Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?

[Alex K]

I ask because of the absolute nature of the atheist perspective. Most atheists I know argue they are 100% sure there is no intelligent design,

You know some strange atheists then...

[fr0d0]

I think it's easy to misconstrue the hatred, scorn and assorted mockery heaped onto proponents of ID as 100% denial. The former is certainly the overwhelming view here on AF. But then they would also spin on a pin if you called them on their disbelief in God if it suited their cause. Atheism has a mono definition when required that is as much a get out of jail free card as taking the fifth.

Bygones

[tjakey]

I'm curious what types of evidence would be necessary to influence your 100% certainty there is no intelligence to the design of reality? I mean, simply the fact that intelligent life exists seems to imply we are experiencing more than just random, chaotic matter flying around in space. But that's just my opinion...

You have exactly one data point for "intelligence" and that would be humanity. A species that can't feed its young, can't protect the only environment is has for survival, is constantly at war, is burning through finite resources at an unsustainable rate, and has armed itself to the point of being able to destroy its own civilization in a single day. We are a species of unending violence, ignorant enough to deny the the observations of our own eyes if it conflicts with our "religion" and quite willing to exterminate anyone who disagrees with us. We are arrogant, self-righteous, greedy, mean, and petty.

So your suggestion that there must be an intelligent designer somewhere because "we" are intelligent is pure hubris. Insisting that only a superior intelligence of some kind, a deity or designer, could explain our being in the cosmos is even more hubris. Indeed, one might just as easily infer that having creatures like humanity on the loose is a pretty good indication that there is no intelligent design behind the cosmos.

Anyway, for all you know this is exactly what happens with a complex enough concentration of biological chemical / electrical energy in a natural environment. At the heart of all religion / gods is this belief that "we" are "special" and so "something intelligent must be involved". In my opinion that is nothing but egomania.

[bennyboy]

"Cognito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth. I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.

Biological scientists have attempted to expand upon Descarte’s truth to try to explain the mechanisms involved. Many claim that vibrating waves and particles interact with our awareness and are experienced based on the frequency of the vibration. Labels have been assigned to aspects of, what have been called, “biological systems” to assist with the communication of these concepts. According to many, there is no experience beyond what is capable of being picked up by these receptors (or assistant technologies).

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”. The biological systems are said to produce an experience based on the vibration of particles interacting with receptors and the subsequent biological processes. The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descarte’s claim that we experience and form opinion. Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. In this sense, anything could be possible.

I'm curious as to the atheist perspective on this...

I agree with everything you just said on philosophical grounds. However, adding the word "God" fucked it all up. Do you think we're fucking idiots, that we don't know you're a X-tian poe trying to leverage science, philosophy, etc. to establish the probability (or at least possibility) of Sky Daddy?

[sswhateverlove]

The conference he was speaking at was specifically to discuss ID. I was not misrepresenting that he acknowledged that we should not be ignoring the fact that some of the "world's most brilliant people" still believe in a personal god. He seemed to be implying that if one is to look closer, it's because the things these scientists are finding through their research is confirming those beliefs for them. NDT was acknowledging how amazing that is that with all our advancements in science, these scientists are still finding things that are confirming their belief in a "personal god", or with regard to the conference topic "intelligent design". I too find that fascinating.

First, this is from a Beyond Belief conference and was not specifically for ID. Are you lying? Or just making shit up to advance a cause?

I'm watching the video you posted. Did you watch it? NDT's discussion of famous scientists and their religious beliefs was to specifically draw attention to the fact that their religion did not inform their science. They believed in spite of their science and for other reasons.

In the portion of the NDT's talk dedicated to the idea of ID, he calls it 'stupid design'; some endorsement. He continues to invoke the idea of a god of the gaps.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. Also, forgive me for assuming the discussion was about ID, the fact that the title of the video is "Intelligent Design" might've confused me

Actually, what I interpreted from what I watched was that scientists tend to refer back to "god" when they run up against something that they can't explain, that seems impossible, that seems to defy logic, etc. I recognize that NDT is not endorsing the idea of intelligent design, that was not the point i was trying to make by bringing this into discussion.

The things that are not simple and clear cut are things that interest me. Those things that are baffling scientists to the point they throw their hands up and say "well, god" interests me. Not because I believe in a personal god, but that mysterious, unknowns leave so much more to be revealed with regard to the nature of reality and our potential as beings.

---

The entire end portion of NDT's talk is a warning AGAINST the god of the gaps, which he equates to ID. He's saying in other words "Look at what happens to progress when we allow religious dogma to rule our academic people!" and to remove ambiguity or any form of misinterpretation he gives the Arabic world as an example. Somehow that still failed.

He also warns against claiming Goddidit when approaching the unknown.

Yes, I'm aware that was the point NDT was making in the video. The reason I posted it was in response to a claim regarding what scientists and what they believe regarding the evidence of intelligence to design/influence. I was pointing out that some of the most brilliant scientists do still find evidence that leaves them falling back to "well, god". That's not to say i agree that it's a good answer, only that it's fascinating that it's still happening and some of the most brilliant minds in the world are still there.

---

I'm curious what types of evidence would be necessary to influence your 100% certainty there is no intelligence to the design of reality? I mean, simply the fact that intelligent life exists seems to imply we are experiencing more than just random, chaotic matter flying around in space. But that's just my opinion...

You have exactly one data point for "intelligence" and that would be humanity. A species that can't feed its young, can't protect the only environment is has for survival, is constantly at war, is burning through finite resources at an unsustainable rate, and has armed itself to the point of being able to destroy its own civilization in a single day. We are a species of unending violence, ignorant enough to deny the the observations of our own eyes if it conflicts with our "religion" and quite willing to exterminate anyone who disagrees with us. We are arrogant, self-righteous, greedy, mean, and petty.

So your suggestion that there must be an intelligent designer somewhere because "we" are intelligent is pure hubris. Insisting that only a superior intelligence of some kind, a deity or designer, could explain our being in the cosmos is even more hubris. Indeed, one might just as easily infer that having creatures like humanity on the loose is a pretty good indication that there is no intelligent design behind the cosmos.

Anyway, for all you know this is exactly what happens with a complex enough concentration of biological chemical / electrical energy in a natural environment. At the heart of all religion / gods is this belief that "we" are "special" and so "something intelligent must be involved". In my opinion that is nothing but egomania.

My original post was referring to the possibility that reality, as we experience it, is actually similar to the "Matrix". In assuming that possibility, I was also referring to the designer of such a "Matrix" and the intelligence that would be required.

---

[/quote]

I agree with everything you just said on philosophical grounds. However, adding the word "God" fucked it all up. Do you think we're fucking idiots, that we don't know you're a X-tian poe trying to leverage science, philosophy, etc. to establish the probability (or at least possibility) of Sky Daddy?
[/quote]

Hmmmm... did you see the word "God" somewhere in there? I'm confused...

[sswhateverlove]

First, this is from a Beyond Belief conference and was not specifically for ID. Are you lying? Or just making shit up to advance a cause?

I'm watching the video you posted. Did you watch it? NDT's discussion of famous scientists and their religious beliefs was to specifically draw attention to the fact that their religion did not inform their science. They believed in spite of their science and for other reasons.

In the portion of the NDT's talk dedicated to the idea of ID, he calls it 'stupid design'; some endorsement. He continues to invoke the idea of a god of the gaps.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. Also, forgive me for assuming the discussion was about ID, the fact that the title of the video is "Intelligent Design" might've confused me

Actually, what I interpreted from what I watched was that scientists tend to refer back to "god" when they run up against something that they can't explain, that seems impossible, that seems to defy logic, etc. I recognize that NDT is not endorsing the idea of intelligent design, that was not the point i was trying to make by bringing this into discussion.

The things that are not simple and clear cut are things that interest me. Those things that are baffling scientists to the point they throw their hands up and say "well, god" interests me. Not because I believe in a personal god, but that mysterious, unknowns leave so much more to be revealed with regard to the nature of reality and our potential as beings.

---

The entire end portion of NDT's talk is a warning AGAINST the god of the gaps, which he equates to ID. He's saying in other words "Look at what happens to progress when we allow religious dogma to rule our academic people!" and to remove ambiguity or any form of misinterpretation he gives the Arabic world as an example. Somehow that still failed.

He also warns against claiming Goddidit when approaching the unknown.

Yes, I'm aware that was the point NDT was making in the video. The reason I posted it was in response to a claim regarding what scientists and what they believe regarding the evidence of intelligence to design/influence. I was pointing out that some of the most brilliant scientists do still find evidence that leaves them falling back to "well, god". That's not to say i agree that it's a good answer, only that it's fascinating that it's still happening and some of the most brilliant minds in the world are still there.

---

You have exactly one data point for "intelligence" and that would be humanity. A species that can't feed its young, can't protect the only environment is has for survival, is constantly at war, is burning through finite resources at an unsustainable rate, and has armed itself to the point of being able to destroy its own civilization in a single day. We are a species of unending violence, ignorant enough to deny the the observations of our own eyes if it conflicts with our "religion" and quite willing to exterminate anyone who disagrees with us. We are arrogant, self-righteous, greedy, mean, and petty.

So your suggestion that there must be an intelligent designer somewhere because "we" are intelligent is pure hubris. Insisting that only a superior intelligence of some kind, a deity or designer, could explain our being in the cosmos is even more hubris. Indeed, one might just as easily infer that having creatures like humanity on the loose is a pretty good indication that there is no intelligent design behind the cosmos.

Anyway, for all you know this is exactly what happens with a complex enough concentration of biological chemical / electrical energy in a natural environment. At the heart of all religion / gods is this belief that "we" are "special" and so "something intelligent must be involved". In my opinion that is nothing but egomania.

My original post was referring to the possibility that reality, as we experience it, is actually similar to the "Matrix". In assuming that possibility, I was also referring to the designer of such a "Matrix" and the intelligence that would be required.

---

I agree with everything you just said on philosophical grounds. However, adding the word "God" fucked it all up. Do you think we're fucking idiots, that we don't know you're a X-tian poe trying to leverage science, philosophy, etc. to establish the probability (or at least possibility) of Sky Daddy?
[/quote]

Hmmmm... did you see the word "God" somewhere in there? I'm confused...
[/quote]

No, you're right, I put it in the subject. It's not that I believe that the science supports the idea of "god". I think the reason I wrote it that way was because I was assuming I would be getting feedback from theists and atheists, wherefore I was acknowledging their opinion as well. I did that in most of my subjects I think. I'm realizing now that made people assume I was arguing in favor of that perspective. Really, it was a honest mistake based on a belief that this discussion was going to have a balance of theist and atheist thought. Obviously not, I'm pretty sure now that you have scared all the theists away.

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm... did you see the word "God" somewhere in there? I'm confused...

Yeah, the thread title.

Look, I'm all about the Mind of God and the Matrix and the agnostic perspective. . . ask anyone here. But I'm not constantly pushing a religious agenda, and I probably haven't made as many threads in my time here as you have in your first couple weeks. Personally, I think all your many threads should be condensed into one thread-- but that this is an issue is a breach of etiquette.

[sswhateverlove]

Hmmmm... did you see the word "God" somewhere in there? I'm confused...

Yeah, the thread title.

Look, I'm all about the Mind of God and the Matrix and the agnostic perspective. . . ask anyone here. But I'm not constantly pushing a religious agenda, and I probably haven't made as many threads in my time here as you have in your first couple weeks. Personally, I think all your many threads should be condensed into one thread-- but that this is an issue is a breach of etiquette.

