined to be different from a delusion?), be supplied. That is where we differ, including the application of the scientific method to everything. If it effects the world, science can measure it. If it doesn’t effect the world, it is a meaningless idea/hypothesis. Which can be safely ignored and swept into the dumpster where it belongs. I don’t worry that I might be wrong, because new physical evidence will always change my mind. For example, I’m still waiting for the reproducible cold fusion experiment where the excess heat is matched by the number of neutrons given off and is confirmed by many teams world-wide…until then, cold fusion is junk science.

  604. #607 Paul W., OM
    April 14, 2010

    aratina cage:

    The report is about distinguishing between thoughts — different mental activities — and those mental activities are quite real, not imaginary. It isn’t possible for an apparatus to distinguish between two different imaginary things because imaginary things do not exist.

    This, what you said right here, is my stumbling block. You are granting imaginary things the status of nonexistence; I am not fully disagreeing but am arguing they are existent as thoughts but not as real objects seeing as how there is no evidence for any real objects to which they can refer.

    They are not existent as thoughts. They are not existent at all.

    The fact that a thought of something exists doesn’t mean that the thing exists. The thought is a thing, but it’s not the same thing as the thing it’s a thought of.

    We sometimes say that something “exists in” an imagined universe. For example, in the Harry Potter universe, dragons “exist.”

    That doesn’t mean that dragons exist, full stop. If I simply say that “dragons exist,” that’s saying that they exist in this world, the real world, and are real—they’re not just fictitious entities in a fictitious world. Saying that they “exist in” the Potterverse is very different—it’s does not imply that they actually exist.

    Likewise, saying that something “exists in” our thoughts is sloppy misleading metaphorical talk, if we want to talk about actual existence. An imagined unicorn or dragon may “exist in” some imagined universe or situation, or just “exist in” my thoughts, ready to be plugged into some imaginary situation, but again, that doesn’t mean it exists in the central sense of the word.

    Imaginary existence of a thing is not a kind of actual existence of that thing. It is only the existence of a thought.

    Saying that something exists in fiction or in our thoughts is not saying that it exists. It’s saying that it fictitiously exists, or is imagined to exist, which is something else.

  605. #608 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    Listener,

    So it is an appeal to authority, is it, Morales (#564)? Because someone you know has taught at the tertiary level, he automatically knows it all.

    Not so; it was because you’d assumed Nerd needed schooling in the basics of science, though you were apparently lacking knowledge of his posting history here.

    In short, you’d first engaged in an appeal to his lack of authority, about which you were therefore corrected.

    You quoted my earlier note where I said ?I never argued for a soul, so claiming that I postulated one is, in my view, a result of fuzzy logic.?
    And responded: ?But Nerd did not so claim.?
    This is what the gentleman wrote (and I suspect from his interesting language in general that he is male, though I could be wrong):

    You have something that cannot be sensed or detected that you postulate.

    I’m pretty sure Nerd was responding to your claim that belief in souls is not amenable to scientifically-based dismissal; that “you” he used is a form of speech referring to a generic believer in souls, where he splits the possibility space into that which has observable effects and that which doesn’t, and indicates that for it to be considered rather than rejected as otiose certain conditions must be met.

    And to demand that I clarify whether I believe in a soul or not is not, again in my view, part of the scientific method.
    You say:
    But Nerd did not so demand.
    Well, do check these then:
    (#527) ?You want god, souls, homeopathy, or invisible gold dragons to exist? Show some real evidence other than your desire that they exist.?
    (#535) ?So, either show us your evidence, or go away.?
    (#539) ?Show the evidence or shut up. You see, if you can’t describe something physically, you can’t prove it exists outside your delusional mind.?

    Clearly, Nerd is referring to your wish that such may exist, based on your claim that the possibility is not to be rejected.
    I grant that this is an unwarranted inference, and you’re just playing devil’s advocate.
    Again, note he is using “you” in a generic sense, and again, the request for you to show your evidence refers to why you think such concepts are not to be rejected.

    [...] But he went on to say that ?Claiming vague ill-defined things exist that don’t interact with the real world in a meaningful way is an example of that. It is mental masturbation, and is totally irrelevant to reality.?
    Colorful imagery, but I don?t think that follows.

    If you think it doesn’t follow, then you should show how it’s meaningful to say such exist, other than as imaginary entities (that, admittedly, affect the beliefs and behaviour of humans).

    I have always argued for the scientific method, even taught it, but this exchange here, and the bad humour surrounding it has made me wonder if faith is only the preserve of the ?woomeisters? who ?are one step below doggie doo.?

    An odd thing to write; if your views and attempted defense of them are challenged, we’re operating on faith?

    Your concern about tone is duly noted.

    Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, personal attacks? A great many logical fallacies all thrown in just to win an argument. And that is sad.

    What’s sad is your mischaracterisation of what has been a robust exchange.

    I didn?t ever want to bring this up, but personally, I don?t believe in a soul or a god or anything else that I cannot measure.

    Why your reluctance to bring it up?
    Regardless of your personal belief in such, what you’ve been challenged on is your claim that such unevidenced and ill-defined entities are not to be dismissed, pending evidence or explanatory necessity.

    I am more than comfortable accepting my reality to be circumscribed by scientific limits. But for the life of me I don?t know why that matters, why my own reality should be the right one and, not just better, the only one.

    Why it matters? Are you serious?
    BTW, what does it even mean to say there may be more than one (objective) reality?

    To me, that intolerance is consistent with most religions.

    That intolerance is towards accepting nonsensical beliefs and basing behaviour upon them; when people’s beliefs are non-congruent with reality, this is problematic (do I need to explain why?).

    I?ve always avoided commenting here, and, when I uncharacteristically did, was horrified at some of the prejudice and, now, clannishness that I see.

    If you can get over your dismay over tone, and the fact that contentious claims tend to get dog-piled upon, you will find that you can have a genuine and substantive discussion.

    I’d come here for thoughtful argument, a little room for doubt. Clearly, in the case of you and your friends, there is no room for doubt.

    Really.
    Have you considered that perhaps you’ve generalised from insufficient data?
    As I see it, you’ve put nothing forward that challenges commenters’ extant opinions, so as to engender doubt about them.

    I don?t think you or some or the other vocal members here speak for all science.

    Good, neither do we. Your point? :)

    I believe that while I stepped forward this time, like me there are many others who usually just follow the argument most often and are not wholly subject to strident evangelism at the cost of reasoned argument.

    We know there are many lurkers; the rest of that is just tone-trolling and rhetorical mischaracterisation.

    As you have always endeavoured to, do prove me wrong.

    About what, specifically?

  606. #609 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 14, 2010

    I’d come here for thoughtful argument, a little room for doubt. Clearly, in the case of you and your friends, there is no room for doubt.

    We’ve had many discussions on that topic here previous to your arrival. We treat all unevidenced claims as bogus until proven otherwise. Why not? No evidence, no changing of our minds…

    Kinda reminds me of a quote attributed to Calvin Coolidge: “If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.” Most possible unknowns, likes deities and souls, are bogus, and will hit the ditch logically without evidence. Just be ready for the real one that has evidence. There’s probably a Nobel prize there…

  607. #610 WowbaggerOM
    April 14, 2010

    I’m always fascinated by comments like this:

    I’d come here for thoughtful argument, a little room for doubt. Clearly, in the case of you and your friends, there is no room for doubt.

    and this:

    I believe that while I stepped forward this time, like me there are many others who usually just follow the argument most often and are not wholly subject to strident evangelism at the cost of reasoned argument.

    If I say 2+2=4 (in base 10) and insist that anyone who says otherwise is wrong, does that make me strident? a dogmatist? A fundamentalist? An evangelist? Religious in my defense of two-plus-two-equals-fourism?

  608. #611 Paul W., OM
    April 14, 2010

    aratina:

    These things we call unicorns (of any color or transparency) are imaginary, products of our brains.

    No. The things you’re talking about, which are products of our brains, are not unicorns. They are thoughts. Those things we call unicorns don’t actually exist anywhere. Only representations of them—thoughts, pictures, etc.—actually exist. The unicorns themselves don’t exist.

    Saying that a thought of a unicorn is a unicorn is like saying that the portrait on this dollar bill here actually is George Washington. It’s simply not George Washington. George Washington is a dead person turned to dust in a hole in the ground. The portrait is just a little picture on a piece of paper. (And it’s not even a good likeness anymore.)

    Sure, the portrait exists. That doesn’t mean that George Washington exists in my pocket when I put a dollar bill there. What exists there is just a dollar bill, which includes a representation of George Washington.

    The fact that dollar mental representations of unicorns are entirely real does not mean that unicorns exist—abusing the term that way blurs the utterly crucial distinction between actual things and representations of things.

    You may say, metaphorically, that you’ve got a unicorn prancing in your mind, because you imagine one doing that, but you don’t really have a unicorn in your mind, which is in your head. If you did, your head would explode.

  609. #612 Sastra
    April 14, 2010

    listener #602 wrote:

    religion is a often a bit like Calvinball but, for that same reason, I don’t know if they can reasonably be judged using the scientific method. They fall outside the purview of science and, because of that, I would not apply scientific rules to what claims to be supernatural.

    Again, what do you mean by “supernatural?” Are you saying that you would not apply scientific rules to supernatural beliefs because people will just shift the goal posts? That doesn’t necessarily mean that the supernatural is outside of science in principle.

