Religious fervor or mental illness: SciAM guest blogger wonders how to tell

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 1, 2017

Mind, Naturalism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From physician Nathaniel P. Morris at Scientific American:

Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.

But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues? If he could hear Jesus speaking to him? He might also insist nothing were wrong with him. After all, he’s practicing his faith.

It’s not just the ambiguities of mental health diagnoses that create this problem—the vague nature of how we define religion further complicates matters. More.

Actually it is quite easy to tell: The outcome in the person’s life. Persons who have had near-death experiences, for example, tend to focus more on relationships and less on acquisitions. While it is not possible to tell from the outside what exactly happened, a change that cannot be attributed to mental illness becomes evident. Consider the case of philosopher A. J. Ayers:

“Freddie became so much nicer after he died,” said Dee. “He was not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people.” Ayer also told the writer Edward St. Aubyn in France that he had had “a kind of resurrection” and for the first time in his life, he had begun to notice scenery. In France, on a mountain near his villa, he said, “I suddenly stopped and looked out at the sea and thought, my God, how beautiful this is … for 26 years I had never really looked at it before.”

What is also undeniably true — and has never been reported on — is that at the end of his life, Freddie spent more and more time with his former BBC debating opponent, the Jesuit priest and philosopher Frederick Copleston, who was at Freddie’s funeral at Golders Green crematorium.More.

See also: Templeton sets out to find the afterlife for $5 million

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Silver Asiatic, Thanks for the response. My question at the end is definitely tangential. I was just curious what others thought about it.daveS_{January 16, 2017
January
01
Jan
16
16
2017
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
If our actions and thoughts are not produced by us — but are instead either consequences of (non-rational) events and (non-rational) laws of nature in the remote past before we were born (#40) or consequences of (non-rational) undetermined events over which we have also no control (#54) — then we have no control over our actions and thoughts. And if we have no control over our actions and thoughts, then … WE ARE NOT RATIONAL.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. I would already have assumed (perhaps naively) that without free will, rationality cannot exist.daveS_{January 16, 2017
January
01
Jan
16
16
2017
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

daveS
I did refer to numbers above as potentially being existing, non-physical entities, but I’m also open to the possibility that “I” have non-physical component(s). For example, maybe my consciousness is not entirely physical.
In the question of origins, one logical inference is that any non-physical components (for example to our "self") have a non-physical origin.
Now you raise what I think is an interesting point in whether as an atheist I must deny the existence of a First Cause. I suppose that would follow assuming certain premises, but my position all along is that I don’t know whether those premises are true.
I don't see how an atheist could accept the existence of a First Cause since that cause must be non-material, transcendent of all physical boundaries and non-dependent on other causes and possessing fullness of being (as the cause of all other contingent being).
Somewhat OT: Do you think that God makes His existence “more obvious” to those those with severe cognitive impairments?
I don't know where you're going with this and it seems you're looking at something tangential or at an extreme boundary. But I'll say I haven't researched or studied the question and all I have is anecdotal evidence and knowledge I've gained on parallel subjects. Anecdotally, I worked for a few years with children who had severe mental impairments. Of the group of 14, only one was able to express herself in speech. She was a teenager at the time, confined to a wheelchair -- and she had a very joyful understanding of God. Faith in God was her deepest committment. So, that's one thing. None of the other kids could speak, although one could communicate by raising and lowering her eyes. So, we can't determine anything by observation and evidence there. All of those kids went to church and none objected. There was no evidence of atheism among them. But we're chasing a tangent here. Also, I always find it very difficult to explain how God treats specific matters with someone (you in this case) who doesn't believe God exists. The main problem is that you'd have to have some consistent, clear understanding of the nature of God in order to understand the rationale for certain of God's actions. This is like arguments against the existence of God due to the presence of evil in the world. One should know what the nature of God is first before judging God's actions. The fullness of being (because God cannot receive being/existence from any other source) is the perfection of goodness (because evil is a deprivation of being). Where there is a perfection of goodness, there is justice. This means, ultimately, every human being has equal access to the evidence of God, given the circumstances that balance justice and free will (a person who insists in not wanting to know God generally will not be compelled by God to do so). So, we also have to make sure to understand that when we say "God makes himself less obvious", or something like "God withdraws", that is terminology that is not precise exactly, since God is omnipresent and no space in the universe can exist absent God. But God does manifest himself either more or less clearly at times. One of the reasons for that is the attitude of the person. The fundamental virtues necessary for an awareness of the "obviousness" of God are humility, reverence, and purity of heart. Where these are present, spiritual realities are more clearly seen. On the converse, the mental attitudes that block awareness of God (we all struggle with these) are most especially pride, self-satisfaction, egoism and impurity. These block the spiritual vision because they create "gods" within the soul. The person becomes enamored with his own self, his own qualities captivate him and he is unwilling to humble himself and seek what is transcendent. The person who recognizes and admits his sinfulness, weakness, littleness and dependency is much more open to evidence of the spiritual universe which surrounds us. When self-orientation is dominant, the subtle nature of God's presence is obstructed. So, many times it's not God who withdraws "obviousness" but the person who blocks it out. On the other hand, God does manifest himself in more direct and obvious ways to some people. From the Bible, Moses for example, had powerful, direct and obvious evidence of God's presence. Interestingly, it is said there that Moses was "the meekest of men" - so humility and reverence enabled him to see and hear. I'd take two additional examples: Bernadette Soubrious of Lourdes was uneducated. I wouldn't say she had severe cognitive impairment, but she had no intellectual development. At the same time, her spiritual awareness ended establishing one of the most popular sites of spiritual healing in the world over the past century. But more importantly, we see evidence of God making his presence known more obviously there. The story and miracles of Lourdes are worth looking into if you haven't. I'd suggest another person, Andre Bessette of Quebec who was not only uneducated but who lacked the intellectual capacity to pass college level theological studies. But he ended as a spiritual guide to thousands - in fact, more than a million people traveled to his city upon his funeral. On what basis did he have that kind of impact? He wasn't a preacher or theologian, in fact he remained uneducated. Yet, he was so popular that new train tracks and a depot had to be installed to accommodate travelers who wanted to visit him while he was alive His entire impact was in miraculous healing. So again, we can't necessarily say that a lack of intellectual quality is correlated with spiritual awareness or power, but we have evidence of some cases where it was. Psalm 19: God gives wisdom to the simple. We can see this often among children who have an innate sense of God's presence. In my view (supported by some reading), belief in God is intuitive in every culture. Just in my experience, I haven't seen atheism as an intuitive or natural conclusion among children. I'd say that in general: atheism is non-intuitive. It takes quite a lot of effort to reconcile an atheistic conclusion about the world with one's natural awareness.Silver Asiatic_{January 16, 2017
January
01
Jan
16
16
2017
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

