Philosophical challenge for all you atheists

[Johan]

If sentience is an undeniably real phenomenon that can never be identified as the direct consequence of any particular event at one place and time—not even the workings of a human brain—mustn’t it necessarily follow that sentience somehow characterizes the entire universe all at once?

Brian, I fail to see how you labeling various phenomena as 'God' (or as 'Not God') has to do with atheists. If, say, by my definition, I say that God is a forest, and, since a forest exists, therefore God exists, would you agree? Doubtful that you would. It seems to me, your ''challenge'' consists of little more than this sort of conjecture.
Sentience is one of these concepts, much like quantum mechanics, that is frequently abused to give a pseudo-scientific gloss to peoples' mystical indulgences. No harm in it, your entitled to your opinion, as they say, but I don't see your assertion as containing any ''challenge'' to atheists, new or old.
Atheists, of various grades, deny the existence of all the gods currently, or formerly, worshiped by humanity. I refer you to Bertrand Russel if you want to know my particular stance

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

Until proven otherwise, I choose to regard all such entities as myths, legends and outdated explanations for life, the universe and everything in it. I can't prove a negative. I can't disprove God, or Thor (awesome movie by the way, way more fun than Passion of the Christ...the Norse gods get my vote!) no more than I can disprove leprechauns.

PS Sorry if I've missed anything out, but I haven't read the rest of the thread....

[stellarrenegade]

If sentience is an undeniably real phenomenon that can never be identified as the direct consequence of any particular event at one place and time—not even the workings of a human brain—mustn’t it necessarily follow that sentience somehow characterizes the entire universe all at once?

Brian, I fail to see how you labeling various phenomena as 'God' (or as 'Not God') has to do with atheists. If, say, by my definition, I say that God is a forest, and, since a forest exists, therefore God exists, would you agree? Doubtful that you would. It seems to me, your ''challenge'' consists of little more than this sort of conjecture.
Sentience is one of these concepts, much like quantum mechanics, that is frequently abused to give a pseudo-scientific gloss to peoples' mystical indulgences. No harm in it, your entitled to your opinion, as they say, but I don't see your assertion as containing any ''challenge'' to atheists, new or old.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a sentience that encompasses all of existence couldn't be close enough to the concept of 'God' to be given that label anymore than a forest could?

[Goodrum]

I have been giving religion and god some thought lately, the reason, (triggered) is from reading up/about Dr Mary Midgley, this last week.

I don't particularly base my atheism upon, about philosophy or other people, it's been something I arrived at at a relatively young age, (9yo-ish). So while I will watch 'somethings' about god, ie a Q&A show that had a rollicking jolly debate-of-sorts with Richard Dawkins and god people reps, I had already arrived at my own thoughts/conclusions.

So, on one hand I feel exonerated from any debate about god, but also am relying upon my own thoughts, reactions, reckonings..which in itself would mean self philosophy, that according to Goodrum Book.

The things I have learnt and read of god and religion, just for me personally-'are not for me' ...that's not to say many people derive great benefit, that is good, nice. Mary Midgley explains that super. Good points Mary.

My philosophy is generally religion and god is oppressive to females, but I also understand it has brought many good things to females too, I am involved in some work with a friend thatis deeply religious and it's his lifeline, he does amazing things for education and empowering young girls, (and boys) and he inspires me, but I'm just not into a god or religion. I did learn from some spending time briefly in Thailand/Cambodia, Buddhist wisdom, life, the people...I think at the end of the day I'll take learning/education wherever I can get it, but not in the name of god, religion, atheism, philosophy...more just the sponge effect. Soak up that which interests me, wring out that which does not, but generally I can be interested in many things.

[brian423]

If sentience is an undeniably real phenomenon that can never be identified as the direct consequence of any particular event at one place and time—not even the workings of a human brain—mustn’t it necessarily follow that sentience somehow characterizes the entire universe all at once?