    Consider dowsing. You can easily set up a fair test for the ability to detect water with a stick. The fact that dowsers will then desperately try to come up with strained excuses when they fail doesn’t mean that “you cannot apply scientific rules to dowsing.” It means that the defenders of dowsing are not being intellectually honest.

    If you carefully examine what the dowsers claim, they’re talking about a force that directly responds to human wishes: supernatural force.

  610. #613 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 14, 2010

    listener, what reasoned arguments? None from you. All I hear is irrational doubt. Grow a pair, and quit being afraid of your own lack of decision. You will be wrong sometime. As I keep telling the Redhead, make a decision and live with the consequences, like any adult…

  611. #614 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Paul W., OM #592,

    You seem to be abusing the word “exist.”

    In normal usage, to say that something you imagine (like a unicorn or God) exists is to say that it has some form of existence distinct from your conceiving of or imagining it.

    I didn’t think I had given up that distinction about the meaning of the word “exist”. I was saying that you can look at a thought as something that exists and continue on with the observance that unicorns and gods are distinct thoughts and then realize that all that they are are thoughts, things comprised of brain activities in the space between one’s ears. I was thinking that if they have an existence, that is where it is.

    money exists, even though what makes something money is a matter of people regarding it as money and systematically treating it as money.

    Just imagining money isn’t the same thing as money existing. Just imagining that something existent is money isn’t either. I can’t imagine money into real existence, or just imagine some existing thing into being money.

    First I just have to say, nothing outside the mind can be imagined into existence (which would be a case of real magic). That is just silly even though it makes good fantasy. I thought that truth machine was making it seem like I was oblivious to that when he schooled me with, “[my brain] does not produce [real] pink unicorns”, the opposite of which is ludicrous on two levels: 1) brains do not physically instantiate objects that they imagine into reality, and 2) no evidence has been given that real pink unicorns exist at all.

    As for “money”, it seems like a rather loose term for things that exists in many real forms because a plurality of people agree on the things it can be as well as something that people knowingly made up to satisfy economic needs. You can say it exists with good reason for without it many things about reality would not make sense.

  612. #615 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    truth machine #597,

    If the Loch Ness monster turns out to be real, does that make it no longer a brain activity?

    No, it would not make it no longer a brain activity, but I was thinking it would give it a real biological thing to refer to rather than keeping it strictly imaginary.

    By your lights, Tom Sawyer and the Loch Ness monster are brain activities. But that’s a category mistake; Tom Sawyer is a character in a book, and the Loch Ness monster is a mythical creature.

    Possibly continuing with glaring misconceptions, I am wondering if we can we really separate characters in books and mythical creatures from our thoughts? A book or movie is meaningless without them.

  613. #616 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    aratina, you might wish to review your ontology of categories of existence; because you seem to be hung up on the semantics of the term.

  614. #617 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Mr T #598,

    If you say, “This imaginary squid exists”, you’re referring to a thought’s existence, which doesn’t depend on a thing existing external to your thoughts.

    Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Even though real squid exist, this imaginary one does not really exist except as a thought. And I don’t see any reason why that thought could not hypothetically be detected as it is active in the brain.

    A fictional referent like a cartoon or a myth is enough to produce an imaginary unicorn, but that does not entail that unicorns exist, or don’t exist, or that these imaginary unicorns are fundamentally different experiences than those of imaginary squid.

    OK, but cartoons and myths are made by people, intentionally or not. They don’t provide a compelling enough reason to say, “That biological thing you’re thinking about, it’s real.” I was also thinking that the imaginary squid and the imaginary unicorn (heh, since when are unicorns not imaginary?) are fundamentally different since they are not the same thoughts and would not be built out of the same memories.

  615. #618 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Paul W., OM #607

    The thought is a thing, but it’s not the same thing as the thing it’s a thought of.

    If something doesn’t exist, how can it be anything but a thought?

    saying that something “exists in” our thoughts is sloppy misleading metaphorical talk, if we want to talk about actual existence. An imagined unicorn or dragon may “exist in” some imagined universe or situation, or just “exist in” my thoughts, ready to be plugged into some imaginary situation, but again, that doesn’t mean it exists in the central sense of the word.

    Hrm. I’m trying to understand how imaginary things cannot be thoughts but it doesn’t make sense to me from a materialistic point of view.

    Imaginary existence of a thing is not a kind of actual existence of that thing. It is only the existence of a thought.

    I really think that’s what I’m saying. These imagined things are just thoughts.

    Saying that something exists in fiction or in our thoughts is not saying that it exists. It’s saying that it fictitiously exists, or is imagined to exist, which is something else.

    This is where I get boggled. How can it not exist as a thought? Why doesn’t existence apply to thoughts?

  616. #619 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    John Morales, #616

    aratina, you might wish to review your ontology of categories of existence; because you seem to be hung up on the semantics of the term.

    Yes, but it will be more of a study than a review. I’m kind of depressed that I can’t use the “between your ears” gambit anymore until I understand the topic.

  617. #620 Paul W., OM
    April 14, 2010

    aratina:

    How can it not exist as a thought? Why doesn’t existence apply to thoughts?

    There’s really no such thing as something “existing as a thought.” That’s just a metaphorical shorthand for saying that you imagine it.

    Existence does apply to actual thoughts.

    If I think of a unicorn, that thought exists. It’s a real representation in my head. But the unicorn that it represents does not actually exist.

    Saying that a unicorn “exists in my imagination” is just a sloppy metaphorical shorthand for saying that a unicorn is represented by a representation of a certain sort in my head. Literally speaking, it’s just false.

    The fact that a representation of some thing exists does not mean that that thing exists. It only means that the representation exists, and that’s a whole different thing.

    When talking about whether God exists, it’s bizarre to interpret “exists” to mean “is represented in my head” because it should be obvious to everyone that it’s represented in your head in the usual sense—you’re thinking and talking about it.

    It’s clear that anybody who’s concerned with the question of whether God exists is not talking about that, so you want to avoid the sloppy metaphorical shorthand of referring to something being represented in your head as existing in your head. It is actually represented by something else that does really exist, but that is not a form of existing itself.

  618. #621 KOPD
    April 14, 2010

    If something doesn’t exist, how can it be anything but a thought?

    Things that don’t exist aren’t even thoughts. They are nothing. The thought is something, but the object is nothing. You need to separate the thought from the object it concerns. Just as the portrait and the subject are distinct, so are the thought and the object.

    Hrm. I’m trying to understand how imaginary things cannot be thoughts but it doesn’t make sense to me from a materialistic point of view.

    Because things and thoughts are different categories. Are non-imaginary things thoughts? Is your foot a thought? And if you don’t know if something is real or imaginary then how do you know if it’s an object or a thought? It’s a category error. This idea about thoughts of imaginary things seems similar to memories of real things. I have a memory of a friend, but that friend is not a memory they are a person (either dead or alive). The memory and the person are separate things. It’s the same with thoughts and things.

    This is where I get boggled. How can it not exist as a thought? Why doesn’t existence apply to thoughts?

    Thoughts do exist. I’m not sure what that means. Thoughts are activities of the mind, and I’ve never heard of a unicorn being described as an activity of the mind. What about imaginary things that have not yet been imagined. How would you categorize them? I’d categorize them as things. Specifically as things that don’t exist.

    Now all this isn’t to say that I don’t sort of see where you’re coming from. In English we use a lot of shorthand in this area. We say that something is “just a dream” or “only a memory.” But when we say those things what we really mean is that the thing does not exist anymore or never did, and has left behind only memories.

  619. #622 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    Very badly broken.

  620. #623 KOPD
    April 14, 2010

    By “I’m not sure what that means” I meant I’m not sure what your question of existence applying to thoughts means. Sorry about the ambiguity there. Heavy editing sometimes introduces errors of its own.

  621. #624 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Thanks Paul W. That, #620, actually made a lot of sense to me.

    Saying that a unicorn “exists in my imagination” is just a sloppy metaphorical shorthand for saying that a unicorn is represented by a representation of a certain sort in my head. Literally speaking, it’s just false.

    The fact that a representation of some thing exists does not mean that that thing exists. It only means that the representation exists, and that’s a whole different thing.

    OK. That is what I meant because I can rephrase my thoughts to say that the representation of a unicorn in our imaginations is as real as unicorns will ever be (that is, to the extent that the representations in our imaginations are real) without evidence of the existence of unicorns.

  622. #625 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    Very badly broken.

    Mu.

  623. #626 Paul W., OM
    April 14, 2010

    aratina:

    the representation of a unicorn in our imaginations is as real as unicorns will ever be (that is, to the extent that the representations in our imaginations are real) without evidence of the existence of unicorns.

    OK, except that “as real as unicorns will ever be” is not real at all; having representations that are real is an entirely different attribute than being real. (Which is the point of saying that something is imaginary.)

    (You do seem reveal that you get this when you say “without evidence of the existence of unicorns”—you get that being imagined isn’t actually a form of existing.)

  624. #627 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    tm, I’m broken too, by your standard.

    So what?

    aratina is endeavouring to clarify his concepts, willingly engaging others, and seems honest enough in his endeavours.

    To expect more than that seems perverse, and indeed arrogant. If anything, I laud him for it.

  625. #628 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    I can’t use the “between your ears” gambit anymore until I understand the topic.