daveS, Given materialism, our actions and thoughts are not controlled by us — see #40 and #54. Now from this, one can conclude not only that we are not free, but also that we are not rational. Up till now you have ignored my latter conclusion about rationality, focusing instead on free will. The argument wrt rationality is straightforward and simple. If our actions and thoughts are not produced by us — but are instead either consequences of (non-rational) events and (non-rational) laws of nature in the remote past before we were born (#40) or consequences of (non-rational) undetermined events over which we have also no control (#54) — then we have no control over our actions and thoughts. And if we have no control over our actions and thoughts, then ... WE ARE NOT RATIONAL. It is important for the debate to bring up irrationality as a consequence of materialism, because pointing this out intrudes upon the materialistic atheist’s sensibilities much more than the ‘vague’ notion of a non-existent free will.Origenes_{January 16, 2017
January
01
Jan
16
16
2017
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, I'm finally getting some free time to catch up on your post #81 and 82.
Side note to start; you say “the evidence that should be there” … perhaps it’s best just to look at the evidence that is present and not whether there should be more. The task is to weigh what you find and draw a conclusion based on what is strongest. Atheism requires the same since it is not merely a neutral default position but a positive statement about causality. To conclude that atheism is true, you’d need evidence that other things are true, for example, materialism. But there’s no evidence that materialism is true, in fact, there is counter-evidence against it (as discussed here).
I do agree that I have no option but to weigh what I do find and then (provisionally, anyway), draw conclusions based on that. I disagree with the proposition "if atheism is true, then materialism must be true". To be clear, by "materialism", I understand materialism/physicalism to be "the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world", stealing a definition from Wikipedia. I did refer to numbers above as potentially being existing, non-physical entities, but I'm also open to the possibility that "I" have non-physical component(s). For example, maybe my consciousness is not entirely physical.
There’s a problem with this analogy because whether aliens exist or not is relatively unimportant to a worldview. Aliens would not be an explanation of ultimate causality. This is much different from concluding that there is no God. That is a positive statement that there is no First Cause and/or that material causes are all that exist. Atheism is a foundation for a worldview and it is an answer or conclusion about the cause and purpose of everything. It’s not just pointing to unessential essences like aliens. So, to conclude atheism is not merely to state that there is an absence of God, but to frame everything in a godless origin, and godless causes. That’s where some considerable evidence is needed to prove that such a universe can be rationally conceived.
It is true that the existence of aliens is not as deep a question as the existence of a god. Now you raise what I think is an interesting point in whether as an atheist I must deny the existence of a First Cause. I suppose that would follow assuming certain premises, but my position all along is that I don't know whether those premises are true. To address your last paragraph, I believe I have a reasonable understanding of how the universe works in some small neighborhood of my existence. I know enough to function adequately in the real world, like most of us. But rationally conceiving our universe, god or no god, is beyond my ken. I'm generally quite pessimistic about our power to reason about the beginning of the universe, in particular.
Again, to my view I would challenge these understandings. Then again, I hold a minority view on religious matters here at UD (and probably in American society as a whole), but I would not propose the “feeling of God’s presence” as a primary or necessary evidence. I don’t find that valuable at all. Additionally, the method one uses to create the “personal relationship” that is referred to here I find is usually not helpful either. In my view, it requires a spiritual search or exploration — which is very much similar to scientific research, except on a spiritual level. Many others disagree and will propose “all you have to do is …” and a somewhat simplistic approach will be given. I have not found that to be helpful, myself — fully understanding and appreciating the good-will that is offered with it, and accepting that many have found a relationship with God through those sorts of “all you have to do is …” means. For me it has been different. It’s a lifelong journey of “search and find and search and find again and again”. It’s a growing knowledge and love towards the majesty of God where after a lifetime of moving towards it feels as if you’ve barely taken one step forward.
Thanks for laying out your views on this. It is true that I have tuned my "search" for something more obvious.
I think you will find that God is detected quite easily by the common man. The problem here is that you’re not in the category of the common man. You are disadvantaged by having a more-than-usual amount of education. This actually makes the “detection” of God more difficult, not easier in many cases. Where there is a lot of education, there is a lot of misinformation to sort through. There is also a lot of distraction and skepticism which undercuts the certainty that all rational inquiry is built upon. This is why we can see educated people actually undercutting the foundation of the very rationality that they rely on to become educated! It is self-defeating. But often, the more intelligent a person is, the more blind the person becomes to these kinds of gross errors. The “common man” can see it clearly. The academic often gets lost, overwhelmed by details and triviality — a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Well, I might have had more formal education than most by global standards, but I'm really a novice when it comes to philosophy and issues that are relevant to this discussion. I have very little education in this area. But it is in my nature to be quite skeptical concerning abstract arguments; I realize you can overdo that, but it's part of my makeup.
Yes, a low profile. It’s a measure of our integrity and commitment on the search and journey.
Somewhat OT: Do you think that God makes His existence "more obvious" to those those with severe cognitive impairments?daveS_{January 15, 2017
January
01
Jan
15
15
2017
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

