Chad, the mind is a physical property of the sum. What are you suggesting? In much the same way software can change the operation of the computer without invoking a magical substance, so too does the mind control the body. You ignore the third person understanding of the cause and interaction of thought and focus on your first person experience of the effect. You need both perspectives to make the complete understanding. What the experience is like in the first person is not the cause. It's one aspect of the phenomena, not the sum. To me, it's as if your intentionally complicating things to make room for something you want to be true, when there's absolutely no reason to actually entertain it.
@Jacob
I've convinced others to abandon their faith, and other superstitions. My moral dilemma comes in when considering the possibility of faith being the only sugar pill they had and not acquiring another solution in time for when they are faced with a situation that such a dose is needed. Many people are genuinely good hearted and oblivious to the topics we discuss around here. They live a life oblivious to their ignorance, and get great satisfaction from pretending to know things that they do not. And while this can be a harmful way to make decisions, for some, it's most common application is only with regards to the existence of the supernatural, and from it, they do not create conflict, but derive only hope. To Tonus' point, I agree. I, being an Atheist have zero need for pretending to know things about Gods to be happy, and can look no further than this site to find plenty of other people who are equally or even more satisfied with their Godless lives. It's a weird gray line for me though. While I like to believe that I have an autonomous moral outlook, I also think the spreading of bad ideas derived by insufficient inquiry and bad evidence is a harmful practice, except...when it isn't. And that is the part that I'm having trouble with. Jacob touched on that part a bit in the medical industry's ethical responsibility. Oy Vey!
@Jacob
I've convinced others to abandon their faith, and other superstitions. My moral dilemma comes in when considering the possibility of faith being the only sugar pill they had and not acquiring another solution in time for when they are faced with a situation that such a dose is needed. Many people are genuinely good hearted and oblivious to the topics we discuss around here. They live a life oblivious to their ignorance, and get great satisfaction from pretending to know things that they do not. And while this can be a harmful way to make decisions, for some, it's most common application is only with regards to the existence of the supernatural, and from it, they do not create conflict, but derive only hope. To Tonus' point, I agree. I, being an Atheist have zero need for pretending to know things about Gods to be happy, and can look no further than this site to find plenty of other people who are equally or even more satisfied with their Godless lives. It's a weird gray line for me though. While I like to believe that I have an autonomous moral outlook, I also think the spreading of bad ideas derived by insufficient inquiry and bad evidence is a harmful practice, except...when it isn't. And that is the part that I'm having trouble with. Jacob touched on that part a bit in the medical industry's ethical responsibility. Oy Vey!