    Atheist don’t believe that God exists, so they certainly don’t believe that God exists between people’s ears. “God only exists in your head” employs a kind of joke about semantic categories that is immediately grasped by non-broken people who can actually distinguish between the categories and so aren’t confused by the joke. What the phrase actually means is “God doesn’t exist, only your thoughts about God exist”.

    Back to how this got started: listener referred to “imaginary things” — by which s/he meant the members of empty sets the descriptions of which have been imagined, such as pink unicorns — the set of pink unicorns is empty. S/he said that these “things” cannot be sensed or measured — this follows, since there are no such things; the sets are empty. You then said that listener was wrong because of work by Intel. But that work is to distinguish between a person having one sort of thoughts, say thoughts about pink unicorns, and a person having different sorts of thoughts, say thoughts about souls. This is not a distinction between different imaginary things, pink unicorns and souls, its a distinction between very real things — people with differing brain patterns. Those people don’t have pink unicorns or souls between their ears — not really.

    One need not be educated in philosophy to grasp this.

  626. #629 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    the representation of a unicorn in our imaginations is as real as unicorns will ever be

    Representations of unicorns aren’t unicorns, so they don’t impart any degree of reality to unicorns.

    that is, to the extent that the representations in our imaginations are real

    They are plenty real — we’re materialists, remember?

  627. #630 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    P.S.

    That is what I meant because I can rephrase my thoughts to say that the representation of a unicorn in our imaginations is as real as unicorns will ever be (that is, to the extent that the representations in our imaginations are real) without evidence of the existence of unicorns.

    First, what you wrote here does not at all mean the same thing as what Paul W. wrote, so what he wrote can’t be what you meant. Beyond that, even what you wrote here is not what you meant, because you wrote many things that are not equivalent to that. In particular, you wrote that listener is wrong to say that imaginary things cannot be sensed or measured, which says something quite different, although it hinges on the same persistent conflation between things and their representations in our imagination that you engage in yet again above.

  628. #631 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    To expect more than that seems perverse

    Indeed, which is why I wrote “That you don’t get that this is a category mistake makes me feel for you, but I won’t try any harder to get it across to you”, but you know me, I’m like a dog with a ragdoll, I just can’t let it go.

    and indeed arrogant

    Who? Me? No, how can you possibly say that?

    If anything, I laud him for it

    So what?

  629. #632 sciencenotes
    April 14, 2010

    I hope it’s not too late to mention that we don’t have to see someone masturbating to learn about it: late-term fetuses imaged by ultrasound have been caught masturbating and seen apparently having orgasms. It’s truly something you’re born with.

  630. #633 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    late-term fetuses imaged by ultrasound have been caught masturbating and seen apparently having orgasms

    A single instance of a female fetus, as far as I know.

    It’s truly something you’re born with

    You’re born with masturbating?

    Again:

    “People discover masturbation.”

    and

    “You are wired in such a way that you get pleasure from sex, which makes you want it.”

    That’s enough to explain observations of four year old boys or even a single instance of a female fetus masturbating.

  631. #634 truth machine, OM
    April 14, 2010

    P.S. I brought up masturbation as a counter to a claim that we have a basic animal instinct to spread our DNA around. Obviously, being born with an urge to masturbate wouldn’t further that claim.

  632. #635 John Morales
    April 14, 2010

    tm @631, touch.

  633. #636 Antiochus Epiphanes
    April 14, 2010

    FFS

  634. #637 aratina cage
    April 14, 2010

    KOPD #623 and Paul W. #626, thanks for the further explanations. Tip of the hat to John Morales #627.

    truth machine #629,

    Representations of unicorns aren’t unicorns, so they don’t impart any degree of reality to unicorns.

    Ah, but listener was talking about souls and other imaginary things, this being a thread about the afterlife, and some people do think that their thoughts about souls and other imaginary things impart a degree of reality to souls and other imaginary things. This is where I was going with the attempt to equate pink unicorns with the thoughts themselves. They say “pink unicorns” but they mean “thoughts of pink unicorns”. What they are really going on about are their own thoughts.

    from #628,

    What the phrase actually means is “God doesn’t exist, only your thoughts about God exist”.

    I have known that ever since I used the phrase, and it is what I was trying to get across for listener‘s benefit (*sheepish grin*): the thoughts exist, the object does not.

    again from #628,

    You then said that listener was wrong because of work by Intel. But that work is to distinguish between a person having one sort of thoughts, say thoughts about pink unicorns, and a person having different sorts of thoughts, say thoughts about souls.

    But remember, I was coming at it from the “between your ears” line which says that only the thoughts exist, not the imaginary thing itself. So if listener would have said, “You cannot detect souls.”, I would have been replacing that with, “You cannot detect thoughts about souls.”, which I thought (wrongly, taking your word that I misread the press release from Intel) may not be true much longer.

  635. #638 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    I have known that ever since I used the phrase, and it is what I was trying to get across for listener’s benefit (*sheepish grin*): the thoughts exist, the object does not.

    It is you who said that listener was wrong to say that imaginary things can’t be sensed or measured — wrong because Intel is sensing them; but Intel is not sensing souls, it is sensing patterns. Listener was right, you were wrong, and the confusion between objects and thoughts about them is all yours.

    So if listener would have said, “You cannot detect souls.”, I would have been replacing that with, “You cannot detect thoughts about souls.”

    Doing that is foolish because listener was talking about souls, not thoughts about souls.

    wrongly, taking your word that I misread the press release from Intel

    No, actually you were right about it and I was wrong, having read it very sloppily — the subjects thought about the things represented by words, they didn’t just think of the words.

  636. #639 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    Ah, but listener was talking about souls and other imaginary things, this being a thread about the afterlife, and some people do think that their thoughts about souls and other imaginary things impart a degree of reality to souls and other imaginary things. This is where I was going with the attempt to equate pink unicorns with the thoughts themselves. They say “pink unicorns” but they mean “thoughts of pink unicorns”. What they are really going on about are their own thoughts.

    Wait, so you think listener is some sort of unscientific faithhead or woomeister and you were setting hrm straight? What irony.

  637. #640 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    P.S.

    seems honest enough in his endeavours

    After #637, I really don’t think so.

  638. #641 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Nerd. (#606), you said:

    If it effects the world, science can measure it. If it doesn’t effect the world, it is a meaningless idea/hypothesis.

    I think negentropyeater (#551) pointed out some things that may exist, are reasonable within their scientific context, and affect the world in some fashion and yet are not measurable, such as dark energy and superstrings, the Higgs boson, maybe the graviton?

    I’m still waiting for the reproducible cold fusion experiment where the excess heat is matched by the number of neutrons given off and is confirmed by many teams world-wide…until then, cold fusion is junk science.

    I spoke to a few people on both sides of the argument soon after it this became a scandal, and I got the impression that those who worked closely with the accused ? people of some scientific solidity ? genuinely believed the experiments were legitimate. That is often the risk of belief. You always can go a bit beyond data and come up with what may be a wrong conclusion.
    Which is why I have trouble with your assertion (#609):

    We treat all unevidenced claims as bogus until proven otherwise. Why not? No evidence, no changing of our minds.

    Sometimes the evidence is tainted; and sometimes evidence is not available ? even in science.
    As for (#613), I will naturally give it a pass.
    Wowbagger (#610), you said,

    Religious in my defense of two-plus-two-equals-fourism?

    The moment you say that, I?d say you have stepped beyond scientific purview and cannot be taken seriously within that context. Once you say have an untestable hypothesis, even if it is true, would deem it legitimate as an argument but be3yond science.
    Sastra (#612), you asked twice what I meant by ?supernatural?? I didn?t address it he first time, but was using the commonly used definition of that which is purportedly beyond any plausible scientific explanation now or in the future.
    Given that members of faith groups are far more variable in their views than scientists because of the subjective nature of religion, I do worry about shifting goalposts. Again, my argument is narrow about the supernatural: if someone claims it is not science, that there is no discernible effect on nature, then they cannot use the rules of science to prove their point. Dowsing does, and so it is exposed to empirical testing such as the frequency with which the contraption does whatever it does above/near water.
    ID was a more insidious attempt to do the same thing ? but once it claimed it was science it was fair game.
    Yet again, I make no argument for the supernatural/soul/god//IPU (but not the poor FSM). But I do believe that if believers are working on faith, I cannot/will not judge them by scientific standards.
    It reminds me of the joke about the doctor who told a creationist patient infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria that since he did not believe in evolution, he was fine. In a real hospital, the doctor would just try to find some novel way to treat the man, and not expend a great deal of energy explaining what might be wrong.
    But while there are always unreasonable faith-based arguments, there are always studied views that have not gained acceptance. As Nerd pointed in one of his best posts for a variety of reasons (#595), ?science doesn’t do absolute knowledge.? In science, I am often happy with the 95 percent confidence interval, far short of the 99.99999 he described; when it is non-science, it does not matter to me.

  639. #642 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Wowbagger, forgive me my typos. What I meant was:
    The moment you say that, I?d say you have stepped beyond scientific purview and cannot be taken seriously within that context. Once you say you have an untestable hypothesis, even if it is true, it would be legitimate as an argument, even if a weak one, but beyond science.
    And Sastra (#612), I fear I morphed an article into a personal pronoun but I hope that the general idea is there.
    Apologies again.
    Regards…

  640. #643 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    So if listener would have said, “You cannot detect souls.”, I would have been replacing that with, “You cannot detect thoughts about souls.”