daveS That's ok. I would prefer that you just take time and think about them rather than just put together a response too hastily. Some of these things take a considerable amount of reflection. Too often we rush into arguments, but with something like this which is very personal, I'm just as happy to know you're giving it serious thought.Silver Asiatic_{January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Origenes, After reading a little more about the argument, I will answer "yes", it does have some effect on whether I think materialism can ground freedom, in particular, whether non-determinism is compatible with free will. I think the argument is going to be difficult to counter. SA, Sorry, I'll get back to your posts asap.daveS_{January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

KF - thank you for sharing that. It's beautiful and moving. You encountered a profound, life-changing experience with lasting effects. From that, no additional argumentation is needed. You could see the power in your life directly by intercessory prayer from your mom. I also consider your testimony as evidence for anyone seeking. I've experienced the same sort of thing. It shook me deeply and no amount of proof or argument could ever change it.Silver Asiatic_{January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

SA, apart form a miracle of guidance in answer to prayer by my mom, I would not be here. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2017
January
01
Jan
13
13
2017
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
Does the fact that an argument as to why materialism cannot ground freedom, presented in @40 and @54, makes you to resort to questioning the principle of sufficient reason, have any effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom?
Yes, potentially. I think I need to read more about van Inwagen's argument, so I am going to do that.daveS_{January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

It could also be that freedom can be grounded in materialism, but that humans have yet to solve this problem.
daveS, It also could be that God is out there waiting for you to seek Him. Could be. But I know... you're an Atheist. There's nothing else. Andrewasauber_{January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
How is that a response to my question? How are “other contexts” — other than materialism — relevant to the question if freedom can be grounded in the context of materialism? Suppose freedom can be grounded in the context of e.g. solipsism or panpsychism, how does that help materialism?
Yes, I was mistaken there. I'll try again. It could be that freedom cannot be grounded in materialism. It could also be that freedom can be grounded in materialism, but that humans have yet to solve this problem. So even if freedom can be grounded in materialism, should I expect this to have already been carried out? That's what I don't know. I'll respond to the second part later today.daveS_{January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

daveS: We both hold that free will exists, but I have no opinion on whether materialism actually can ground it.