See, and I thought i was being polite by splitting up the topics.

Can you clarify for me how you see me "pushing a religious agenda"?

[bennyboy]

Sure. Intelligent design is an intrinsically religious idea, because by "intelligence," you are talking about a massive creative mind, which is pretty much the definition of God. Hence, I'm sure, your actual use of the word "God" in the title.

By "pushing a religious agenda," I mean that you've gone into many subsections in these forums, and pointed toward ID, framing your arguments in philosophical language, or scientific language, etc. But the common denominator is that all your arguments are either explicitly or implicitly about the idea of ID-- so you aren't so much interested in science, or philosophy, or any of the other content of those subforums, as you are in making sure that everyone here engages with you on the idea of ID, which as I've shown is intrinsically a religious one.

Here's my advice to you-- actually READ the threads that are already going on, and you'll see that many people here argue for Deism, take agnostic positions, etc. Hell, if you even searched "Matrix," you would find that I've used the term dozens of times in the past few months, and in threads that are currently active. You didn't even need to make new threads, because there are already good threads in which you could have participated with exactly the same kind of discourse, but without making it all about you.

But you didn't take an interest in the threads, or ideas, of anyone else. You just came in here and started puking up new threads, assuming that because you are a special snowflake, nobody in this atheist/anti-theist forum could already be talking about ID or about experiential agnosticism. But let me tell you now-- you'll have a VERY hard time finding any angle on religion or cosmology that doesn't already have dozens or hundreds of pages about it.

Here, I did a search for you. Read all these posts, and then tell me you needed to piss all over the forums.
http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...d=0&page=2

[sswhateverlove]

Sure. Intelligent design is an intrinsically religious idea, because by "intelligence," you are talking about a massive creative mind, which is pretty much the definition of God. Hence, I'm sure, your actual use of the word "God" in the title.

By "pushing a religious agenda," I mean that you've gone into many subsections in these forums, and pointed toward ID, framing your arguments in philosophical language, or scientific language, etc. But the common denominator is that all your arguments are either explicitly or implicitly about the idea of ID-- so you aren't so much interested in science, or philosophy, or any of the other content of those subforums, as you are in making sure that everyone here engages with you on the idea of ID, which as I've shown is intrinsically a religious one.

Here's my advice to you-- actually READ the threads that are already going on, and you'll see that many people here argue for Deism, take agnostic positions, etc. Hell, if you even searched "Matrix," you would find that I've used the term dozens of times in the past few months, and in threads that are currently active. You didn't even need to make new threads, because there are already good threads in which you could have participated with exactly the same kind of discourse, but without making it all about you.

But you didn't take an interest in the threads, or ideas, of anyone else. You just came in here and started puking up new threads, assuming that because you are a special snowflake, nobody in this atheist/anti-theist forum could already be talking about ID or about experiential agnosticism. But let me tell you now-- you'll have a VERY hard time finding any angle on religion or cosmology that doesn't already have dozens or hundreds of pages about it.

Well, that was only slightly insulting. Honestly, it seemed much more effective to start a new thread than to sift through hundreds of other threads and posts trying to find relevant discussion. I'm sorry if you think that was making it all about me. Honestly though, I'm not really very concerned about your opinion with regard to that matter.

Further, including "God" in the questions posed in the titles was done out of respect for the theists that I thought would also be part of these discussions. I didn't realize that it wasn't a welcoming environment for theists to participate in discussion. I realize that now.

Finally, your assumption that ID means "god" implies that you do not acknowledge any other opinions with regard to that concept. Some people may say there are other lifeforms on other planets that could be responsible for our reality. If I had to identify leanings personally, I would identify as a neutral monist, meaning I think that consciousness and matter are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, wherefore it would be my own consciousness (and yours) that would be the intelligence that designed and influences the universe. Do you consider this a religious perspective? If so, did I ever once push it as an agenda? Um... No.