Philosophical challenge for all you atheists

[danny1987]

By extending sentience to all, do you mean that somehow sentience is some kind of essence permeating everything both living and nonliving? Or do you restrict sentience to living things only?

Out of consistency with my own premises, I'm compelled to allow no essential distinction between the living and the nonliving here. Although life is wondrous enough to justify biology as a distinct discipline within the physical sciences, everything biology observes can be explained in terms of the laws that govern galaxies, garbage heaps, and other lifeless things. I can't allow any magical line of demarcation between what lives and what does not.

At the time I write, you quote William F. Buckley, Jr., in your signature. If you're a conservative Christian intellectual like him, I suppose you might have a problem with the pantheism, panentheism, or animism suggested by my argument. Or, since your current avatar is South Park's Eric Cartman, would you call it New Age hippie crap? It's dangerous to predict a Rational's opinion on anything, but I admit I wonder if I've got you pegged.

Yes I am a conservative Christian like him, and consider him to be one of my own personal heroes. The picture I have of Eric Cartman is because I like the show, and I like the quip on the picture. Just because I have the picture doesn't mean I agree with all or any of Eric Cartman's views. I don't consider all pantheism is to New Age Hippie crap, after all there are pantheists, like Einstein or Spinoza, that I have enormous respect for as thinkers. It's only New Age Hippie crap if it's actually practiced by hippies So your guesses wouldn't be too far off.

Correct me if I misunderstand your concept of sentience, but as I understand it, sentience is what allows us to distinguish ourselves from that which is not ourself. For instance, I know who I am and I know who you are and that I am not you, but if we share the same sentience, then who am I? And that seems to be the rub. We end up with a subject-subject problem. I recently heard about a play that was written about an audience that sat waiting for the play to begin. When the curtain was opened they saw a screen with the actors sitting and facing away from the audience facing a curtain. When that curtain opened the actors saw a screen with others sitting facing away from them facing a curtain. The same thing happened ad infinitum. Eventually the audience began turning around to see if they were actually actors or not. If we stretch sentience out like that we become like the audience, not knowing who we are.

[brian423]

Correct me if I misunderstand your concept of sentience, but as I understand it, sentience is what allows us to distinguish ourselves from that which is not ourself. For instance, I know who I am and I know who you are and that I am not you, but if we share the same sentience, then who am I? And that seems to be the rub. We end up with a subject-subject problem. I recently heard about a play that was written about an audience that sat waiting for the play to begin. When the curtain was opened they saw a screen with the actors sitting and facing away from the audience facing a curtain. When that curtain opened the actors saw a screen with others sitting facing away from them facing a curtain. The same thing happened ad infinitum. Eventually the audience began turning around to see if they were actually actors or not. If we stretch sentience out like that we become like the audience, not knowing who we are.

I'm afraid you don't understand the term's established use in philosophy and psychology. If you like Star Trek: The Next Generation, the android Lieutenant Commander Data illustrates the problem of sentience. Does his "positronic brain," created in a laboratory, give him the actual subjective experience of sensations and thoughts (and emotions, when his emotion chip is switched on)—or is he a cleverly designed but thoughtless machine that only fools us into believing "he" (it?) has those inner experiences? To ask the same question in different words, is he sentient or not? The TNG episode "The Measure of a Man" hinges on this question. If Data can't prove in court that he is sentient, an inquisitive scientist will disassemble him (or murder him, depending on your answer to the question). For all the obvious reasons, those who argue against abortion or in favor of animal rights make numerous appeals to sentience.

The quality you're describing, the ability to distinguish self from other, is one of the contents of sentience, not sentience itself. It's like the difference between an image contained by a movie screen and the screen itself. Brian in California and Danny in Virginia each experience a unique set of sensations, thoughts, and emotions. But I'm making an educated guess that you're not a mindless robot or zombie. I'm assuming that, in a fundamental way, your sentience mirrors mine. If it doesn't, can I vivisect you? I think it would be fun.