Origenes: IOWs the fact that, a successful attempt to ground freedom (a free person) in the context of materialism is non-existent, does not have an effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom.

daveS: Given that I have no idea if there have been any successful attempts to ground free will in other contexts, or even whether such grounding is possible, yes.
How is that a response to my question? How are “other contexts” — other than materialism — relevant to the question if freedom can be grounded in the context of materialism? Suppose freedom can be grounded in the context of e.g. solipsism or panpsychism, how does that help materialism? - - - Does the fact that an argument as to why materialism cannot ground freedom, presented in @40 and @54, makes you to resort to questioning the principle of sufficient reason, have any effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom?Origenes_{January 12, 2017
January
01
Jan
12
12
2017
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

SA, I'll try and respond to your posts later today or tomorrow when I get more time. I think they do raise interesting issues which I will have to think more about. Origenes,
Something similar happens here, Dave doesn’t like the nature of the evidence, and on that basis alone he feels free to completely ignore it — to him it has no weight whatsoever.
This is simply motive mongering (and false as well).
And again, he doesn’t feel any need to offer an alternative cause (other than God) for the fact that we are free persons. He doesn’t feel the need to defend materialism at all. He is ‘just’ an atheist.
Why would I be required to defend materialism? I am not a proponent of that view.daveS_{January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: There’s a problem with this analogy because whether aliens exist or not is relatively unimportant to a worldview. Aliens would not be an explanation of ultimate causality.
If aliens did not visit the earth, than the consequence is not that we are stuck with a wholly unexplained reality. That’s the considerable difference with the act of rejecting God.
Silver Asiatic: To conclude that atheism is true, you’d need evidence that other things are true, for example, materialism.
This is a very important point. We have a duty to explain reality — universe, life, freedom, rationality. God is an obvious explanation for reality. More generally, intelligence is an obvious explanation of certain aspects of reality. Now, what one cannot do is reject God/intelligence as an explanation for reality without offering an alternative explanation. One cannot say: “I reject God but I have no idea how things came into existence”. One cannot prefer ‘no explanation’ over an explanation that one doesn’t like. That’s not rational. Obviously, from a rational viewpoint, an explanation that one doesn’t like is always better than no explanation at all. But this is exactly what Dave is trying to do.
Silver Asiatic: But there’s no evidence that materialism is true, in fact, there is counter-evidence against it (as discussed here).
Something similar happens here, Dave doesn’t like the nature of the evidence, and on that basis alone he feels free to completely ignore it — to him it has no weight whatsoever. And again, he doesn’t feel any need to offer an alternative cause (other than God) for the fact that we are free persons. He doesn’t feel the need to defend materialism at all. He is ‘just’ an atheist.
Look at this comment I know the holes are showin’ Look at this confusion of thought I really don’t know where it’s goin’ [Chorus] I don’t know much But I know I’m an Atheist And that may be All there is to know Andrew
Excellent!Origenes_{January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