    The more I read this the more I find it an absurd and dishonest reconstruction. It is plenty clear from #346 that aratina knew full well that listener was talking about souls as undetectable supernatural phenomena, not as thoughts about souls that might be detected by scientists at Intel:

    But souls are not beyond the senses or instruments. You are playing the same game with souls that sophisticated theologians do with gods when asked to provide evidence for their god and suddenly we find that God is indescribable, immeasurable, beyond the senses. No doubt your ideal definition of a soul has now morphed to elude being torn apart by empirical evidence like watching a person’s mind deteriorate and eventually disappear with the onslaught of Alzheimer’s, or by the innumerable cases of debunking of paranormal and psychic claims, or by the logical difficulty in explaining how a soul plays any part in the mechanics of our bodies.

    I agree with this, except that I believe aratina misidentified listener’s problem. It is a more basic failure to grasp that absence of evidence really is evidence of absence — that a hypothesis, such as “Xs exist”, has implications and that a failure of those implications to manifest is reason to reject the hypothesis.

  641. #644 aratina cage
    April 15, 2010

    truth machine, OM #638,

    It is you who said that listener was wrong to say that imaginary things can’t be sensed or measured — wrong because Intel is sensing them; but Intel is not sensing souls, it is sensing patterns. Listener was right, you were wrong, and the confusion between objects and thoughts about them is all yours.

    Doing that is foolish because listener was talking about souls, not thoughts about souls.

    and #639

    Wait, so you think listener is some sort of unscientific faithhead or woomeister and you were setting hrm straight? What irony.

    Yep. Pretty much. I accept that listener was not a woo-addled believer in those instances and that it was I who jumped to conclusions and careened off track.

    #640,

    P.S.

    seems honest enough in his endeavours

    After #637, I really don’t think so.

    Meh. Your opinion of me hasn’t changed at all then.

  642. #645 John Morales
    April 15, 2010

    listener,

    But I do believe that if believers are working on faith, I cannot/will not judge them by scientific standards.

    Why not?

    If their faith-based beliefs lead to fact-based claims, such claims are amenable to the scientific method; if these claims are unsustainable, then withholding judgement is naught but appeasement.

    Note that cannot and will not are qualitatively different; the latter implies that you could, but choose not to.
    Which is it?

    You earlier referred to informal fallacies, do you not understand that special pleading constitutes one such?

    But while there are always unreasonable faith-based arguments, there are always studied views that have not gained acceptance.

    What do you mean by this?

  643. #646 aratina cage
    April 15, 2010

    truth machine, OM #643,

    The more I read this the more I find it an absurd and dishonest reconstruction. It is plenty clear from #346 that aratina knew full well that listener was talking about souls as undetectable supernatural phenomena, not as thoughts about souls that might be detected by scientists at Intel:…

    I don’t think it is a dishonest reconstruction from what I can recall after reading #515, but we are talking days between some of the comments here so my thoughts from the times when I wrote each comment have slipped my mind.

  644. #647 WowbaggerOM
    April 15, 2010

    listener wrote:

    The moment you say that, I?d say you have stepped beyond scientific purview and cannot be taken seriously within that context. Once you say you have an untestable hypothesis, even if it is true, it would be legitimate as an argument, even if a weak one, but beyond science.

    That wasn’t my point. My point was to illustrate that wholesale rejection of claims, by more than one person, ≠ religious fervour, strident fundamentalism, evangelism or whatever other terms you tried to apply.

  645. #648 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Morales (#645) As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone. But when they say there is scientific proof of what they say – as happens with people who argue for a scientific basis for ID, or Deepak Chopra, who argues for … well, something if anything – they have to finally plan for testable, falsifiable hypotheses of some sort.
    And because I cannot judge followers of faith as long as they don’t say there is scientific evidence for their claims, I will not.
    When I said there are always studied views that have not gained acceptance, I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development. I still see papers that question the existence of dark matter, and at least one noted cosmologist told me that the claim was bunkum. Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.
    I cited the case of neurophysiologists showing that the accepted view that no brain cells are formed is wrong.
    Of course, because my readings are largely limited to a scientific context, I come up with these examples. You can find the same arguments in macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, and a great many other subjects.
    While I may not be able to show why faith-based views may be invalid, I am not for their rejection – or acceptance – till such time I can.

  646. #649 John Morales
    April 15, 2010

    Listener, thanks for the response to my #654, and please feel free to address me as ‘John’ — BTW, are you going to respond to my #608 or do you concede my position therein? :)

    Regarding your #648:

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    Not necessarily so; it may be the case that what they base on faith or intuition is in fact scientifically testable.

    (e.g. Number of Ribs.)

    Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    And because I cannot judge followers of faith as long as they don’t say there is scientific evidence for their claims, I will not.

    I note that, if you cannot, you have no choice as to whether you will or you will not.
    Hence, to say you “will not” is but fatuous and pompous rhetoric.

    That said, I repeat: Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    When I said there are always studied views that have not gained acceptance, I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development.

    Uh-huh. However, you seem to be eliding the relevant fact — that those ideas either (a) had explanatory power not accounted for by extant theory or (b) had supporting evidence that made them testable.

    I still see papers that question the existence of dark matter, and at least one noted cosmologist told me that the claim was bunkum.

    Dark matter is relatively uncontroversial these days, and indeed provides both explanatory power and has evidence in its favour.

    Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.

    Who, and on what basis?

    I cited the case of neurophysiologists showing that the accepted view that no brain cells are formed is wrong.

    Indeed, and that view was corrected because the proposition was well-defined and testable.

    Of course, because my readings are largely limited to a scientific context, I come up with these examples.

    None of which are comparable to ill-defined and untestable hypotheses such as the ‘soul’.

    I refer you to Nerd’s post @547, which posed questions you have yet to directly address.

    You can find the same arguments in macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, and a great many other subjects.

    I very much doubt you can find ill-defined and untestable propositions in those fields, except from cranks; I also suspect that such as may exist are no less ridiculed by economists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc.

    While I may not be able to show why faith-based views may be invalid, I am not for their rejection – or acceptance – till such time I can.

    Well, that’s a relief!

    I’ll pass that on to my twin brother, who is a highly-intelligent teratomic outgrowth from my anal cavity named Kuatu — most people would disbelieve me when I mention him, but you are one of the enlightened ones. He translocates to Pluto when anyone other than myself might see him, you know (he can do this because he also has powerful psychic abilities).

    </sarcasm ref=”Total Recall”>

  647. #650 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Thank you, John (#649).
    About what I said in (#648):

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    Maybe I should add a qualifier there: ‘As long as people are relying solely on faith…’ I think I addressed that farther down when I said it was
    Not necessarily so; it may be the case that what they base on faith or intuition is in fact scientifically testable.

    Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    The argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I test it? I don’t think so. But if the soul supposedly serves a purpose, I cannot bring myself to call it otiose.
    And if that makes you feel better, I’m fatuous and pompous. Go for it.
    And yes, when I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development, I am indeed talking of testable theories. Because I’m not a theologian of some sort, I cannot (will not?) dabble in fields I haven’t studied at any length, even if it is because I prefer to stick to falsifiable information.

    Dark matter is relatively uncontroversial these days, and indeed provides both explanatory power and has evidence in its favour.

    Do check the popular science sites for these and related stories:
    Does dark matter really exist
    Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories”
    John Moffat says dark matter does not exist”

    Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.

    Abhay Ashtekar: From the Big Bang to a Big Bounce

    None of which are comparable to ill-defined and untestable hypotheses such as the ‘soul’.

    True. But my argument is that given my knowledge I amn’t qualified to reject or accept data that purportedly lies outside my field of knowledge and/or experience. Because I don’t accept it does not automatically invalid, other than, perhaps, in an area where I have some knowledge. Then, too, I may have erred.

    I refer you to Nerd’s post @547, which posed questions you have yet to directly address.

    I was unwilling to stop anyone from thinking that I ‘was not full of shit’ and that I ‘might as well masturbate than talk about it.’ Nor was I willing not to indulge in ‘philosophical games.’ While I thought the posting disjointed (to be fair, an accusation he has made of me, too), I had also decided that, at best, I would argue only for the right to speak of people who have a completely different worldview from mine. I may hold out but I try not to do the machismo thing.
    About macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, you said you doubt if there are ill-defined and untestable propositions, except from cranks.
    In economics, perhaps the trickle-down effect, the Laffer curve and the Phillips curve qualify as such concepts.
    In anthropology, there have been arguments over Margaret Mead’s depiction of a sexually free Samoa, the spread of an epidemic among the Yanomami, and the early descriptions by many Western anthropologists of a variety of tribes as primitive and savage based on their experiences in their own civilizations.
    Paleontology has had its own difficulty placing humans in a timeline, including the ‘hobbits’ and with the recent flap over Australopithecus sediba.
    In science, it is easier to settle an issue, though in some cases it can take a few decades. But the process is generally slower than the average in the ‘soft’ sciences.

  648. #651 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Thank you, John (#649).
    About what I said in (#648):

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    Maybe I should add a qualifier there: ‘As long as people are relying solely on faith…’ I think I addressed that farther down when I said it was
    Not necessarily so; it may be the case that what they base on faith or intuition is in fact scientifically testable.

    Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    The argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I test it? I don’t think so. But if the soul supposedly serves a purpose, I cannot bring myself to call it otiose.
    And if that makes you feel better, I’m fatuous and pompous. Go for it.
    And yes, when I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development, I am indeed talking of testable theories. Because I’m not a theologian of some sort, I cannot (will not?) dabble in fields I haven’t studied at any length, even if it is because I prefer to stick to falsifiable information.

    Dark matter is relatively uncontroversial these days, and indeed provides both explanatory power and has evidence in its favour.

    Do check the popular science sites for these and related stories:
    Does dark matter really exist
    Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories”
    John Moffat says dark matter does not exist”

    Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.

    Abhay Ashtekar: From the Big Bang to a Big Bounce

    None of which are comparable to ill-defined and untestable hypotheses such as the ‘soul’.

    True. But my argument is that given my knowledge I amn’t qualified to reject or accept data that purportedly lies outside my field of knowledge and/or experience. Because I don’t accept it does not automatically invalid, other than, perhaps, in an area where I have some knowledge. Then, too, I may have erred.

    I refer you to Nerd’s post @547, which posed questions you have yet to directly address.

    I was unwilling to stop anyone from thinking that I ‘was not full of shit’ and that I ‘might as well masturbate than talk about it.’ Nor was I willing not to indulge in ‘philosophical games.’ While I thought the posting disjointed (to be fair, an accusation he has made of me, too), I had also decided that, at best, I would argue only for the right to speak of people who have a completely different worldview from mine. I may hold out but I try not to do the machismo thing.
    About macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, you said you doubt if there are ill-defined and untestable propositions, except from cranks.
    In economics, perhaps the trickle-down effect, the Laffer curve and the Phillips curve qualify as such concepts.
    In anthropology, there have been arguments over Margaret Mead’s depiction of a sexually free Samoa, the spread of an epidemic among the Yanomami, and the early descriptions by many Western anthropologists of a variety of tribes as primitive and savage based on their experiences in their own civilizations.
    Paleontology has had its own difficulty placing humans in a timeline, including the ‘hobbits’ and with the recent flap over Australopithecus sediba.
    In science, it is easier to settle an issue, though in some cases it can take a few decades. But the process is generally slower than the average in the ‘soft’ sciences.

  649. #652 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Had some problem signing in…
    Thank you, John (#649).
    About what I said in (#648):

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    Maybe I should add a qualifier there: ?As long as people are relying solely on faith?? I think I addressed that farther down when I said it was
    Not necessarily so; it may be the case that what they base on faith or intuition is in fact scientifically testable.

    Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    The argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I test it? I don?t think so. But if the soul supposedly serves a purpose, I cannot bring myself to call it otiose.
    And if that makes you feel better, I?m fatuous and pompous. Go for it.
    And yes, when I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development, I am indeed talking of testable theories. Because I?m not a theologian of some sort, I cannot (will not?) dabble in fields I haven?t studied at any length, even if it is because I prefer to stick to falsifiable information.

    Dark matter is relatively uncontroversial these days, and indeed provides both explanatory power and has evidence in its favour.

    Do check the popular science sites for these and related stories:
    Does dark matter really exist
    Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories?
    John Moffat says dark matter does not exist?

    Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.

    Abhay Ashtekar: From the Big Bang to a Big Bounce

    None of which are comparable to ill-defined and untestable hypotheses such as the ‘soul’.

    True. But my argument is that given my knowledge I amn?t qualified to reject or accept data that purportedly lies outside my field of knowledge and/or experience. Because I don?t accept it does not automatically invalid, other than, perhaps, in an area where I have some knowledge. Then, too, I may have erred.

    I refer you to Nerd’s post @547, which posed questions you have yet to directly address.

    I was unwilling to stop anyone from thinking that I ?was not full of shit? and that I ?might as well masturbate than talk about it.? Nor was I willing not to indulge in ?philosophical games.? While I thought the posting disjointed (to be fair, an accusation he has made of me, too), I had also decided that, at best, I would argue only for the right to speak of people who have a completely different worldview from mine. I may hold out but I try not to do the machismo thing.
    About macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, you said you doubt if there are ill-defined and untestable propositions, except from cranks.
    In economics, perhaps the trickle-down effect, the Laffer curve and the Phillips curve qualify as such concepts.
    In anthropology, there have been arguments over Margaret Mead?s depiction of a sexually free Samoa, the spread of an epidemic among the Yanomami, and the early descriptions by many Western anthropologists of a variety of tribes as primitive and savage based on their experiences in their own civilizations.
    Paleontology has had its own difficulty placing humans in a timeline, including the ?hobbits? and with the recent flap over Australopithecus sediba.
    In science, it is easier to settle an issue, though in some cases it can take a few decades. But the process is generally slower than the average in the ?soft? sciences.

  650. #653 skidoo
    April 15, 2010

    I find it curious—and in fact a sort of cognitive dissonance—when my fellow non-believers say things such as, “Not having a soul means we alone accomplished X, and we alone get to make our lives what we will.”

    So you don’t believe in a soul; a supernatural disembodied spirit driver? OK. And yet you seem to believe in free will, which by definition requires independent agency.

    And “independent agency” is synonymous with “supernatural spirit driver.”

    Don’t embarrass yourself. Just stop at meat machine, maybe toss in the ILLUSION of free will, and call it a day.

  651. #654 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 15, 2010

    and affect the world in some fashion and yet are not measurable, such as dark energy and superstrings, the Higgs boson, maybe the graviton?

    Sorry, they are measurable by their effects on other things. We may not be able to do direct measurements, and that isn’t what I said or meant. Reality is like that

    Sometimes the evidence is tainted; and sometimes evidence is not available ? even in science.

    Yep, which is why science tries to replicate the experiments if possible. That removes the taint. Like when the Jacques Benveniste claimed he found homeopathy worked. Turned out to be experimental error, lack of true double blind for the technician, a believer in homeopathy, who fudge the results, and the expected results, no activity, were obtained with proper and rigorous testing. You have a problem with science. Why don’t you express it directly, and not indirectly by constantly and irritatingly expressing nonsensical doubts.

    Again, my argument is narrow about the supernatural: if someone claims it is not science, that there is no discernible effect on nature, then they cannot use the rules of science to prove their point.

    No, if it has no detectable effects, it is worthless as an explanation. Address that. Why would you want it to be anything else?

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    WRONG…This is a totally inane point. It excuses the woomeisters. They need to be vigorously questioned.

    But I do believe that if believers are working on faith, I cannot/will not judge them by scientific standards.

    Why should we give a shit about your inane opinion on this subject. We don’t care what you believe. You are attempting to create a space where you don’t question folks with the hard questions. That’s BS.

    You are hung up on this concept that we can’t see everything. Describe what we can’t see, and why it is important, or if you can’t, STFU about it.

  652. #655 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Thank you, John (#649).
    About what I said in (#648):

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    Maybe I should add a qualifier there: ‘As long as people are relying solely on faith…’ I think I addressed that farther down when I said it was
    Not necessarily so; it may be the case that what they base on faith or intuition is in fact scientifically testable.

    Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    The argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I test it? I don’t think so. But if the soul supposedly serves a purpose, I cannot bring myself to call it otiose.
    And if that makes you feel better, I’m fatuous and pompous. Go for it.
    And yes, when I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development, I am indeed talking of testable theories. Because I’m not a theologian of some sort, I cannot (will not?) dabble in fields I haven’t studied at any length, even if it is because I prefer to stick to falsifiable information.

    Dark matter is relatively uncontroversial these days, and indeed provides both explanatory power and has evidence in its favour.

    Do check the popular science sites for these and related stories:
    Does dark matter really exist
    Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories”
    John Moffat says dark matter does not exist”

    Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.

    Abhay Ashtekar: From the Big Bang to a Big Bounce

    None of which are comparable to ill-defined and untestable hypotheses such as the ‘soul’.

    True. But my argument is that given my knowledge I amn’t qualified to reject or accept data that purportedly lies outside my field of knowledge and/or experience. Because I don’t accept it does not automatically invalid, other than, perhaps, in an area where I have some knowledge. Then, too, I may have erred.

    I refer you to Nerd’s post @547, which posed questions you have yet to directly address.

    I was unwilling to stop anyone from thinking that I ‘was not full of shit’ and that I ‘might as well masturbate than talk about it.’ Nor was I willing not to indulge in ‘philosophical games.’ While I thought the posting disjointed (to be fair, an accusation he has made of me, too), I had also decided that, at best, I would argue only for the right to speak of people who have a completely different worldview from mine. I may hold out but I try not to do the machismo thing.
    About macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, you said you doubt if there are ill-defined and untestable propositions, except from cranks.
    In economics, perhaps the trickle-down effect, the Laffer curve and the Phillips curve qualify as such concepts.
    In anthropology, there have been arguments over Margaret Mead’s depiction of a sexually free Samoa, the spread of an epidemic among the Yanomami, and the early descriptions by many Western anthropologists of a variety of tribes as primitive and savage based on their experiences in their own civilizations.
    Paleontology has had its own difficulty placing humans in a timeline, including the ‘hobbits’ and with the recent flap over Australopithecus sediba.
    In science, it is easier to settle an issue, though in some cases it can take a few decades. But the process is generally slower than the average in the ‘soft’ sciences.