[danny1987]

Thank you for clarifying the concept you're referring to. It makes much more sense now. I understand the problem of sentience when it comes to the potential from androids like Data on Star Trek. I still see it as a false dichotomy between all or nothing. I can't see how this at all solves the problem you proposed of a mind exercising free will against matter determined by the laws of nature. In fact, you seem to make it worse by asserting all of nature contains sentience, thus, free will, leading to a collision with matter determined by laws. All you've done is taken a problem at the micro level, and placed it at the macro level. Unless you're assuming sentience does not contain free will and that we're all determined.

[brian423]

Thank you for clarifying the concept you're referring to. It makes much more sense now. I understand the problem of sentience when it comes to the potential from androids like Data on Star Trek. I still see it as a false dichotomy between all or nothing. I can't see how this at all solves the problem you proposed of a mind exercising free will against matter determined by the laws of nature. In fact, you seem to make it worse by asserting all of nature contains sentience, thus, free will, leading to a collision with matter determined by laws. All you've done is taken a problem at the micro level, and placed it at the macro level. Unless you're assuming sentience does not contain free will and that we're all determined.

I started this thread to argue philosophically (not doctrinally) for the existence of God. To stay on topic, I won't wander into free will versus determinism, a worthwhile debate that, right now, I'm just too lazy for. My best answer to your complaint about a false dichotomy is the one I've already given.

[danny1987]

Thank you for clarifying the concept you're referring to. It makes much more sense now. I understand the problem of sentience when it comes to the potential from androids like Data on Star Trek. I still see it as a false dichotomy between all or nothing. I can't see how this at all solves the problem you proposed of a mind exercising free will against matter determined by the laws of nature. In fact, you seem to make it worse by asserting all of nature contains sentience, thus, free will, leading to a collision with matter determined by laws. All you've done is taken a problem at the micro level, and placed it at the macro level. Unless you're assuming sentience does not contain free will and that we're all determined.

I started this thread to argue philosophically (not doctrinally) for the existence of God. To stay on topic, I won't wander into free will versus determinism, a worthwhile debate that, right now, I'm just too lazy for. My best answer to your complaint about a false dichotomy is the one I've already given.

Well, I just answered your answer to a false dichotomy, which is to say that your answer is really no answer, because it still leaves us with the same problem we started out with. If we're talking about sentience, free will versus determinism is a vital part of such a discussion. As for arguing for the existence of God, saying sentience permeates everything in the universe has very little to do with the existence of God unless your ascribing some spiritual essence to it and would like to pursue pantheism, which does the theist very little good. In that case you should be more clear on your conception of God, so the terms of the debate are more manifest.

[brian423]

Well, I just answered your answer to a false dichotomy, which is to say that your answer is really no answer, because it still leaves us with the same problem we started out with. If we're talking about sentience, free will versus determinism is a vital part of such a discussion. As for arguing for the existence of God, saying sentience permeates everything in the universe has very little to do with the existence of God unless your ascribing some spiritual essence to it and would like to pursue pantheism, which does the theist very little good. In that case you should be more clear on your conception of God, so the terms of the debate are more manifest.

You've just given the last word in this debate, because I've run out of stamina for it.

[Sagathiest]

OK so i'm going to keep this simple because philosophical argument have a tendency to get way complex.

All discussions about any topic or concept depend crucially on the nature of "truth"

So take any proposition such as:

God exists. This proposition obviously can be true or false. Assuming there is such a thing as truth. So before we go any further than this we know that there are very many ways that we can attempt to demonstrate that this proposition is true or false. But no matter which means we use there will always be some way in which we can argue the opposite. So this is where Descartes work was significant. He sought to find some proposition which was absolutely indubitable.-that is something which was absolutely certain invulnerable to any form claim about doubt. Thus Cogito ergo sum was supposed to be the proposition which could never be doubted because there is no possible situation in which it could be false. specifically there is no situation, time, place where it could ever be true both that I am thinking and that I don't exist.

So the important mathematical concepts are Probability Versus Possibility. If something is possible then it imply's that it has a probability of existing. This is why people often make a big hoopla out of the ontological argument because it implys that if gods possible then he must exist.

Anyway my question is

Do you think that there is anything you could ever be so certain of that you think it could never possibly be false?

If so then you're of the opposite view to me.

There is no truth there are only probable truths.
Every jump to an absolutely certain truth requires faith.
Therefore faith is illogical.

Faith is illogical.
All arguments are logical.
Therefore there is no logical argument which can be used to refute faith.

I said this to a friend of mine and who is an extremely logical Biochemist, geneticist, atheist and he said "but I think we need to have faith in some things, Like what about the roof will not fall on my head tonight" I said "well i think its extremely probable that the roof wont fall on your head tonight, but its certainly possible that it might.-thus in practical matters it makes no difference.

The new Atheist's have gone too far i think they need more intellectual humility- Dawkins himself said that there are no atheists only extreme agnostics which tells me that he believes-There is no truth there are only probable truths.

I agree with Carl Jung and Aldous Huxley when they say that there is some basic psychological need for a form a spirituality.

[shytiger]

OK so i'm going to keep this simple because philosophical argument have a tendency to get way complex.

All discussions about any topic or concept depend crucially on the nature of "truth"

So take any proposition such as:

God exists. This proposition obviously can be true or false. Assuming there is such a thing as truth. So before we go any further than this we know that there are very many ways that we can attempt to demonstrate that this proposition is true or false. But no matter which means we use there will always be some way in which we can argue the opposite. So this is where Descartes work was significant. He sought to find some proposition which was absolutely indubitable.-that is something which was absolutely certain invulnerable to any form claim about doubt. Thus Cogito ergo sum was supposed to be the proposition which could never be doubted because there is no possible situation in which it could be false. specifically there is no situation, time, place where it could ever be true both that I am thinking and that I don't exist.

So the important mathematical concepts are Probability Versus Possibility. If something is possible then it imply's that it has a probability of existing. This is why people often make a big hoopla out of the ontological argument because it implys that if gods possible then he must exist.

Anyway my question is

Do you think that there is anything you could ever be so certain of that you think it could never possibly be false?

If so then you're of the opposite view to me.

There is no truth there are only probable truths.
Every jump to an absolutely certain truth requires faith.
Therefore faith is illogical.

Faith is illogical.
All arguments are logical.
Therefore there is no logical argument which can be used to refute faith.

I said this to a friend of mine and who is an extremely logical Biochemist, geneticist, atheist and he said "but I think we need to have faith in some things, Like what about the roof will not fall on my head tonight" I said "well i think its extremely probable that the roof wont fall on your head tonight, but its certainly possible that it might.-thus in practical matters it makes no difference.

The new Atheist's have gone too far i think they need more intellectual humility- Dawkins himself said that there are no atheists only extreme agnostics which tells me that he believes-There is no truth there are only probable truths.

I agree with Carl Jung and Aldous Huxley when they say that there is some basic psychological need for a form a spirituality.

I was just thinking this today while reading Ayn Rand. Rand bothers me because she's so absolutist about truth. She never acknowledges probability and partial truth (not to mention superposition), which are the basis of reality as we now know it (through quantum physics). She spends all her time in this "war" against other philosophers, always trying to destroy them. She is one hardass Mastermind.

I agree. Faith is of no importance to me, only estimation. I don't need faith to sit in a chair and have it not break. I only need to estimate that it is likely not to break.

Spirituality, in its highest form, I believe comes from understanding the self. Ultimately, we seek God out of a need for happiness---the happiness of understanding our place in the universe, our joy in salvation. Thus, this emotion underlies faith and religion. Happiness derives from the self, hence, if we want to find happiness, we must understand the self.

[danny1987]

There is no truth there are only probable truths.
Every jump to an absolutely certain truth requires faith.
Therefore faith is illogical.

You might want to qualify "truth" in the first premise and add "absolutely certain" to it. After all, a probable truth is still a truth, and so the first premise is problematic without the qualifier.

Also, I don't think your syllogism necessarily proves that faith is illogical. You didn't establish truth(whether probably or absolute) itself as being either rational or requiring faith. Nor did you define faith as being irrational, at least until your conclusion which doesn't follow either of the premises. It seems to me that there would either have to be another syllogism or two added on to establish your argument.

Your second syllogism appears to be more valid.

[danny1987]

I would argue that there is no inherent reason why absolute truth is illogical and can only be reached by a leap of faith. 100% is a degree just as much as 75% is or 35%. If it is possible for probable truth to be logical, then why is it not possible for absolute truth to be logical as well?