daveS Going back to your comments @ 37
Similarly to the way I provisionally conclude that aliens have not visited Earth.
There's a problem with this analogy because whether aliens exist or not is relatively unimportant to a worldview. Aliens would not be an explanation of ultimate causality. This is much different from concluding that there is no God. That is a positive statement that there is no First Cause and/or that material causes are all that exist. Atheism is a foundation for a worldview and it is an answer or conclusion about the cause and purpose of everything. It's not just pointing to unessential essences like aliens. So, to conclude atheism is not merely to state that there is an absence of God, but to frame everything in a godless origin, and godless causes. That's where some considerable evidence is needed to prove that such a universe can be rationally conceived.
The God I am talking about (primarily the Christian one), is a being who rather obviously exists, according to my Christian friends.
I think it's admirable that you've done some research, with Christian friends and your wife's pastor at church. I'll just suggest, that the field for research on God is quite large and even with direct conversations with believers, it's still a narrow selection. For example, the idea that God "obviously exists" can be problematic as I see it. In my view, God is actually more hidden than obvious - for reasons which make sense to me.
I am told one can have a personal relationship with and actually feel the presence of this God. This God performs miracles and sends angels to assist those in need.
Again, to my view I would challenge these understandings. Then again, I hold a minority view on religious matters here at UD (and probably in American society as a whole), but I would not propose the "feeling of God's presence" as a primary or necessary evidence. I don't find that valuable at all. Additionally, the method one uses to create the "personal relationship" that is referred to here I find is usually not helpful either. In my view, it requires a spiritual search or exploration -- which is very much similar to scientific research, except on a spiritual level. Many others disagree and will propose "all you have to do is ..." and a somewhat simplistic approach will be given. I have not found that to be helpful, myself -- fully understanding and appreciating the good-will that is offered with it, and accepting that many have found a relationship with God through those sorts of "all you have to do is ..." means. For me it has been different. It's a lifelong journey of "search and find and search and find again and again". It's a growing knowledge and love towards the majesty of God where after a lifetime of moving towards it feels as if you've barely taken one step forward.
I believe this God should be fairly easily “detectable” to the common man, especially since one’s salvation rests on just this.
I think you will find that God is detected quite easily by the common man. The problem here is that you're not in the category of the common man. You are disadvantaged by having a more-than-usual amount of education. This actually makes the "detection" of God more difficult, not easier in many cases. Where there is a lot of education, there is a lot of misinformation to sort through. There is also a lot of distraction and skepticism which undercuts the certainty that all rational inquiry is built upon. This is why we can see educated people actually undercutting the foundation of the very rationality that they rely on to become educated! It is self-defeating. But often, the more intelligent a person is, the more blind the person becomes to these kinds of gross errors. The "common man" can see it clearly. The academic often gets lost, overwhelmed by details and triviality -- a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
There should be clear evidence that doesn’t require a PhD in philosophy, biology, or physics to understand, but I haven’t found such (my subjective judgement).
You're right. The easiest, clearest and most convincing evidence comes through experiential means. It would not be best to search biology, philosophy or physics. I would add that a study of theology and mysticism can be a big help -- mainly to assist in the experiential approach. The primary means is: 1. spiritual preparation (morally, mentally, emotionally and 2. consistent, sincere prayer - requesting to learn, requesting the spiritual insight to know, requesting guidance on the path.
Again, I could be wrong—I could be deluded, perhaps our God prefers to keep a low profile, and so on, but I’m only claiming a provisional conclusion.
Yes, a low profile. It's a measure of our integrity and commitment on the search and journey.
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.
A "still quiet voice" as some translations say.Silver Asiatic_{January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

daveS: I have explained in #37 my primary reason for concluding that atheism (not materialism, mind you) is true—the evidence that should be there, in my judgement, is not.
Side note to start; you say "the evidence that should be there" ... perhaps it's best just to look at the evidence that is present and not whether there should be more. The task is to weigh what you find and draw a conclusion based on what is strongest. Atheism requires the same since it is not merely a neutral default position but a positive statement about causality. To conclude that atheism is true, you'd need evidence that other things are true, for example, materialism. But there's no evidence that materialism is true, in fact, there is counter-evidence against it (as discussed here). But you then suppose that materialism might not be true because there could be other non-material entities like numbers.
There could exist non-material entities, as far as I know. Numbers for example? I don’t know in what sense they actually exist, but I’m open to the possibility.
But there is no evidence that these are non-material causes of anything. So again, you'd conclude atheism with no evidence to support it. At this point, I think you should rank your options. Materialism Non-material causes God The weight of the argument thus far puts God as your #1 option as the best explanation.Silver Asiatic_{January 11, 2017
January
01
Jan
11
11
2017
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Look at this comment I know the holes are showin' Look at this confusion of thought I really don't know where it's goin' [Chorus] I don't know much But I know I'm an Atheist And that may be All there is to know Andrewasauber_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Cherry picking suppressed evidence fallacy of incomplete evidence argument by selective observation card stacking fallacy of exclusion ignoring counterevidence fallacy of slanting observational selection Occam's broomOrigenes_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Origenes,
So you decide what kind of evidence is relevant and you simply ignore or try to explain away ‘unwelcome’ evidence. IOWs, based on #37, you want God to perform certain miracles and have a personal relationship with you — everything else doesn’t count.
I decide what evidence I can be confident in, based on my limited understanding.
BTW if not materialism, what other stuff is there?
There could exist non-material entities, as far as I know. Numbers for example? I don't know in what sense they actually exist, but I'm open to the possibility.daveS_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

