(November 21, 2021 at 2:05 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 21, 2021 at 1:07 am)emjay Wrote: Just out of curiosity, how do you come to that conclusion? If you just mean that Christianity would be resistant to the implications, then I have no doubt, as it resists everything, but if you mean it would somehow be convincing evidence for theism, I personally can't see how (hence the question)... it certainly wouldn't convince me, and indeed would be the final nail in the coffin of any potential Christian belief in me.

Basically that is and always has been my own biggest question in all of this... if the mind is 100% dependent on the brain, or more specifically for me, if all conscious states are neurally represented in the brain... then all mental processes are therefore shown to be deterministic and/or quantum (however that applies if it does) but either way not compatible with the idea of a disembodied soul or free will. Being a hard determinist (hence my avatar) and a materialist it should be obvious that I strongly suspect that to be the case, but I don't know it to be the case... it remains an open question for me; ie if it turns out there's anything in consciousness that can't be explained by the brain, even theoretically... ie suggesting that consciousness is somehow above and beyond brain function rather than being a representation/mirror of it, as I believe it to be... then all bets would off at that point, and I'd have to rethink everything.

But to be clear, I don't expect to get the answer to those sorts of questions here... and it certainly wouldn't come from any claimed experience of people (ie NDEs, visions etc)... that's not what I'm talking about... that's content and reasonably explainable by appeal to brain states... what I'm talking about is mechanisms and theory, which can only be answered, for me, by psychology/neuroscience, and that's a long term question.

So yeah, that's where I stand on this, but just curious what you meant.

Is it your experience that most Christians base their religion on issues such as the mind/body problem? 

Or is it more of a sociological phenomenon, involving behavior, ethics, and goals?

Right, I think I see what you're saying. Firstly that's the relevant issue for me as a potential Christian but I grant that like you say (or seem to be saying) many Christians would have other reasons for their belief... or have different priorities... but I would still think it would - or should - be a cause of cognitive dissonance; something that would need to be resolved not just suppressed. But I suppose you could just be saying in answer to my question, rather cynically, that it would be little different than other cases of Christianity where you'd think there would be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, such as a creationist confronting evidence of evolution, but in practice they seem remarkably resistant to it. I have to say, I don't know if that's what you mean or not... you said somewhere else that you're not religious, but you certainly seem to be... ie are you atheist, agnostic, or is 'not religious' just another way of saying 'non-denominational Christian', like Neo?

ETA: I think I further see what you may mean, just in the sense that those sorts of questions might not even be on some people's radar, but I think the same points would still hold in the sense that once there's enough awareness about an issue, it becomes harder to ignore it... even if you were completely ignorant of it beforehand.

(November 21, 2021 at 3:13 am)emjay Wrote: Right, I think I see what you're saying. Firstly that's the relevant issue for me as a potential Christian but I grant that like you say (or seem to be saying) many Christians would have other reasons for their belief... or have different priorities... but I would still think it would - or should - be a cause of cognitive dissonance; something that would need to be resolved not just suppressed. But I suppose you could just be saying in answer to my question, rather cynically, that it would be little different than other cases of Christianity where you'd think there would be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, such as a creationist confronting evidence of evolution, but in practice they seem remarkably resistant to it. I have to say, I don't know if that's what you mean or not... 

Thank you very much for being non-snarky about this. It's a pleasant change.

As I understand its history, Christianity evolves and changes with the times. It adapts to the places it's in and the general episteme of its culture. 

So for example Creationists are mostly a modern phenomenon, insofar as they work hard to apply the methods of science to prove their beliefs. They look for evidence of Noah's flood in the Grand Canyon, or whatever, because they actually accept that science is the way we persuade people of truth. It's a backhanded compliment, but it's also a foregone defeat, because they're using the "enemy's" methods. 