  653. #656 John Morales
    April 15, 2010

    skidoo,

    I find it curious—and in fact a sort of cognitive dissonance—when my fellow non-believers say things such as, “Not having a soul means we alone accomplished X, and we alone get to make our lives what we will.”

    Well, first, you don’t sound like a non-believer, but rather someone pretending to be one.

    Second, what makes you think anyone here believes in your simplistic version of “free will”?

    And “independent agency” is synonymous with “supernatural spirit driver.”

    To you, perhaps. But then, you’re a believer in the supernatural, despite your transparently stupid protestation otherwise.

  654. #657 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 15, 2010

    So you don’t believe in a soul; a supernatural disembodied spirit driver?

    No, no solid evidence for one. Show the physical evidence for one.

    which by definition requires independent agency.

    Ah, a religious sophist. No, evolution explains it quiet nicely. No need for any agencies, which is nothing but bad philosophy.

    Just stop at meat machine, maybe toss in the ILLUSION of free will, and call it a day.

    No illusion. Prove otherwise with physical evidence, not bad philosophy.

  655. #658 Usagichan
    April 15, 2010

    Listener,

    I have followed your argument with some interest. What I don’t quite understand is how you separate some things as non-rejectable and some things as pure fiction. It seems to me that by your argument all supernatural beliefs which do not impinge on the material world are equally valid (why dismiss the FSM – he may only be a rhetorical device but his existence has an equal amount of evidence as any of the supernatural beliefs – is the seriousness of belief a quality that defines what may be true?)

  656. #659 Anri
    April 15, 2010

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    So, if someone were to say ‘according to my intuition, the earth does not move’, you would not have a problem with that statement? You would consider that statement to be beyond the realm of science?

    But when they say there is scientific proof of what they say – as happens with people who argue for a scientific basis for ID, or Deepak Chopra, who argues for … well, something if anything – they have to finally plan for testable, falsifiable hypotheses of some sort.
    And because I cannot judge followers of faith as long as they don’t say there is scientific evidence for their claims, I will not.

    So, once again, if one of the honestly faithful were to bring a charge of witchcraft against someone, based on nothing but their intuition in the matter, you’d be perfectly fine if they ignored any factual evidence in the case?
    Indeed, if I am reading you correctly, so long as the only statement given by the accuser(s) consisted of ‘I believe in my heart that (name) is a witch and evil!’, you would wish to prevent anyone else from looking at the facts of the case, yes?

    To put it melodramaticly, if a mother looks at her infant child and believes she sees the devil in him, is she justified in drowning him, based on her intuition?
    And if she is not, how will you defend that position without judging her intuition with facts?

  657. #660 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Thank you, John (#649).
    About what I said in (#648):

    As long as people are relying on faith – on intuition or some similar construct – they are working in a scientifically untestable zone.

    Maybe I should add a qualifier there: ?As long as people are relying solely on faith?? I think I addressed that farther down when I said it was
    Not necessarily so; it may be the case that what they base on faith or intuition is in fact scientifically testable.

    Can you actually name even one single faith/intuition-based claim that is both (a) not otiose and (b) not amenable to scientific examination?

    The argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I test it? I don?t think so. But if the soul supposedly serves a purpose, I cannot bring myself to call it otiose.
    And if that makes you feel better, I?m fatuous and pompous. Go for it.
    And yes, when I speak about the many ideas science has had difficulty accepting at different levels in its development, I am indeed talking of testable theories. Because I?m not a theologian of some sort, I cannot (will not?) dabble in fields I haven?t studied at any length, even if it is because I prefer to stick to falsifiable information.

    Dark matter is relatively uncontroversial these days, and indeed provides both explanatory power and has evidence in its favour.

    Do check the popular science sites for these and related stories:
    Does dark matter really exist
    Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories?
    John Moffat says dark matter does not exist?

    Yet another believes there was a big bounce rather than a big bang, at a time that peers are comfortable with the idea of a big bang.

    Abhay Ashtekar: From the Big Bang to a Big Bounce

    None of which are comparable to ill-defined and untestable hypotheses such as the ‘soul’.

    True. But my argument is that given my knowledge I amn?t qualified to reject or accept data that purportedly lies outside my field of knowledge and/or experience. Because I don?t accept it does not automatically invalid, other than, perhaps, in an area where I have some knowledge. Then, too, I may have erred.

    I refer you to Nerd’s post @547, which posed questions you have yet to directly address.

    I was unwilling to stop anyone from thinking that I ?was not full of shit? and that I ?might as well masturbate than talk about it.? Nor was I willing not to indulge in ?philosophical games.? While I thought the posting disjointed (to be fair, an accusation he has made of me, too), I had also decided that, at best, I would argue only for the right to speak of people who have a completely different worldview from mine. I may hold out but I try not to do the machismo thing.
    About macroeconomics, anthropology, paleontology, you said you doubt if there are ill-defined and untestable propositions, except from cranks.
    In economics, perhaps the trickle-down effect, the Laffer curve and the Phillips curve qualify as such concepts.
    In anthropology, there have been arguments over Margaret Mead?s depiction of a sexually free Samoa, the spread of an epidemic among the Yanomami, and the early descriptions by many Western anthropologists of a variety of tribes as primitive and savage based on their experiences in their own civilizations.
    Paleontology has had its own difficulty placing humans in a timeline, including the ?hobbits? and with the recent flap over Australopithecus sediba.
    In science, it is easier to settle an issue, though in some cases it can take a few decades. But the process is generally slower than the average in the ?soft? sciences.

  658. #661 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    I accept that listener was not a woo-addled believer in those instances and that it was I who jumped to conclusions and careened off track.

    Good to hear.

    Your opinion of me hasn’t changed at all then.

    I take it back. I now agree with JM’s #627.

  659. #662 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    And “independent agency” is synonymous with “supernatural spirit driver.”
    Don’t embarrass yourself. Just stop at meat machine, maybe toss in the ILLUSION of free will, and call it a day.

    Irony. The fact is that we are unavoidably committed to talk of agency — see Dennett’s “The Intentional Stance”, “Freedom Evolves”, and other works.

  660. #663 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    But then, you’re a believer in the supernatural, despite your transparently stupid protestation otherwise.

    I think you’re mistaken. skidoo has a valid point — the notion of libertarian free will permeates our language and thought, even the thought of many if not most materialists — it’s nearly impossible to avoid, as skidoo demonstrated by using such language and concepts hmrself, as I highlighted above.

    For some evidence of where skidoo really stands, I googled and found only this other comment:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php#comment-795346

    You don’t even have to give the creationists a shovel. They dig their own graves just fine with their fingernails.

  661. #664 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    P.S.

    However,

    “Not having a soul means we alone accomplished X, and we alone get to make our lives what we will.”

    is a strawman; it is not an accurate portrayal of PZ’s

    We do not have immortality, but that also means we can throw away the irrelevant crutches of god-belief. We’ve walked successfully without them ? cast them away, stand as a proud human being and meet fate without the wishful delusions of faith. That’s why this thought is a sacrilege ? it says that we have no need of priests or gods or persistent ghosthood, ideas that have only hobbled us.

  662. #665 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    I really don’t want to wallow any more in listener’s depths of confusion, but this, which was quoted above, caught my eye:

    affect the world in some fashion and yet are not measurable, such as dark energy and superstrings, the Higgs boson, maybe the graviton?

    Uh, dark energy is only measurable — we don’t know anything about it, but it appears to be about 71.3% of the universe. And Higgs bosons are a prediction of a model but may not exist if the model is wrong. Until the Large Hadron Collider was built we didn’t have the means to detect them — if they exist. Likewise with superstrings — the Large Hadron Collider will be used to run experiments that test predictions of some superstring hypotheses. And gravitons also are posited entities to explain observations; if they exist, then they both affect the world and are measurable.

  663. #666 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    No need for any agencies, which is nothing but bad philosophy.

    I would not credit the Nerd as any sort of authority on what is good or bad philosophy.

  664. #667 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    P.S. The irony is that skidoo said the same thing as Nerd — that there’s no need for agency. But that’s based on a false dichotomy, the notion that something is either produced by material mechanism or by agency. But agency need not be viewed as an alternate cause, but rather as a different level of description. Dennett has laid this out in his theory of three “stances”, the physical, design (I think that is a misnomer — mechanical would be better), and intentional stances. These stances provide increasingly powerful frameworks for prediction. For a physical object such as a stone, we can make predictions based on its physical attributes. For a mechanism such as a liver, we can also make predictions based on its attributed function. And for an agent, such as a person, we can also make predictions based upon its goals, intentions, and other attributed mental states.

  665. #668 truth machine, OM
    April 15, 2010

    why dismiss the FSM – he may only be a rhetorical device but his existence has an equal amount of evidence as any of the supernatural beliefs – is the seriousness of belief a quality that defines what may be true?

    “exist” is a funny word. Is it logically coherent to talk of, say, undetectable-in-principle ectoplasmic horns on the foreheads of horses by virtue of which horses are actually unicorns? I contend that it is not, because there is no semantic difference between saying that such horns exist and saying that they do not exist; the “existence” of such things does not amount to anything. And the same is true of “souls” with attributes so reduced that they have no consequences. I believe that we can confidently say that things with no consequences do not exist, as a matter of the semantics of “exist”.

  666. #669 listener
    April 15, 2010

    test…

  667. #670 listener
    April 15, 2010

    I was not able to post in here all through today for whatever reason.
    But if in my many postings I could not make my case for tolerance for a viewpoint beyond our own, then perhaps I’ve failed.
    Either way, I thank you all for that spirited discussion.
    Regards…

  668. #671 Sastra
    April 15, 2010

    listener #665 wrote:

    But if in my many postings I could not make my case for tolerance for a viewpoint beyond our own, then perhaps I’ve failed.

    ‘Tolerance?’ Certainly. Forbearance? No. You respect a viewpoint best by engaging with it seriously, not by treating it with delicate hands and waving it off.

    Regards…

  669. #672 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 15, 2010

    then perhaps I’ve failed.

    No perhaps about it. You failed due to an utter lack of coherent argument, and a need to give special credence to “it isn’t examinable by science”. To which any skeptic worth his name repeatedly says “BULLSHIT”.

  670. #673 aratina cage
    April 15, 2010

    truth machine,

    Thanks for that in #656. I thought #663 was a little treat to read and would like to see it developed further.

  671. #674 Menyambal
    April 15, 2010

    You respect a viewpoint best by engaging with it seriously, not by treating it with delicate hands and waving it off.

    I agree with Sastra.

    I once saw a T-shirt that read, “Prayer Is The Ultimate Weapon”. To snicker slightly and go back to my studies was not at all respectful. To dive across the desk, wrestle the wearer into a sleeper hold and phone for a SWAT team would have been taking the wearer seriously.

    To wear a shirt like that is just goofy, and is setting up the premise for a failure.

    To argue that there are seriously powerful things going on that we just can’t detect is also goofy, and often goes against the very premises of the claim.

    Take being afraid of ghosts. Ghosts most probably don’t exist. If they do exist, they are formless wraiths of immaterial souls of people. Yet some folks act as as if they are powerful, malevolent beings who can and will rip your head off and shit in it.

    We have no reason to suspect that ghosts are real, and many reasons to sneer at those who believe in them. To actually engage with such people is a moment of taking them seriously, and is actually what many of them wish.

    Snickering at something, and saying it is beyond the bounds of science, are both easy to do, and are done the same way–by ignoring it.

    Try it. Say, “Well, that is beyond the bounds of science.” Say it with awed respect, say it with sarcastic eye-rolling. Now say, “That is interesting, let us examine it further.”

  672. #675 listener
    April 15, 2010

    Nerd (#667), I feel a little sorry for you.

    then perhaps I’ve failed.

    No perhaps about it. You failed due to an utter lack of coherent argument, and a need to give special credence to “it isn’t examinable by science”. To which any skeptic worth his name repeatedly says “BULLSHIT”.

    Until this conversation, I thought being a skeptic was about doubt.
    You clearly see it as an alternative ill-humored religiosity, one that involves invective and shouting down anything that doesn’t match your own brand of zealotry and which allows for no heretic. As I said before, that’s sad.
    I didn’t ever claim a need to give special credence to any view, just limiting science to what the scientific method claims to do.
    But it’s quite clear that is against your novel canon of science.
    Well, if that is what science is, you win. Congratulations.
    But I will respond as I can, as long as I don’t have the difficulty I had earlier today in getting my messages posted.
    Regards…

  673. #676 WowbaggerOM
    April 16, 2010

    listener wrote:

    Until this conversation, I thought being a skeptic was about doubt. You clearly see it as an alternative ill-humored religiosity, one that involves invective and shouting down anything that doesn’t match your own brand of zealotry and which allows for no heretic.

    What part of Nerd’s position isn’t based on doubt? He quite clearly doubts your claims; you could present something support them, but you haven’t bothered to even try and demonstrate why he shouldn’t doubt you – you’ve just repeatedly asserted that he’s wrong to do so.

    The ‘heretic’ wouldn’t get shouted down if he or she came bearing something substantial – i.e. evidence and/or compelling argument – to support his or her claims.

    Simply making assertions based entirely on what appears to be ignorance and personal incredulity is wasting everyone’s time.

  674. #677 Usagichan
    April 16, 2010

    Listener,

    Whilst Nerd is quite capable of defending his own position, as an observer of the exchange I would say that your description of his position

    as an alternative ill-humored religiosity, one that involves invective and shouting down anything that doesn’t match your own brand of zealotry and which allows for no heretic

    is a mischaracterisation in which you confuse tone with substance. It seems to me that what you are perceiving in terms of invective against you is more an expression of frustration because you are asking for acceptance of something without being sufficiently specific as to what you want to accept.

    It is fine to limit the discussion of science to the realm of science, as long as you are able to provide valid criteria for subjects that are ‘outside’ the realm of science, and are prepared to defend those criteria from valid criticism. Vague assertions of ‘tolerance’ strike me as both intellectually dishonest (awareness that the position they support is untenable, but acknowledge them as valid to avoid conflict)and patronising (thousands of years and no valid arguments, but we’ll give the poor dears a chance to come up with something).

    It is my observation that given something with which to engage, the regulars here are glad to undertake substantive arguments. Nebulous pronouncements on tone and inclusiveness are given the short shrift they so richly deserve. I’m afraid to say that without a little more substance, your comments seem to fall in the latter category!

  675. #678 listener
    April 16, 2010

    Wowbanger (#671), you mean he doubts that methodological naturalism should triumph over a philosophical one? Perhaps.
    And actually, I’ve repeatedly stated that the scientific method is limited to testable data. Or do you doubt that?
    As far as shouting down heretics go, both evidence and compelling argument are only what the faithful accept as true.
    And I certainly agree with your assertion here:

    Simply making assertions based entirely on what appears to be ignorance and personal incredulity is wasting everyone’s time.

    Any side can make that argument, assuming their own viewpoint is the naturally correct one.

  676. #679 listener
    April 16, 2010

    Usagichan (#672): Yes, I do think the tone is generally loutish, but the substantial difference between the two viewpoints here is that I believe the scientific method is limited to methodological naturalism, while the opposing view is for philosophical naturalism.
    The comments are strewn with examples, even from people whose view may philosophically differ from mine.

  677. #680 WowbaggerOM
    April 16, 2010

    The problem, listener, is that you haven’t presented anything that we can consider, analyse (logically), weigh up (figuratively), contemplate, dwell upon, chew over – or whatever particular expression you’d might prefer to use – through the lens of either methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism.

    All you’ve done is assert ‘souls exist’ and then defend that by claiming ‘methodological naturalism might be wrong.’

    Even if methodological naturalism is wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t given any support – of any kind, appropriate to or valid in any kind of worldview – to your assertion.

    You still need more than that to justify your claim.

  678. #681 listener
    April 16, 2010

    wowbagger (#675):

    Even if methodological naturalism is wrong… you haven’t given any support – of any kind, appropriate to or valid in any kind of worldview – to your assertion

    actually I think I argued for it, not against it. As far as the rest goes, I don’t know what more evidence I can give. You may find some of my posts still up there…

  679. #682 Usagichan
    April 16, 2010

    Listener,

    I understood the position you were taking – however my point is that you do not seem to be taking a view opposing Philosophical Naturalism, which would involve some form of argument and justification, you were simply acknowledging the possibility of valid opposing views.

    If you oppose Philosophical Naturalism what alternative do you propose? What are the limits of reasonable alternatives? What reasons are there for assuming there is anything beyond what can be observed or inferred?

    Reading your posts again I don’t think that you are actually “opposing” Philosophical Naturalism, which would require taking an intellectual position, but you seem to be implying that it is simply one of a number of valid alternatives – my problem is that I can’t see what makes the alternatives valid.

    If I have misunderstood your position, I would be happy to see any clarification.

  680. #683 WowbaggerOM
    April 16, 2010

    listener wrote:

    As far as the rest goes, I don’t know what more evidence I can give. You may find some of my posts still up there…

    Posts, yes. Coherence, no. Try again – it’s simple: just provide what you think justifies your belief that souls exist, according to whatever worldview you subscribe to. A simple list would probably suffice.

  681. #684 listener
    April 16, 2010

    usagichan (#677), I am not opposing philosophical naturalism, I’m arguing that science is limited to studying the observable (which would be methodological naturalism). And because it relies on observable data or hypotheses that has strong theoretical or empirical underpinnings, it cannot talk about constructs that fall outside these limitations.
    How can science test the untestable, whether it be invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, gods or souls. This is not to argue that anything that people conjure up is valid. Indeed, the moment they claim that their construct have a direct or otherwise measurable effect on natural phenomena, it can be tested – to be accepted or debunked. They are safe only as long as their construct
    is sequestered from the world of natural laws. But, given that faith-based groups have such diverse – and perhaps inchoate – views it is impossible to lop off every new head that that metaphysical hydra generates.
    The scientific method has no use of the untestable – and so neither accepts or rejects it.
    It is the restrictions that science puts upon itself – that of being limited to data or scientifically plausible theories – that give it solidity. But this also means that science cannot take on arguments that fall outside this zone.
    So the argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife cannot be tested. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I empirically find out either way? I don?t think so.

  682. #685 WowbaggerOM
    April 16, 2010

    listener wrote:

    But this also means that science cannot take on arguments that fall outside this zone.

