What the God debate is really about

[Whateverist]

But going with your thread title, the idea of a god existing isn't objective reality for anyone.

I'm not so sure about that. If you wake up remembering a dream isn't it entirely likely that you did in fact just experience that dream? That doesn't mean anything in your dream is objectively true about the world outside but the dream itself is an objective fact about what it is you've experienced. I suspect those who experience the presence of God are in the same boat as the dreamer.

[*Deidre*]

But going with your thread title, the idea of a god existing isn't objective reality for anyone.

I'm not so sure about that. If you wake up remembering a dream isn't it entirely likely that you did in fact just experience that dream? That doesn't mean anything in your dream is objectively true about the world outside but the dream itself is an objective fact about what it is you've experienced. I suspect those who experience the presence of God are in the same boat as the dreamer.

Even though dreams vary person to person, science accepts that dreaming during different phases of sleep is a real phenomenon. Belief in a Deity is not testable. Unless we start using opinion, and hearsay as the standard for what defines objective reality, the existence of a spiritual realm is not objective reality.

Many faith believers honestly feel that the existence of a god is part of objective reality. They are wide awake when they make these assertions.

If it's not testable in the scientific or historical sense or is not observable in the very real sense, by anyone, it's not objective reality.

That's just my understanding. :-)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Does a conscious observer emerge from a self-organizing reality or does a self-organizing reality emerge for a conscious observer?

Despite my initial praise for the brevity of the OP question, I have noticed a couple red-herrings.

Firstly, “emergence” serves as a term of art that many call upon. It tends to gloss over how and why a property actually manifests and/or the nature of the properties claimed to emerge. For example, was the feature already present in more basic parts before certain conditions allowed it to appear OR does a certain arrangement of parts allow an outside agent to act upon the whole OR does the whole constrain the action of the parts OR does the whole generate a completely novel property not otherwise possible, etc.

Secondly, what exactly does “self-organizing” mean? Similar to above, does the whole act upon the parts OR do the parts have built-in features pointing to specific ends OR both OR something else entirely.

Anyone can see that reality has two fundamental features: sensible objects and knowing subjects. I take it as self-evident that some things can abide in reality independent of a knowing subject’s observation. I it as self-evident that actual knowing subjects are necessary in order for awareness to manifest.
The OP tacitly assumes that reductive monisms are the only available options to reconcile these two features of reality. Asserting that monism, physical or otherwise, MUST be the case shows the faith-based prejudice of people committed to radical skepticism and/or subjectivism. While philosophical thinking has a natural tendency toward the elegance of monism, reasoning along these lines ends up either asserting a world in which consciousness has no place or a world hinging entirely on mental phenomena, i.e. “No matter, never mind.” Since both conclusions are strongly counter-intuitive and ultimately incoherent, I say some form of dualism should, for now, be the default position despite the prejudice against it.

To me, insisting that everything be objectively real, blatantly disregards things that are subjectively real.

---

No one can "observe" an idea.

Wrong. The person having the idea does.

[*Deidre*]

Chad Wooters: True. More often than not, that "observation" fits in the subjective reality slot.
So I wonder, can a mere idea ever be considered objectively real or viable?

Hmmm.

[Neo-Scholastic]

… can a mere idea ever be considered objectively real or viable?

You use the word “mere” as if you can easily dismiss the world of personal experience, value, and meaning. If you have already assumed that objective reality is the whole of reality, then you leave aside the best half of reality, the subjective part of which life is made.

[Foxaèr]

I think it is safe to state that the subjective part of life can be enjoyed, or else we would be quite the sorry society without the benefit of imagination, but it should not have to be stated that one should not confuse fantasy with reality.

[Whateverist]

Even though dreams vary person to person, science accepts that dreaming during different phases of sleep is a real phenomenon.

But you don't require science to know that you do dream, do you? We don't know that we dream because science has checked it out. We know that we dream because we experience them directly and, if we write them down upon waking, can remember doing so.

Lots of subjective experiences can be verified through first person experience, like emotions, feelings, intuition and creative impulses. As with dreams, science can study these from the outside and deduce which physiological responses correlate with each one. What science cannot do is directly study that which we actually experience.

For example, science has found that while in dream sleep, a person will often exhibit rapid eye movement. If we wake them, they can probably tell us what they were dreaming. What they won't tell you is that their eyes were flitting about. Rapid eye movement wasn't what they experienced first hand; it is only what dreaming looks like from the outside. What they can tell you is what happened in the dream, something which science cannot directly verify.

I suspect for the person who in prayer feels they are in the presence of a god, the situation is the same. Their direct experience is what it is and is not available to science to verify or discount. Now if the person who feels a connection to god makes claims about that god's effect on the physical world, those can be tested.

[Mudhammam]

Firstly, “emergence” serves as a term of art that many call upon. It tends to gloss over how and why a property actually manifests and/or the nature of the properties claimed to emerge.

Agreed. This is a valid criticism. As long as we don't assume that "emergence" serves as a totally satisfactory explanation of anything, I generally think the word is similar to "effect." Though we don't know every detail of how exactly all instances of emergence in nature occurs, it's reasonable to say based on the existing evidence that certain sensual perceptions or modes of thinking "emerge" from specific chemical reactions in different regions of the brain.

Secondly, what exactly does “self-organizing” mean? Similar to above, does the whole act upon the parts OR do the parts have built-in features pointing to specific ends OR both OR something else entirely.

Hope this clarifies some: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-orga...riticality

Anyone can see that reality has two fundamental features: sensible objects and knowing subjects. I take it as self-evident that some things can abide in reality independent of a knowing subject’s observation. I it as self-evident that actual knowing subjects are necessary in order for awareness to manifest.
The OP tacitly assumes that reductive monisms are the only available options to reconcile these two features of reality. Asserting that monism, physical or otherwise, MUST be the case shows the faith-based prejudice of people committed to radical skepticism and/or subjectivism. While philosophical thinking has a natural tendency toward the elegance of monism, reasoning along these lines ends up either asserting a world in which consciousness has no place or a world hinging entirely on mental phenomena, i.e. “No matter, never mind.” Since both conclusions are strongly counter-intuitive and ultimately incoherent, I say some form of dualism should, for now, be the default position despite the prejudice against it.

To me, insisting that everything be objectively real, blatantly disregards things that are subjectively real.

---

No one can "observe" an idea.

Wrong. The person having the idea does.

I honestly just haven't found any arguments for dualism helpful in solving or explaining anything.

[Rayaan]

Woah, wait, what? Slippery slope bro. Reality being self-organizing would not entail consciousness not being an emergent property of brains. It would just mean that this self-organization can bring about complex phenomena, not that it is ontologically fundamental. Quantum systems are always interacting and yet it is still perfectly sensible to talk about the interactions of separate quantum systems and the emergent properties of those systems that are not present in the lower levels of reality, such as entropy.

I agree that consciousness is a complex phenomena, but on another level, consciousness is also very simple: It is simply our subjective state of awareness.

Now when you wrote: "... this self-organization can bring about complex phenomena, not that it is ontologically fundamental," that made me think, but what about the self-organization? Don't you think that this "self-organization" is just as complex as consciousness itself? Or do you think that the self-organization becomes more and more complex over time?

If you think that the self-organization becomes more complex over time, then I could argue that all the complexity that it produces is already encoded within the self-organizing principle from the very beginning, which refutes the idea that the complexity of our consciousness is merely "emergent."

[*Deidre*]

… can a mere idea ever be considered objectively real or viable?

You use the word “mere” as if you can easily dismiss the world of personal experience, value, and meaning. If you have already assumed that objective reality is the whole of reality, then you leave aside the best half of reality, the subjective part of which life is made.

The quality of our lives though are not the sum total of our ideas, but rather our choices and actions stemming from those ideas. Or inertia, being a dreamer and not a doer.

---

Even though dreams vary person to person, science accepts that dreaming during different phases of sleep is a real phenomenon.

But you don't require science to know that you do dream, do you? We don't know that we dream because science has checked it out. We know that we dream because we experience them directly and, if we write them down upon waking, can remember doing so.

Lots of subjective experiences can be verified through first person experience, like emotions, feelings, intuition and creative impulses. As with dreams, science can study these from the outside and deduce which physiological responses correlate with each one. What science cannot do is directly study that which we actually experience.

For example, science has found that while in dream sleep, a person will often exhibit rapid eye movement. If we wake them, they can probably tell us what they were dreaming. What they won't tell you is that their eyes were flitting about. Rapid eye movement wasn't what they experienced first hand; it is only what dreaming looks like from the outside. What they can tell you is what happened in the dream, something which science cannot directly verify.

I suspect for the person who in prayer feels they are in the presence of a god, the situation is the same. Their direct experience is what it is and is not available to science to verify or discount. Now if the person who feels a connection to god makes claims about that god's effect on the physical world, those can be tested.

I read this a few times, really good.
During my time of following Christianty, I felt like my prayer life was as essential as food and water. I actually viewed my faith at that time as being built on objective truth. Until I learned it wasn't.

Thanks for posting this; it brings back some memories for me. Some of them good.

To add, going with what you're saying here and the theme of the thread, my perception of things back then, was my truth. And so I wonder. Is our perception of life, "our" truth? And is it wrong for want of a better word, to live in two worlds, simultaneously? A physical world and a spiritual one? For me, once I realized religion is built on deception and non truths, I couldn't perceive it as my own personal truth anymore.

I'm trying to explain this well, but not sure if I am? haha :/