But there are also lots of Christians who have no problem fitting into our modern ways of investigating the world. What we're calling "liberal" Christians, I suppose, have no problem with evolution, or archeological evidence that most of the OT is myth rather than history. I'm guessing that for the majority of these people, their Christianity is about community and uprightness, and if some scientist makes a breakthrough in the mind/body problem it wouldn't bother them much. I think that far more than literalists, these Christians are in the mainstream of the church's history. Augustine, after all, advised his readers not to stick to obvious falsehoods that investigation (it wasn't called "science" yet) had disproved. Since he interpreted the Bible largely as myth meant for moral education, if he was told that Noah's flood had been disproved he would have said fine, that's not what it's about. 

We also have to distinguish between Angry Sky-Daddy theology and the theology of educated people, which is in every way compatible with science -- in fact science has pretty much nothing to say about it, because metaphysics covers a different field from physics. It's very hard to get this across to some people here, but the God of theology isn't a big guy hiding somewhere whom we could measure with yardsticks. 

Quote:you said somewhere else that you're not religious, but you certainly seem to be... ie are you atheist, agnostic, or is 'not religious' just another way of saying 'non-denominational Christian', like Neo?

Yes, this is a difficulty for me. 

On this forum, we are required to use the definition that an atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. According to this definition I am an atheist, because I don't have belief. I don't know what's true. Perhaps "agnostic" fits me better, but as much as possible I avoid these labels. Metaphysics shouldn't be a team sport -- we should think about each claim. 

Put me down as someone who doesn't know what's true. 

I certainly believe that human beings know only a tiny tiny fraction of what the universe is about. I believe that our current episteme is contingent and sure to change drastically, even though people in its mainstream have absolute faith that they have all the main points licked. 

I also find myself in the position of explaining -- almost always in vain -- that the Christianity people argue against here is not all of Christianity. People have told me adamantly that because some majority of people in the US believe something stupid, that I shouldn't be talking about the non-stupid versions of Christianity. But to me that's like arguing that because the majority of Americans read commercial dreck like Dan Brown and Stephen King, that I'm not allowed to talk about Proust. We can't condemn literature just because most of it is bad.

(November 21, 2021 at 3:41 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 21, 2021 at 3:13 am)emjay Wrote: Right, I think I see what you're saying. Firstly that's the relevant issue for me as a potential Christian but I grant that like you say (or seem to be saying) many Christians would have other reasons for their belief... or have different priorities... but I would still think it would - or should - be a cause of cognitive dissonance; something that would need to be resolved not just suppressed. But I suppose you could just be saying in answer to my question, rather cynically, that it would be little different than other cases of Christianity where you'd think there would be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, such as a creationist confronting evidence of evolution, but in practice they seem remarkably resistant to it. I have to say, I don't know if that's what you mean or not... 

Thank you very much for being non-snarky about this. It's a pleasant change.

As I understand its history, Christianity evolves and changes with the times. It adapts to the places it's in and the general episteme of its culture. 

So for example Creationists are mostly a modern phenomenon, insofar as they work hard to apply the methods of science to prove their beliefs. They look for evidence of Noah's flood in the Grand Canyon, or whatever, because they actually accept that science is the way we persuade people of truth. It's a backhanded compliment, but it's also a foregone defeat, because they're using the "enemy's" methods. 

But there are also lots of Christians who have no problem fitting into our modern ways of investigating the world. What we're calling "liberal" Christians, I suppose, have no problem with evolution, or archeological evidence that most of the OT is myth rather than history. I'm guessing that for the majority of these people, their Christianity is about community and uprightness, and if some scientist makes a breakthrough in the mind/body problem it wouldn't bother them much. I think that far more than literalists, these Christians are in the mainstream of the church's history. Augustine, after all, advised his readers not to stick to obvious falsehoods that investigation (it wasn't called "science" yet) had disproved. Since he interpreted the Bible largely as myth meant for moral education, if he was told that Noah's flood had been disproved he would have said fine, that's not what it's about. 

We also have to distinguish between Angry Sky-Daddy theology and the theology of educated people, which is in every way compatible with science -- in fact science has pretty much nothing to say about it, because metaphysics covers a different field from physics. It's very hard to get this across to some people here, but the God of theology isn't a big guy hiding somewhere whom we could measure with yardsticks. 