Brian, I fail to see how you labeling various phenomena as 'God' (or as 'Not God') has to do with atheists. If, say, by my definition, I say that God is a forest, and, since a forest exists, therefore God exists, would you agree? Doubtful that you would. It seems to me, your ''challenge'' consists of little more than this sort of conjecture.
Sentience is one of these concepts, much like quantum mechanics, that is frequently abused to give a pseudo-scientific gloss to peoples' mystical indulgences. No harm in it, your entitled to your opinion, as they say, but I don't see your assertion as containing any ''challenge'' to atheists, new or old.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a sentience that encompasses all of existence couldn't be close enough to the concept of 'God' to be given that label anymore than a forest could?

I think that Stellar and I run into a language barrier with someone like John Jordan. It's difficult for us to explain the magnificence of the implications of the omnipresence and indivisibility of the subjective "I am" consciousness that seems to the careless observer to be separated and trapped in lonely cages of flesh and bone.

I wouldn't condescend to "save" John's "soul," whatever that might mean. I just wish I knew how to help him enjoy the hippy-trippy experience of noticing this phenomenon that, paradoxically, is so immediate to our awareness that it can be very difficult to notice. We're like fish debating the existence of water. I tried to jury-rig Pinker's thought experiments on sentience in order to help someone like John; I apparently failed.

[stellarrenegade]

Once again, you have put words to mute thoughts in my skull and done a good job of it.

I, too, share that same motivation. I'm less concerned with the potential dangers of not believing this or that - it's not for me to judge another anyway. I simply want to share that ecstatic, glorious universal consciousness and presence with those who... just don't seem to totally, at least consciously grasp it yet.

"If a great number of men of subtle and penetrating wit have not discovered God with one cast of the eye upon nature, it is not matter of wonder; for either the passions they have been tossed by have still rendered them incapable of any fixed reflection, or the false prejudices that result from passions have, like a thick cloud, interposed between their eyes and that noble spectacle. A man deeply concerned in an affair of great importance, that should take up all the attention of his mind, might pass several days in a room treating about his concerns without taking notice of the proportions of the chamber, the ornaments of the chimney, and the pictures about him, all which objects would continually be before his eyes, and yet none of them make any impression upon him. In this manner it is that men spend their lives; everything offers God to their sight, and yet they see it nowhere. 'He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and nevertheless the world did not know Him'...”
~François Fenelon

[Johan]

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a sentience that encompasses all of existence couldn't be close enough to the concept of 'God' to be given that label anymore than a forest could?

No, I used my forest example as a criticism of Brian's argument, as I saw it i.e. a phenomena exists that is (currently) incomprehensible. God is incomprehensible. Therefore the phenomena is God, ergo, God exists. I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere...
I know little of Hegel, but what Brian is describing is, I think, something along these lines

...The world was to be understood as Mind endeavouring to know or recognize itself by first objectifying itself as nature or matter, and then returning into itself as consciousness comprehending itself.

..Brian would differ here, I think, in stating that ''consciousness comprehending itself'' is not something that will happen, but is happening, and always has been happening, when we stare in to a mirror, etc, etc.

[Johan]

I think that Stellar and I run into a language barrier with someone like John Jordan. It's difficult for us to explain the magnificence of the implications of the omnipresence and indivisibility of the subjective "I am" consciousness that seems to the careless observer to be separated and trapped in lonely cages of flesh and bone.

I wouldn't condescend to "save" John's "soul," whatever that might mean. I just wish I knew how to help him enjoy the hippy-trippy experience of noticing this phenomenon that, paradoxically, is so immediate to our awareness that it can be very difficult to notice. We're like fish debating the existence of water. I tried to jury-rig Pinker's thought experiments on sentience in order to help someone like John; I apparently failed.

Brian, I think the barrier you refer to has more to do with reasoning/personal taste than language. If you want to follow the gospel of Thomas, and

Lift the stone and there you will find me. Split the wood and I am there

find God under the fridge, then it's your right.


I get a hippy-trippy experience reflecting on Gaia and Metaman, the global interconnectedness of all living things (and non-living things), but I am capable of seeing these things, like Goodie, outside of the religious schema that I was brought up with. Blaze your own trails, don't follow tradition, try conceive of these things as novel phenomena, not bronze-age myths in new clothes.
We are less like fish debating the existence of water and more like physicists asserting that the luminiferous aether actually exists, but that we just choose not to see it.
Oh, and thank you for being condescending enough to rig Pinkers, no doubt vastly complex, ideas into an easy summary, giving me the best chance of understanding what you were trying to say.

[stellarrenegade]

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a sentience that encompasses all of existence couldn't be close enough to the concept of 'God' to be given that label anymore than a forest could?

No, I used my forest example as a criticism of Brian's argument, as I saw it i.e. a phenomena exists that is (currently) incomprehensible. God is incomprehensible. Therefore the phenomena is God, ergo, God exists. I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere...
I know little of Hegel, but what Brian is describing is, I think, something along these lines

...The world was to be understood as Mind endeavouring to know or recognize itself by first objectifying itself as nature or matter, and then returning into itself as consciousness comprehending itself.

..Brian would differ here, I think, in stating that ''consciousness comprehending itself'' is not something that will happen, but is happening, and always has been happening, when we stare in to a mirror, etc, etc.

No, the argument isn't because the phenomena is incomprehensible but because it resembles a person. You're just trying to evade the conclusion and you're the one dressing it up as a Bronze Age myth when there's no reason to do so.

[Johan]

Stellar, the phenomena in question has as much resemblance to a person, as the man-in-the-moon does. I'm doing more than evading the conclusion, I'm denying the premise, as I consider it flawed. You don't, of course, but that is your choice. Calling it 'God' carries certain connotations in my mind, and I'm justified in associating 'God' with the bronze age myths from which he originated.

Why don't you call it the 'cosmic self-consciousness' or something catchy? I'm thinking thought that what you want to do it is relate this new concept into what people have believed down through the ages, so you can say ''this is what they were really worshiping'', when it fact it is not. Meddling sky god with thunderblots was where it was at for most of the time....

[shytiger]

I think that Stellar and I run into a language barrier with someone like John Jordan. It's difficult for us to explain the magnificence of the implications of the omnipresence and indivisibility of the subjective "I am" consciousness that seems to the careless observer to be separated and trapped in lonely cages of flesh and bone.

I wouldn't condescend to "save" John's "soul," whatever that might mean. I just wish I knew how to help him enjoy the hippy-trippy experience of noticing this phenomenon that, paradoxically, is so immediate to our awareness that it can be very difficult to notice. We're like fish debating the existence of water. I tried to jury-rig Pinker's thought experiments on sentience in order to help someone like John; I apparently failed.

I am confused though in what sense consciousness suggests that God exists just because it doesn't make sense to us? Why can't consciousness emerge from the brain? Pinker's thought experiments do nothing more than try to make the idea seem absurd. There are a lot of things we can't measure directly. We can only infer them. Consciousness is such a phenomenon. In this sense, I agree with Turing that if something acts conscious we must infer that it is conscious. Whether it actually IS conscious, is irrelevant. Until there is evidence to the contrary, we must assume it is. If something does not act conscious, we must assume it is not. Perhaps the chair I'm sitting on right now is conscious. Who knows? A phenomenon that has no effect on the world we observe might as well not exist. There is no value in believing it. Even if something that acts conscious is just a mindless machine reading a script (as Church's Chinese room suggested is possible) that is completely irrelevant. There's no point in tying yourself up in intellectual knots wondering if what you know about the world outside your head is actually the truth because what you know is only true in as far as it is useful.

Edit: In case you're wondering, I'm not a diehard Machian positivist. I do believe that when we take a measurement we are measuring SOMETHING. If we detect something that acts like an atom, why not assume it IS an atom? BUT I don't believe that what we know as the truth is ever separated from what we can measure and plenty of things may be true that we cannot measure. If people choose to believe in things that don't have any way of being measured or proven, that's fine by me. If people tell me that they can prove that these things exist, that's fine too. But if they expect me to believe what they believe, they have to show me that proof.