    First the person making the argument has to demonstrate that there is a ‘zone’ that things can fall outside of.

    Why do you assume there is one?

  683. #686 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    But if in my many postings I could not make my case for tolerance for a viewpoint beyond our own, then perhaps I’ve failed.

    This is a ridiculous strawman and a dive into deep ad hominem waters; you might as well complain about your failure to make the case for not beating our spouses. The substantive question is not whether we “tolerate” a “viewpoint”, but whether what we say about it is sound. This sort of drivel about failing to make a case that we should change our nasty behavior looks like avoidance of the real and valid criticisms of the things you have written.

  684. #687 Usagichan
    April 16, 2010

    Listener,

    A follow up question then – Moral decisions have a measurable effect on the physical world – should these be informed by Scientific Methodology or are they outside its zone?

  685. #688 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    How can science test the untestable, whether it be invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, gods or souls.

    You call yourself “listener”, but you are nothing of the sort; you have your ears plugged. I for one have explained several times that the failure to find any evidence of something strongly suggests that it doesn’t exist. And I noted in #663 that, if something is defined or described in such a way that it has no consequences, then by the semantics of “exist”, it doesn’t exist.

    The scientific method has no use of the untestable – and so neither accepts or rejects it.

    Wrong; Ockham’s Razor is part of the scientific method; that which is explanatorily unnecessary is rejected by the scientific method. Science can’t prove that the untestable doesn’t exist — that’s for logic and semantics to do.

    So the argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife cannot be tested. Is it true? I doubt it.

    Why do you doubt it? If there were no scientific or logical reason to doubt it, then your doubt would be groundless, it would be irrational. But it isn’t, just because you are too thick to understand your own reasons.

    Can I empirically find out either way? I don?t think so.

    Empirical tests are not the only element of the scientific method; it is also based on logic and Bayesian reasoning (which Ockham’s Razor is a part of). People often make the mistake of thinking that an two alternatives are equally likely (this is the source of the error in the Monte Hall problem and similar puzzles), but they usually aren’t. The likelihood that there are undetectable souls is much much less than the likelihood that there aren’t. That is the case with any such arbitrary construction. Consider the likelihood, for instance, that exactly 5 minutes from now you will transform into a cabbage. Science can’t test this — it is completely outside of the normal workings of physical law. But there are innumerably more possible worlds in which that doesn’t happen than possible worlds in which it does.

  686. #689 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    All you’ve done is assert ‘souls exist’

    Wrong.

    just provide what you think justifies your belief that souls exist

    listener has expressed no such belief.

  687. #690 Mr T
    April 16, 2010

    I believe the scientific method is limited to methodological naturalism, while the opposing view is for philosophical naturalism.

    I don’t think anyone here is against methodological naturalism. However, I don’t think it can stand on its own as a complete philosophical viewpoint.

    So the argument that an intangible, immeasurable soul exists and serves some ineffable purpose in the afterlife cannot be tested. Is it true? I doubt it. Can I empirically find out either way? I don?t think so.

    For example: If you relied solely on methodological naturalism, what reason do you have to doubt that the supernatural exists? Clearly you haven’t tested it. Neither have we. It can’t be tested. We know that. So do you have a point?

    Unless you do for whatever reason think something supernatural exists, or is somehow a meaningful concept, or you’re holding off until someone verifies it through “other ways of knowing”, you basically have to make the assumptions as a philosophical naturalist. Do you not realize this or not want to admit it?

  688. #691 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    How can science test the untestable, whether it be invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, gods or souls. This is not to argue that anything that people conjure up is valid. Indeed, the moment they claim that their construct have a direct or otherwise measurable effect on natural phenomena, it can be tested – to be accepted or debunked. They are safe only as long as their construct
    is sequestered from the world of natural laws.

    But people do make those very claims. Ghosts go bump in the night, they communicate at seances, etc.; if they had no consequences for the world of natural laws, they wouldn’t be ghosts — they wouldn’t be anything. And souls and gods were invented as the causes for phenomena that we now understand the actual causes of. The soul is the “ghost in the machine”, that which does the mental as opposed to physical activity. But we now know that there is no such division. To remove that attribute from souls makes them no longer souls; it makes them nothing. aratina cage’s #346, while it wasn’t fair to you, is a valid complaint — people try to protect their fantasies with that sort of retreat or “sequester”ing, but it’s dishonest, because they still retain their belief that souls and gods have real properties that affect the world, even if they deny it when it is pointed out how they conflict with our scientific knowledge.

  689. #692 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    It can’t be tested. We know that.

    I don’t. I think that the concept of “supernatural” is incoherent — that as a matter of semantics everything that exists is “natural” so if, for example, ghosts exist, they are natural phenomena. But putting that aside, most people consider ghosts to be supernatural and so a haunted house is supernatural or the result of the supernatural. But one can test, and people have tested, houses to see if they are haunted. They do this by determining whether there are any “unexplainable” occurrences — unexplainable by science. We are generally able to demonstrate that supposedly haunted houses are not haunted, that everything attributed to ghosts/spirits/demons can be explained by normal physics.

    But then there are people like listener who will say that maybe the house is haunted anyway and we just didn’t detect it, or it maybe the ghosts are devious and only haunt the house when scientists aren’t checking, or maybe haunting doesn’t have any consequences at all and so it’s unmeasurable. However, these objections perverse and no rational person need consider (or “tolerate”) them — if we did take such objections seriously, we could never conclude anything.

  690. #693 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    I believe the scientific method is limited to methodological naturalism, while the opposing view is for philosophical naturalism.

    If philosophical naturalism is a correct view, then a limitation of science to methodological naturalism isn’t a limitation at all, because there is nothing that isn’t natural. And who are you to say that it isn’t a correct view?

    I actually think that science incorporates philosophical naturalism, not just methodological naturalism. The laws of physics, such as the law conservation of matter and energy and the second law of thermodynamics, are assertions that there are no “supernatural forces”; miracles do not occur. If miracles can occur, then we are left with no more than that these laws hold except when they don’t.

    In addition, the success of science is strong evidence that philosophical naturalism is true. From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/

    In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don’t really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However, as several of our authors argue below (e.g., Augustine, Fales, Forrest, and Oppy), methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it has in fact been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true.

  691. #694 Mr T
    April 16, 2010

    truth machine, I agree with everything in #687.

    It makes little difference whether something can’t be tested because the concept behind it is incoherent, or because it supposedly doesn’t interact with the natural world at all, or somehow isn’t detectable. There are of course many different ways of retreating into dishonesty and delusion, but they are all a waste of time and not worth taking seriously.

  692. #695 truth machine, OM
    April 16, 2010

    They are safe only as long as their construct
    is sequestered from the world of natural laws….
    The scientific method has no use of the untestable – and so neither accepts or rejects it.

    I have already noted that people’s actual concepts are not “sequestered from the world of natural laws”, and that, from Bayesian considerations, arbitrary proposals like the existence of invisible pink unicorns or listener turning into a cabbage 5 minutes from now are extremely unlikely to to be true. But there’s another point here, which is that, if people’s constructs are “sequestered from the world of natural laws”, then they have absolutely no reason to believe in them. The scientific method does not just consist of testing, it is based on reasoning — hypothesis and theory formation depends heavily on logic and on argumentation, the giving of and evaluation of reasons. Thus the scientific method and rational people should rightly reject any assertion that is not so based.

  693. #696 listener
    April 16, 2010

    Usagichan (#682), good point there – and one a little outside my experience.
    I guess, sometimes morality is often just a matter of convention (things like whether people wear clothes or not, marry or not). In such cases, science has always been used although scientists are rarely the final arbiters.
    Even if that morality addresses high-intensity issues, such as crime, more progressive legal system has tended to rely on scientific advice – which, for example, is why insanity is a plea.
    But again, usagichan, given all the people who study ethics, game theory and suchlike, it would be up to them, not me, to address the matter.

  694. #697 listener
    April 16, 2010

    usagichan (#677), had lost this in the clutter…
    I am not arguing for the validity of those alternatives, just allowing for them.
    In the real world as I know it and understanding the limits of my knowledge, I would personally have no reason to argue for them. But given that we haven’t got access to all knowledge, it is salutary to allow for something/anything we might not understand.
    This is not an argument for the supernatural, only for other possible viewpoints, however implausible they are within our context.

  695. #698 Stephen Wells
    April 16, 2010

    Listener, you seem to have grasped that any claim about a supernatural entity- god, ghost or soul- affecting the observable world in any way whatsoever is testable. Science can be brought to bear on it. Therefore the only untestable or science-immune claims about supernatural entities are those that make no observable difference in the world. These claims are therefore unevidenced. Hence there’s no reason to believe them true. This is not some kind of nasty narrow-mindedness, it’s simply consistency.

    Furthermore, if the claims made by some religious tradition- say, that a global flood wiped out all but a very small population of life on Earth within the last few thousand years- were in fact true, then scientific investigation on the subject would confirm that they were true. Science is a threat to continued belief in myths not because science is intrinsically exclusive of myth claims but because those claims always turn out to be empirically wrong. If prayer actually could heal the sick and move mountains, we would see that happening.

    So what are you complaining about?

  696. #699 Stephen Wells
    April 16, 2010

    Just a quick followup- your lines about “allowing for things we don’t know about” implies that most scientists assume that we currently know is all there is to kno