Quote:you said somewhere else that you're not religious, but you certainly seem to be... ie are you atheist, agnostic, or is 'not religious' just another way of saying 'non-denominational Christian', like Neo?

Yes, this is a difficulty for me. 

On this forum, we are required to use the definition that an atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. According to this definition I am an atheist, because I don't have belief. I don't know what's true. Perhaps "agnostic" fits me better, but as much as possible I avoid these labels. Metaphysics shouldn't be a team sport -- we should think about each claim. 

Put me down as someone who doesn't know what's true. 

I certainly believe that human beings know only a tiny tiny fraction of what the universe is about. I believe that our current episteme is contingent and sure to change drastically, even though people in its mainstream have absolute faith that they have all the main points licked. 

I also find myself in the position of explaining -- almost always in vain -- that the Christianity people argue against here is not all of Christianity. People have told me adamantly that because some majority of people in the US believe something stupid, that I shouldn't be talking about the non-stupid versions of Christianity. But to me that's like arguing that because the majority of Americans read commercial dreck like Dan Brown and Stephen King, that I'm not allowed to talk about Proust. We can't condemn literature just because most of it is bad.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, I definitely understand where you're coming from a lot better now. And I do understand, thanks to the other threads, what you mean by the difference between popular and theological concepts of God... but that's a discussion for another day maybe (I haven't been to sleep yet and I should have done five hours ago ). But anyway, sorry for putting you on the spot back there about your status as it were... it's not like the labels we use around here are mandatory, but I was very curious.

(November 20, 2021 at 9:50 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 20, 2021 at 9:27 pm)Belacqua Wrote: But again, if it does turn out that mind is always and only dependent on the existence of a physical brain, I am skeptical that this would bring any significant change to Christianity.

I agree with you here. If anything, the dependence of mind upon material reality makes Christianity more poignant.

If minds are always dependent on living, functioning brains, then human immortality and God are impossible. I think that might have an impact on a few people who presently believe in such fantasy constructs, as it did me.

Denial isn't an argument.

(November 21, 2021 at 6:50 am)Alan V Wrote: If minds are always dependent on living, functioning brains, then human immortality and God are impossible.

Certainly this would make God impossible if you are defining God as having a mind like a human being -- thinking, changing, operating through time. Literalist anthropomorphism wouldn't survive.

If, however, you argue with the Platonists that God's mind is the world of Forms, or with Aristotelians for unchanging universals, or with just about every other theologian I know who says that God is ideal, unchanging, immaterial, transcendental, then the type of mind you're talking about wouldn't be relevant to God's mind. 

Then there are the followers of Boehme, Blake, and Hegelians who resemble them, who say that God's mind only manifests through human minds. So physical-brain-dependency wouldn't bother them.  

In modern philosophical terms, human and animal minds are said to consist of Popper's World 2. God, on the other hand, is World 3.

This is not simply denial, but based in very ancient arguments concerning what a necessary being would be like.

At least I agree with liberal christians on many social issues. That makes it more possible for me to work with them in making changes that I think are necessary.

Also, liberal christians tend not to preach or try to convert. They have their beliefs and don't try to change mine. Even when discussing religion, they tend to be helpful and explanatory and not to try to push an agenda. I appreciate that.

On a more global level, though, I feel that the liberal believers should probably call out the conservatives more often. Of course, the fact tthat they don't push their beliefs is precisely why I like them more, so that is a bit of a contradiction. But at some point, the liberal christians and moslems need to call out the conservatives and say that they are doing evil.

But on an even more general level, I feel that the simple fact that there is no way to test theology is why it tends to develop extremes. So any level of theism will, over time, develop extremes that will cause problems. Liberal theology isn't a stable state, as far as I can see. As long as the transfer rate between liberal and fundamentalist is low, it can be dealt with. But, ultimately, it is like a reservoir species in a pandemic disease: there will be break outs and that will cause more problems.

(November 21, 2021 at 10:31 am)polymath257 Wrote: At least I agree with liberal christians on many social issues. That makes it more possible for me to work with them in making changes that I think are necessary.

You mean like:

(November 21, 2021 at 7:56 am)Belacqua Wrote: We also have to distinguish between Angry Sky-Daddy theology and the theology of educated people, which is in every way compatible with science -- in fact science has pretty much nothing to say about it, because metaphysics covers a different field from physics. It's very hard to get this across to some people here, but the God of theology isn't a big guy hiding somewhere whom we could measure with yardsticks.

The angry sky-daddy is something that is found in the Bible yet strangely enough, modern humans still stick to judaism.
There are many lines in the Bible that suggest that the ancient jews thought that their god is in the sky.
Also, note that judaism has to be tuned to be compatible with science. The reverse never happens.
This is because science is based on reality (information that is pulled from reality) while information about the jewish god is not something that is pulled from reality.
The jewish god is just ink on paper.
Which scientist, which expert has gathered information about the jewish god by other means than reading ancient text?

(November 21, 2021 at 7:56 am)Belacqua Wrote: in fact science has pretty much nothing to say about it, because metaphysics covers a different field from physics.

Previously, I had written “science is based on reality (information that is pulled from reality)”.
Maybe I should have written instead “Humans explore their own universe”.
We haven’t explored other universes, and in fact, we haven’t explored most of our universe.
If someone wants to write fantastic stories about other universes, other lifeforms and they want to call them gods, he can.
If someone wants to write an alternate reality about Superman that came from the planet Krypton, he can.

Yes, it is normal that science is not going to discuss alternate realities, the planet Krypton, gods and their own universes.
The filters of science block such none sense.

(November 21, 2021 at 7:56 am)Belacqua Wrote: the God of theology isn't a big guy hiding somewhere whom we could measure with yardsticks.

There isn’t a singular god of theology.
Some gods are big sky daddies: the jewish god.
The jewish religion survived and it changed over time.

I don’t know. Maybe there were a few jews from 2000 y ago who believed that their god is in another universe.
There is no evidence of that in the Bible.

(November 21, 2021 at 7:56 am)Belacqua Wrote: Certainly this would make God impossible if you are defining God as having a mind like a human being -- thinking, changing, operating through time. Literalist anthropomorphism wouldn't survive.

If, however, you argue with the Platonists that God's mind is the world of Forms, or with Aristotelians for unchanging universals, or with just about every other theologian I know who says that God is ideal, unchanging, immaterial, transcendental, then the type of mind you're talking about wouldn't be relevant to God's mind.

Why would that make a god impossible?

If god is unchanging, then how can he do anything?
Yes, I see people throw around the word immaterial but can you explain how this immaterial brain works?

(November 21, 2021 at 2:36 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

(November 21, 2021 at 7:56 am)Belacqua Wrote: Certainly this would make God impossible if you are defining God as having a mind like a human being -- thinking, changing, operating through time. Literalist anthropomorphism wouldn't survive.

If, however, you argue with the Platonists that God's mind is the world of Forms, or with Aristotelians for unchanging universals, or with just about every other theologian I know who says that God is ideal, unchanging, immaterial, transcendental, then the type of mind you're talking about wouldn't be relevant to God's mind.

If god is unchanging, then how can he do anything?
Yes, I see people throw around the word immaterial but can you explain how this immaterial brain works?

In my opinion, anthropomorphism is inherent in any God-concept. Without a mind God has no sentience or knowledge, and can't willfully exercise power, so he isn't a God at all. If God has no changing mind, you just have the natural world of physics, chemistry, self-organization, and evolution -- just as atheists contend. At best, "God" is reduced to a metaphor for physical processes, in whole or part.

Platonists, Aristotelians, and theologians have all been superseded by scientists.

Some mystics, like Swedendorg, are very explicit that the human mind cannot concieve of God except as a human which is given as the reason Jesus in His humanity was given to us as Christ in His Divinity.