daveS: I have explained in #37 my primary reason for concluding that atheism (not materialism, mind you) is true—the evidence that should be there, in my judgement, is not.
So you decide what kind of evidence is relevant and you simply ignore or try to explain away 'unwelcome' evidence. IOWs, based on #37, you want God to perform certain miracles and have a personal relationship with you — everything else doesn't count. - - - BTW if not materialism, what other stuff is there?Origenes_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
IOWs the fact that, a successful attempt to ground freedom (a free person) in the context of materialism is non-existent, does not have an effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom.
Given that I have no idea if there have been any successful attempts to ground free will in other contexts, or even whether such grounding is possible, yes.
Also the fact that an argument as to why materialism cannot ground freedom, presented in @40 and @54, compels you to question the principle of sound reason, does not have an effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom.
Sufficient reason.
On top of that, you hold on to your provisional conclusion that atheism/materialism is true.
I have explained in #37 my primary reason for concluding that atheism (not materialism, mind you) is true---the evidence that should be there, in my judgement, is not.daveS_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

daveS @71: We both hold that free will exists, but I have no opinion on whether materialism actually can ground it.
IOWs the fact that, a successful attempt to ground freedom (a free person) in the context of materialism is non-existent, does not have an effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom. Also the fact that an argument as to why materialism cannot ground freedom, presented in @40 and @54, compels you to question the principle of sound reason, does not have an effect on your opinion on whether materialism actually can ground freedom. On top of that, you hold on to your provisional conclusion that atheism/materialism is true. Okay Dave. Got it.Origenes_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

DaveS, You do deserve credit for presenting that pic. ;) Andrewasauber_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

asauber,
Right, as long as people understand you are An Atheist, your opinions and lack thereof are farther down the list of considerations.
Yes, this picture sums me up perfectly. :P Seriously, though, I don't think I have answers to many of the questions Origenes is raising. Certainly nothing I would have a chance of defending.daveS_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

but I have no opinion on whether materialism actually can ground it
DaveS, Right, as long as people understand you are An Atheist, your opinions and lack thereof are farther down the list of considerations. Andrewasauber_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
We both hold that free will exists. We both think that materialism cannot ground it.
We both hold that free will exists, but I have no opinion on whether materialism actually can ground it.
IOWs maybe the capacity of free will of billions of human beings has no explanation — unlike horses in living rooms. Free will as some sort of Uncaused Cause. Okay, let’s suppose, arguendo, that this is a possibility. Is it obviously true? Is it even likely to be true? Does it tip the scales in favor of atheism/materialism?
I'm going to have to simply say "no" to the first question and "I don't know" to the second and third. I think these questions are very hard, at least for a non-philosopher like me.daveS_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

daveS:
Origenes: Can you show me a (successful) attempt, by anyone, to ground freedom (a free person) in the context of materialism?
No, I cannot.
I cannot either. Where do we stand? We both hold that free will exists. We both think that materialism cannot ground it. So, exactly where lies the controversy? It seems to me that your only concern is the principle of sufficient reason. IOWs maybe the capacity of free will of billions of human beings has no explanation — unlike horses in living rooms. Free will as some sort of Uncaused Cause. Okay, let's suppose, arguendo, that this is a possibility. Is it obviously true? Is it even likely to be true? Does it tip the scales in favor of atheism/materialism?Origenes_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
Can you show me a (successful) attempt, by anyone, to ground freedom (a free person) in the context of materialism?
No, I cannot.daveS_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

SA,
I don’t think you’re being consistent. On the principle that an issue seems to be “difficult and controversial” you are undecided. But that same principle applies to any and every area of philosophy and science. It certainly applies to atheism, and yet you choose that as your worldview.
Well, my view is that (certain) matters of science and philosophy pertaining to mundane, down to earth events actually are less controversial than the ones I mentioned above. For example, if I entered my house and saw a horse in my living room (to borrow Origenes' example), I would indeed expect there is some "explanation". In my experience, that does not happen spontaneously, so I accept some focused version of the PSR which concerns such events. I'm less certain that the PSR holds much more generally.
It’s really only a denial of free will that is controversial.
I'm not sure I understand your meaning here (perhaps I shouldn't have introduced the word "controversial"). However, for record, I accept that free will exists; regarding the PSR and whether materialism is false, I don't know.daveS_{January 10, 2017
January
01
Jan
10
10
2017
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply