Wednesday, December 7, 2011

From PZ's Place: Jabu M, Botswana, on Why I Am An Atheist:

Growing up in Zimbabwe presented many challenges. Calling anyone “middle class” was a joke – you were either filthy rich, struggled to make ends meet or were so poor words could not begin to describe it. My family was part of that second group – we lived comfortably, but only just. I’m an ex-fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist, which, considering that Adventism has been in Zimbabwe for about four generations is really something. One thing I can truly thank my parents for is that they never compromised on my education. My brothers and I always went to private school, even if it meant we had to cut back on a few luxuries to do so. I was also always very inquisitive, very much a nerd and had a deep love for science that my mother encouraged. I read a lot of books, particularly about physics, astronomy and dinosaurs so questions were inevitable. I was an introspective child, though, so I tended to keep those questions to myself and try to figure things out on my own.

At twelve I was baptised into the church. I think this was the turning point at which I began to come to terms with reality, because it forced me to examine what I believed and why I believed it, where previously I could just drift along and pretend there was no conflict between my faith and my aspirations to be a scientist. It wasn’t an easy journey, but less than eight months later, I came to the conclusion that God as envisioned by any Earthly religion does not exist. I still thought a higher being of some kind was possible, and so became somewhat of an agnostic.

The biggest problem I had at this stage of my life was that I had nothing concrete to fill the gap my faith left behind. One practical upshot of my country and my family’s financial state was that I had no access to the solid facts I needed – I had no access to the internet and what little I did know came from the now too vague books I could access from the kids’ section of the library. I was growing ever more hungry for knowledge, and would gobble up any little morsel I could get, regardless of quality. In time, this led me to a brush with pseudoscience no better than the faith I had recently forsaken.

Rifling through some old books at my grandmother’s house, I found a bunch by a certain fellow called Erich von Daniken. They had the words “stars” and “space” in them , so reading was a no-brainer. What I read had me instantly hooked. Soon, I was proclaiming to all my friends how aliens had visited us in ages past and imparted us with intelligence. I was rattling off every single piece of “evidence” E vD presented – the Piri Reis map, the Ica stones, the Nasca lines, Puma Punku – with the utmost confidence that I’d finally found the truth. E vD did an excellent job of pretending to have that which I had been looking for all along – good, solid facts. His book “Miracles of the Gods” also fit in with the pseudo-mystical approach I had taken, and this led into a brief but retrospectively embarrassing flirtation with the Law of Attraction.

It was this phase, in which I wholeheartedly accepted such nonsense as is contained in “The Secret” and “What the Bleep Do We Know” that led to me taking another deep look at my beliefs. I noticed that all my “positive thinking” and meditating on the things I desired was getting me nowhere, and I started really thinking about how this actually worked. I realised that all this talk of “qantum-this” and “quantum-that” was simply a different term for the magic I used to believe in when I was still Christian. It did not take long for the rest of my belief in the supernatural to disappear, and eventually any concession of the possibility of the existence of a deity went down the drain as well.

I remember the first time I ever referred to myself as an atheist. I had just moved to a new school in Botswana. We were in a class Guidance and Counselling session and the counsellor asked me what religion I belonged to. Right there and then, I realised – much as I had once reviled those who were so “close-minded” as to outright deny the existence of a god, I had become one of them. With newfound conviction in my voice, I proudly answered, “I’m atheist.” This was early in 2009, and I was 16, going on 17.

Perhaps not very oddly enough, I still lent some credence to Erich von Daniken’s hypotheses. I would think to myself, “Okay, maybe he got the metaphysics wrong, but some of his facts must be right.” I was also very critical of vocal atheists, even once writing a letter bashing Richard Dawkins over his hope that creating a cross between a human and chimp would end religion to the South African edition of Popular Mechanics. The Internet changed both these things, however. The Skeptic’s Dictionary in particular demolished von Daniken’s hypotheses, while reading of all the abuses to freedom that religion continues to perpetrate underscored the importance of activism to me.

I take a pragmatic view of the circuitous route I took to becoming rational: if it weren’t for it I wouldn’t be who I am today. I wouldn’t have experienced first hand how harmful and limiting believing in lies can be, and wouldn’t be so passionate about eliminating them. It’s not my lack of belief in gods that I count as my most important trait, though. I value being a rationalist because I choose to think, a skeptic because I choose to question, a humanist because I have compassion for my fellow man and have an unbridled love for the cosmos that drives me to achieve my dream of becoming an astrophysicist. It is from this dream that I draw the deepest meaning for my life: that of discovery, and questing to understand the universe we live in.


Jabu M
Botswana


Jabu M makes these points:
(1) Conflict between his religion (Seventh Day Adventist) and science.

(2) God as defined by earthly religions can’t exist (his age: nearly 13). Became agnostic.

(3) A skirmish with Eric Von Daniken and “psuedo mysticism” caused an evaluation of his beliefs. Declared Atheism at nearly 17.

(4) Influenced by internet and Skeptic’s Dictionary.

(5) Read about abuses to freedom by religion.

(6) Final declaration: I value being a rationalist because I choose to think, a skeptic because I choose to question, a humanist because I have compassion for my fellow man and have an unbridled love for the cosmos that drives me to achieve my dream of becoming an astrophysicist.

Summary:
Agnostic at 13; Atheist at 17. Reasons include: God of earthly religions can’t exist; religion conflicts with science; psuedo science and mysticism were similar to religion; he values science; religious abuse of freedom.

107 comments:

Jotunn said...

You didn't point out any logical fallacies in this post. Your listing of his points seems fair as well. Your summary seems accurate.

Seems like a series of good reasons to reject theism.

Good summary.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Stan, I am no good at debate, and I'm not quite sure why I am an atheist myself; but if you want a discussion on your blog about atheism and theism, I would be happy to help you out. That seems more productive than what you're doing with your PZ posts.

Martin said...

Seems like a series of good reasons to reject theism.

It kinda speaks for itself, if you have a good grounding in logic and reason. I see no valid arguments that can be constructed with any of those reasons. Example:

1. If some pseudo-mysticism is false, then God does not exist
2. Pseudo-mysticism is false
3. Therefore, God does not exist

Premise 1 is nonsensical. There is no connection between New Age clap trap and whether our universe is the product of a creator or not.

zilch said...

Martin- of course your syllogism is correct. But I suspect many former theists were rather persuaded by this one:

1. If some pseudo-mysticism is false, then perhaps all claims for the supernatural all false.

2. Some pseudo-mysticism is false.

3. Therefore, it might well be that God is false as well.

I don't know many atheists who claim to know with certainty that God does not exist. But seeing that there are many claims for the supernatural, and that many are obviously false, patently absurd, and mutually incommensurate, tends to lead to general skepticism.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

Debunkey Monkey said...

"It kinda speaks for itself, if you have a good grounding in logic and reason."

Oh, cool. So I take it you studied philosophy in college? Perhaps have a degree in it? That's awesome. I was an English major that went on to study comp-sci, so I had to study a lot of philosophy and logic myself.

*high five*

Martin said...

zilch,

Yes, but that is inductive evidence against supernatural that breaks in to our world frequently. That needs to be weighed against deductive arguments that a supernatural reality exists and is responsible for the existence of our world, whether that reality breaks in often, rarely, or never.

The Leibnizian versions of the cosmological argument can offer a good argument that there is such a thing, whether it interferes or not.

Not to mention, on the Thomistic system, there is no such thing as "supernatural". There are just levels of being, with prime matter at the bottom, humans in the middle, and God on top. Dismissing these because some wackjob promotes The Secret is just guilt by association.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin, LOL! Thomism! Haven't heard that one in a while. That's a good one.


You make an excellent Poe.

Martin said...

Debunkey Monkey,

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff." - Cicero

Debunkey Monkey said...

Huh? I was giving you a compliment.

World of Facts said...

@Martin

You never read Vagon's last comment that was addressed to you...

http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=8213&start=200#p91498

I am not able to click on your link, can you paste the URL?

Martin said...

Oops: http://i.imgur.com/uXCQB.jpg

Hugo, I am trying to stay away from forums in general; I get too swamped. It's like buzzards flocking to a carcass.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Ah, we have met before! Will you post again if I go there myself and post more ponies?

If you need someone to back you up so you don't feel so intimidated, you could have just asked, silly. I can make arguments for the existence of a deity too. But, uh, we need to modernize your arguments and make them congruent with modern philosophical ideas and scientific understandings. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll PM my e-mail address on the board.

Ciao!

zilch said...

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, like its descendant the Kalam Argument, is not convincing because it basically boils down to this:

1. Everything in the Universe has a cause.

2. Therefore, the Universe itself has a cause.

3. That cause must be causeless, to avoid an infinite regress.

4. Therefore, the cause of the Universe must be somehow immune from causation.

5. Thus, the cause of the Universe must be magic (or immaterial, or whatever- "different" from matter, not subject to causation, and requiring no explanation as to why or how).

6. Therefore, the cause of the Universe is God.

This may sound silly, but that's the argument. It's basically passing the buck: "I can't explain this, so there must be an omnipotent being who did it, whom I don't need to explain".

Martin said...

Zilch,

That is not the argument. You are transforming it into an easy-to-attack strawman. As Ed Feser points out:

Lots of people – probably most people who have an opinion on the matter – think that the cosmological argument goes like this: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists. They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause? Why assume the cause is God? Etc.

Here’s the funny thing, though. People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from. They never quote anyone defending it. There’s a reason for that. The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne.


And then he continues:

Suppose some creationist began his attack on Darwinism by assuring his readers that “the basic” claim of the Darwinian account of human origins is that at some point in the distant past a monkey gave birth to a human baby. Suppose he provided no source for this claim – which, of course, he couldn’t have, because no Darwinian has ever said such a thing – and suppose also that he admitted that no one has ever said it. But suppose further that he claimed that “more sophisticated versions” of Darwinism were really just “modifications” of this claim. Intellectually speaking, this would be utterly contemptible and sleazy. It would give readers the false impression that anything Darwinians have to say about human origins, however superficially sophisticated, is really just a desperate exercise in patching up a manifestly absurd position. Precisely for that reason, though, such a procedure would, rhetorically speaking, be very effective indeed.

World of Facts said...

Martin,

You are correct; the argument is not presented 'directly' the way Zilch put it, but he did concede that anyway...

The problem is that the argument attempts to prove that something, something real, something not conceptual, 'exits' outside of reality.

If something exists outside of reality, the term existence does not equal 'real' anymore; it is broaden to include all that literally exists, in reality, and things that could exist, outside of reality.

Therefore, a detailed criticism of the argument, such as what you can see here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/) yields that the argument is indeed valid; you are correct Martin!

The problem is that the argument, at best, lets the believer justify his/her belief that this realm of existence outside of reality exists. It does not, in any way, prove that it has to be the case. If you start by saying 'I don't know if something can even exist outside of reality', then you yield nothing with the argument. It is valid only for minds that assume that 'existence' does not mean 'real' but rather 'real+outside of reality'

That's actually the problem I have with Swinburne's defence of the argument that you can see at the link I posted. When he gets to the point where he has to say 'I don't know what could or could not have caused the universe to be the way it is', he jumps to what he calls a 'personal explanation', something that is more probable than other things, and that could even be a mind (yet labeled as simple...).

My personal problem with the argument, that I struggle to explain on this other insanely long thread we have going here, is that by not defining existence properlly, we cannot escape the possibility that the real world does not really exist.

If we can exist as purely immaterial minds, it is possible that we are completely deceived. It is possible that we are inside a Matrix-like environment. This scenario is impossible to distinguish from what we experience now.

Because I reject this scenario, I consider my own existence, in the real world, to be an absolute truth. Things that are real exist in this reality, independent of minds. Things that exist in minds are immaterial and exist only because of the existence of a material mind. Everything that exists is thus material.

It is not circular since I start by NOT assuming that everything that exists is material. I then go on to explain what immaterial things that exist are and it turns out that they are, in a strict sense, material.

It also does not prove that nothing can exists outside of reality, but again, if it is the case that something exists outside of reality then I don't understand why any human being, being limited to this existing reality, can claim to have knowledge about this reality 2.0.

Martin said...

Hugo,

Nothing in the Leibniz argument states that something exists outside of reality, as you can see from my infographic.

World of Facts said...

I know Martin, that's part of the problem...

What does 'to exist' mean?

Debunkey Monkey said...

Oh geeze, here comes the ontology. I swear the English language isn't equipped to properly handle the subject.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin, comes back to the forums. I posted ponies just for you in the thread! :D

Martin said...

What does 'to exist' mean?

I don't have time to get into Frege and all that. Look how long the article is at the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

That's a whole other topic unto itself.

World of Facts said...

What does 'to exist' mean?

I don't have time to get into Frege and all that. Look how long the article is at the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

That's a whole other topic unto itself.


You argue that God EXISTS, but you don't have time to get into what EXISTENCE means!

What the...?

We are done Martin.

Take care!

Debunkey Monkey said...

I'm kind of with Hugo. You can't mention Frege, then not talk about math. Most of my life's work revolves around the foundations laid by Frege and Boole.

Get my hopes up... :(

Martin said...

Hugo,

Lordy, atheists are always talking about the existence of God without having to dive into it. Surely a workable definition would be that something is an objective reality apart from anyone's mind, that would continue to hold true even if everyone died.

Chris said...

Did the law of gravity exist before the big bang?

Debunkey Monkey said...

Phew, at least Martin just conceded that objective morality or any morality for that matter, doesn't exist.

World of Facts said...

Did the law of gravity exist before the big bang?

The 'law' certainly did not exist.

No need to go that far back. The law that describes what we label as gravity certainly did not exist before humans came up with it.

I guess the question is: can we know if the law of gravity we have now describes the early universe accurately? I would say 'laws' by the way since our understand changed a lot over the years...

Just like any other law described using the language of mathematics, if you plug 'infinity' in the equations, you don't get meaningful results. Since, from our perspective, the universe was infinitely dense at the singularity, nothing can be said, using the laws of gravity, concerning what you labeled as 'before the Big Bang'.

Martin said...

Chris and Hugo,

Do note that the Leibniz argument above is not concerned with how long the universe has been in existence.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Leibniz may not have been concerned with how long the universe has been in existence, but I am.

*gets popcorn*

World of Facts said...

Martin,

Do note that I don't know what you mean by 'existence'.

Martin said...

I provided a cautious definition above.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin, would an immaterial being like a god truly be considered part of objective reality? Objects are generally material in nature.

World of Facts said...

Oh right, you meant this:

Surely a workable definition would be that something is an objective reality apart from anyone's mind, that would continue to hold true even if everyone died.

The wording is not perfect but I think I agree; this definition makes sense to me. I don't think it makes sense to you though so I probably misunderstand it...

It cannot make sense to you to equate 'objective reality' with 'what exists', because you believe that some things exist outside of the 'objective reality'.

Stan, for example, told me it was circular reasoning to start with 'what exists' as being 'what's in the objective reality'. So you don't agree with him on that?

Martin said...

I don't believe anything exists outside of objective reality. In fact, I don't believe anything at all, because I'm agnostic on this question. But the Leibniz argument does not say that either.

World of Facts said...

I don't believe anything exists outside of objective reality. In fact, I don't believe anything at all, because I'm agnostic on this question.

I am agnostic too! I cannot 'know' what's outside of reality.

Therefore, I disbelieve claims that state that something exists outside of reality, like a god defined as 'existing outside of reality'. I am thus an Atheist.

Why claim that you're not an Atheist then?

Let me attempt and answer and correct me if I am wrong so that I understand you correctly: You believe that because you cannot know, it's still possible that something exists, therefore you cannot call yourself and Atheist because for you an Atheist is someone that believes there is nothing outside of reality.

Note that this does not get us to being Materialists yet...

But the Leibniz argument does not say that either.

The argument you presented in the image does not make any sense, when it comes to proving that something exists or not, yet it is suppose to be a starting point to prove God exists.

I would try to explain what does not make sense to me but I am afraid that if I translate the images to words you will say 'nah, that's not what it meant'. So, if you want, put it here in text, in the form of a valid syllogism (according to you) and I will tell you where I see issues. (Hint: plugging the word 'powerful' needs justification)

Debunkey Monkey said...

Yeah, the most obvious flaw is assuming that whatever must be non-contingent must be "powerful." Not only is "powerful" ill-defined, mathematically speaking, there's no basis in believing a dynamical system needs large changes in initial conditions to create profoundly different results.

An example of this I'm sure you're aware of is the Lorenz attractor. There is no reason a very weak un-caused quantum fluctuation could not result in our universe.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin,

Anyway, like I said earlier, if you want help to improve and modernize your arguments, contact me on wearesmrt. If you want proofs of "god(s)," I got a few that can't be easily refuted although they clash significantly with the Christian concept of God. *shrug*

Martin said...

Well, one way of formulating it would be:

1. Everything contingent has an explanation for its existence
2. The group of all contingent things is itself contingent
3. Therefore, the group of all contingent things has an explanation of its existence

And from the axiom that an explanation of P must be not-P, otherwise the explanation is circular, then it follows that something non-contingent must explanation contingent things.

And from analysis of what it is for something to be non-contingent, several interesting traits arise: supernatural, timeless, spaceless, etc.

World of Facts said...

1. All 'X' have a 'Y'
...where 'X' is a contingent thing and 'Y' a 'explanation for its existence'

2. The group of all 'X' is an 'X'

3. From 1,2: The group of all 'X' has a 'Y'

Invalid; you equated 'X' and 'Group of X'.

yonose said...

If anyone is interested (Specially Atheist fellows, although I said before I'm a theist)I felt to mention something here, because I think, but may be amittedly wrong, that there seems to be a lot of miscommunication around these issues here.

I'm no logician, I'm not an expert in debate, nor a Philosopher, I'm just a simple, replaceable, engineering student.

I agree with latest Martin's argumentation. The actual problem with contingency, is that almost anybody may enquiry, by a processes that here are mentioned in a rather reductionistic (it's not actually that simple) way I admit:

1) what we try to perceive has or had some properties experimentally observed

2) building a whole theory to understand the phenomena

3)if it works, more experimentation.

4)then if the experiment is replicable, within time, that theory may become a theorem, or even what we colloquially may call a law.

But by these kind of empirism based in the scientific method only, may a very few times, makes us understand about what an object is, in its essence, and it may also be happening within scientific reserch.

I've talked about these issues with a couple of PhDs in Physics I know, which are pretty much unbiased in these issues but getting to the point again:

We may understand these kind of phenomena by observing and understanding their properties, but it is not always possible to objectively say what it is in essence.

Excuse me if it this next paragraph gets eventually off-topic, but I'm just trying to give some examples:

Me, as an Electronics Engineering student, I need to be aware of it, because we may know that an Electrical Field may be initiating if I stimulate and electron by external forces/energies, and therefore if energy is pulsating/vibrating a wave pattern is generated; we may know that a Magnetic Field is a field which is a region generated by the interaction on energetic differences in an Electrical Field, and also that it generates orthogonally in a wave pattern ("circle" shaped); we may know that when reaching a superconductive state, electrons don't give energy in the same wave pattern anymore, but that this very same field decays (known as the Meissner Effect) and eventually becomes constant, getting at a superfluidity state; we may know about controlling nanomagnetism and mictomagnetism with spintronics' theories (which actually work for quantum computing), etc etc...

But what we are not able to describe objectively is:

1) What an Electrical Field is, without resorting to explain directly its properties

2) What a Magnetic Field is, without resorting to explain directly its properties

3) What Gravity is, without resorting to explain directly its properties

Here's when conjectures take place in the scientific community.

It is still not possible to explain the electron itself, or the muon neutrinos or the bosons yet as "things" because thery are not local, not dimentional, and here the paradox begins, again we know their existance looking for their properties by predicting energy states with quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics/chromodynamics, but we don't know what they really are.

And here's where non-contingency might take place, this very blurry line where contingency is still explained by properties and when it is not possible to... please don't confuse this with the God of the Gaps fallacy, I'm not mentioning "God did it" here.

(1 of 2, countinuing below)

yonose said...

(2 of 2, from above)

I've studied some books about mysticism (I hope to become a more dedicated practitioner soon) and am astonished about how they came to similar conclusions when QM/QED/QCD were not still "viable" theories.

Look, I'm not saying science is useless, I love sciente too but the way phenomena is evaluated in every branch of human understanding is not flawless or unlimited...

I still believe that, by experiences and studies, we in essence, are more than brain and body, and that it's actually possible that contingent things may come from something non-contingent (I don't mean everything and I'm also not a creationist).

I hope I'm not too harsh with this :)

Kind Regards to everone.

World of Facts said...

Sup yonose, interesting input. As yo conceded though, it was a bit all over the map ;)
I also don't see anything in what you wrote that come close to what Martin's argument is supporting.

Can I ask you what this means:

I still believe that, by experiences and studies, we in essence, are more than brain and body

The brain is part of the body so I guess you mean that, for you, our mind is more than just an emerging property of a brain?

yonose said...

Hugo,

"
I still believe that, by experiences and studies, we in essence, are more than brain and body

The brain is part of the body so I guess you mean that, for you, our mind is more than just an emerging property of a brain?"



Yeah, I messed it up there, it was just aesthetics, for emphasis... my english it not very good as you may see (Colombia sometimes sucks) :P

Again, mind (es entity) is not in its entirety, an emergent property of the brain. Our final mind construcs may be, except that the meaning of those mind construcs may not be... distinctions are rather non-deterministic and very difficult to assimilate...

"I also don't see anything in what you wrote that come close to what Martin's argument is supporting."

Read more closely here:

"But what we are not able to describe objectively is:

1) What an Electrical Field is, without resorting to explain directly its properties

2) What a Magnetic Field is, without resorting to explain directly its properties

3) What Gravity is, without resorting to explain directly its properties"


Almost every time, we know something exists by defining its properties and giving that something a name for the sake of differentation (don't confuse with the mathematical concept), the things is:

The contingent part to demonstrate the existance of the stuff above are the properties of their behavior, not the stuff itself, so non-contingency may also be a possiblity to explain someting that it's not the object's properties.

This is why I think Martin's argument makes sense.

Kind Regards.

World of Facts said...

... my english it not very good as you may see (Colombia sometimes sucks) :P

As a French Canadian I understand that ;) y comprondo el espanol un poco porque aprendije este lingua cuando estaba en la escual secondaria y frances es muy similar con espanol, pero, olvide, or... anyway, I forgot most of my Spanish!

Again, mind (es entity) is not in its entirety, an emergent property of the brain. Our final mind construcs may be, except that the meaning of those mind construcs may not be... distinctions are rather non-deterministic and very difficult to assimilate...

The meanings, the thoughts, the construct, etc... are all part of what we usually call our conscious experience. Without a brain, it cannot happen.

The contingent part to demonstrate the existance of the stuff above are the properties of their behavior, not the stuff itself, so non-contingency may also be a possiblity to explain someting that it's not the object's properties.

To me, what this is means is that no matter what we talk about, ultimately, what we deal with are concepts in our minds, and I would agree. We never really perceive the essence of something, rather we discuss the experience we have of that thing. We then construct a mental image of that thing, what it means, how it works, etc... and then we can know what the thing actual is.

Martin's argument say that all these things we observe (labeled as contingent) in the real world depend on something we cannot, by definition, observe, or even know anything about (labeled non-contingent).

Cheers!

yonose said...

Hugo,

"The meanings, the thoughts, the construct, etc... are all part of what we usually call our conscious experience. Without a brain, it cannot happen."

Yeah, but that does not mean the mind is in its entirety resident in the brain. Saying otherwise is going against evidence for PSI phenomena (I've experienced it myself, but that's not conlusive evidence, look for Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, etc etc... who study mediumship from a scientific perspective), which is actually thoroughly studied, and also is not something pseudoskeptics want to hear. Until there's conclusive evidence of the opposite, I'll not change my stance.

"Martin's argument say that all these things we observe (labeled as contingent) in the real world depend on something we cannot, by definition, observe, or even know anything about (labeled non-contingent)."

Which is exactly what i've told you about, and that's why I think it makes sense, and that if something non-contingent is regarding to the supernatural, then than pressumed non-contingency at some point of the process stops being so (eg, assigining properties to it).

That's why I think mysticism makes sense too, because when something is non-contingent, then it is meant to be non-observable with our basic inputs.

Kind Regards.

World of Facts said...

LOL!

Russell said...

Martin,

I've enjoyed your infographics, thanks!

zilch said...

yonose- I'll second Hugo's remarks on your command of English. Tengo envidia. Quiseria poner hablar español tan bueno.

The problem I see with all these "logical" arguments for the existence of God is that they extrapolate mundane concepts, such as "causality" or "necessary vs. contingent" into realms where they obviously must somehow break down, and claim that the only possible solution, or end to an infinite regress, is an imaginary superbeing who is magically immune (it's never explained where this superbeing comes from, or how He developed this immunity) to this breakdown. I don't think we're justified in extrapolating our limited imagination, parochial logic based on words, and null knowledge, into puffing such beings into existence thusly. As I've said on another thread here, this is basically throwing in the towel and saying, in lack of data, that there must be a god behind that cloud throwing thunderbolts, and He can take care of explaining His own existence, so we don't have to.

cheers from unseasonably warm Vienna, zilch

Martin said...

zilch,

With the Leibniz argument, there are two possibilities:

A) The group of all contingent things explained by something non-contingent, which when unpacked has at least some of the attributes of something "goddish"

B) The group of all contingent things has no explanation, and is just a brute, inexplicable fact

"A" leads down the path to deism and theism. "B" is the position of naturalism. The problem with "B" is that you would have to specially plead for the spacetime system, and maintain that while everything we ever experience in science has an explanation, that is the one thing that does not.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin, you still haven't shown or defined how this "goddish" being must be powerful, and more importantly, intelligent.

zilch said...

Martin,

The problem with "A" is that you would have to specially plead for the god system, and maintain that while everything we ever experience in science has an explanation, god (or goddishness) is the one thing that does not. And "A" does no more explanatory work. Unless you can tell me exactly how god did his stuff, you're just blowing bubbles. Infinitely intelligent (by all accounts), coming-out-of-nowhere bubbles.

I don't see how you can avoid some sort of special pleading for the existence of the Universe, so I'll stick with the explanation that's simpler.

Martin said...

Debunkey Monkey,

I don't see anything in the infographic about intelligence. It is only one piece of a cumulative case.

yonose said...

Zilch,

I don't have much time right now, but I don't necessarily mean that a supernatural entity means that that entity itself is, in its essence, a personal image of a God.

Read More carefully as I've said above:

"And here's where non-contingency might take place, this very blurry line where contingency is still explained by properties and when it is not possible to... please don't confuse this with the God of the Gaps fallacy, I'm not mentioning "God did it" here."

Kind Regards.

Martin said...

zilch,

As you can see from the argument, there is no special pleading. Something non-contingent would be something that is self-explanatory; something that would be logically inconceivable for it NOT to exist. The whole point of the argument is that everything has an explanation, and that those explanations will be either necessary or contingent. The universe is contingent. So you don't get to stop until you get to something necessary.

Jotunn said...

Something non-contingent would be something that is self-explanatory; something that would be logically inconceivable for it NOT to exist.

I think it makes more sense to assume that it is logically inconceivable for pure nothingness to exist. Can you imagine pure nothingness? No. Therefore it is inconceivable.

Therefore something must exist.

Defining God as the non-contingent cause just backs the problem up, and provides no additional information. It also makes a tremendous number of unwarranted assumptions regarding his nature.

To clarify, perhaps our particular universe is contingent, however existence itself is logically necessary.

If existence itself is logically necessary, than the anthropic principle expounds on how we find ourselves here.

Martin said...

Jotunn,

To clarify, perhaps our particular universe is contingent, however existence itself is logically necessary.

Exactly! And that is exactly what God is conceived to be for most of the history of Christianity, and within the Scholastic philosophical tradition. The Thomistic Five Ways are all five different approaches for tracing to existence itself. And you can see how Aquinas extracts the classical divine attributes from pure existence.

Also, there is some dispute over the exact etymology, but the term YHWH is often thought to be a form of the verb "to be". This is also where "I Am That I Am" comes from.

Jotunn said...

There is an incredibly massive difference between asserting that existence is logically necessary and claiming that the cause of our universe is therefor is therefore timeless, spaceless, powerful, eternal and immaterial and named Yahweh.

Existence exists. I don't see why we need to name it Yahweh, who despite your claim of exactly what God is conceived to be for most of the history of Christianity carries considerable more baggage than a pseudonym for "existence".

World of Facts said...

...something that would be logically inconceivable for it NOT to exist.
The whole point of the argument is that everything has an explanation, and that those explanations will be either necessary or contingent. The universe is contingent. So you don't get to stop until you get to something necessary.


To me, this is an admission that once you accept that God is the ONE source of everything, then it becomes impossible to even conceive a Universe without a God.

The problem is that, as Zilch and Jotunn mentionned, God does not explain anything and the fact that something exists is enough to answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'.

The answer is simply...
"there is something; so observe that something and learn from it"
...instead of saying that...
"all that 'something' requires a base that itself does not require an explanation because it has to be the case or else there could be nothing and I don't know how there could be nothing so I will believe there was always a God and everything comes from God because logically God is the source of everything that needs an explanation because everything that needs an explanation cannot explain all the things that need their explanations themselves, but God is not an exception to that rule, because God is the essence of existence itself so it cannot not exist or else there would be nothing, and there is not nothing, there are contingent things that require an explanation so God is the explanation and God cannot exist..."

ouch, my head.

World of Facts said...

TYPO
... and God cannot 'not' exist of course ;)

yonose said...

Hugo,

But for the understanding of the meaning of God or divine energy or whatever you may want to call it, if you focus on how that Divine entity does personally "look" for you, you'll miss the whole view, and devoid yourself from understanding what the Divine is, in its essence...

Because actually something is non-material, does not mean that it is not perceivable, or contingently unexplainable.

I'm asking for trouble by calling comparative religion concepts again and again, but I still believe so many atheists still focus only in what the properties of a God/Divine Energy/whateveryoucallit could be, but not what really is God/Divine Energy/whateveryoucallit, by not analyzing both perspectives, and just focusing in criticizing the properties.

Just look for the evidence on ESPs, NDEs, just that, It's not my intention to proselytise here my beliefs, I'm just trying to give my arguments.

Kind Regards.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin, you wrote: "I don't see anything in the infographic about intelligence. It is only one piece of a cumulative case."

I wasn't referring to your picture when I mentioned intelligence. Intelligence is assumed when you describe your non-contingent being as "goddish" or god-like. And you mention specifically that this "goddish" idea leads to deism and theism. A deity, by definition, is intelligent.

So, either it's intelligent and a deity, or it lacks intelligence and becomes just a thing like a rock. Since you are clearly advocating the idea of a deity, you must accept this being as intelligent.

And that's where I challenge you. Show how this "goddish" thing must be intelligent. If it is not intelligent, then it doesn't lead to deism or any kind of theism.

World of Facts said...

But for the understanding of the meaning of God or divine energy or whatever you may want to call it, if you focus on how that Divine entity does personally "look" for you, you'll miss the whole view, and devoid yourself from understanding what the Divine is, in its essence...

This goes both ways buddy. If you focus on how that Divive entity exists, for you, because you cannot conceive otherwise, then you'll miss the whole picture. Perhaps it does not exist at all!

Because actually something is non-material, does not mean that it is not perceivable, or contingently unexplainable.

Actually, that is exactly what it means. Non-material IS not perceivable. Martin and Stan build arguments that pretend to explain what the immaterial could be but never prove that it exists in reality because it is, by definition, outside of reality. They thus claim that I cannot say it does not exist because it could exist, but not here. It's a word play.

I'm asking for trouble by calling comparative religion concepts again and again, but I still believe so many atheists still focus only in what the properties of a God/Divine Energy/whateveryoucallit could be, but not what really is God/Divine Energy/whateveryoucallit, by not analyzing both perspectives, and just focusing in criticizing the properties.

So as an Atheist you say I focus on what God 'could' be instead of 'what really is' God...

Just look for the evidence on ESPs, NDEs, just that, It's not my intention to proselytise here my beliefs, I'm just trying to give my arguments.

Again, LOL... Sorry but I simply don't believe in magic... and don't worry, you don't insult me or bother me, and I am sorry if I do.

zilch said...

Martin, you say:

As you can see from the argument, there is no special pleading. Something non-contingent would be something that is self-explanatory; something that would be logically inconceivable for it NOT to exist. The whole point of the argument is that everything has an explanation, and that those explanations will be either necessary or contingent. The universe is contingent. So you don't get to stop until you get to something necessary.

Do we know of anything in the world that is "non-contingent" in this sense? No. Thus, this argument is saying that there must exist a being, or if yonose prefers, a supernatural realm, or an immaterial plane of existence, that is somehow (how?) immune from contingency. That's special pleading if anything is.

And again- how do you know that everything has an explanation? And if everything does have an explanation, how do you explain the existence of God (or whatever supernatural thingie you prefer)? And how does this supernatural stuff or being explain anything about our Universe differently or better than science does?

If it's undetectable, has no explanatory power, and cannot itself be explained, then I don't see any point or necessity to posit its existence.

yonose said...

Hugo,

That's OK, I'm just being honest, I'm not belittling you because you don't believe in magick.

Please consider, there was a time I was a strong agnostic and could have become an atheist, It was a rather hasty from your part to assume that I always were a theist...

I'm not dodging anybody here, I've had experienced NDEs, ESPs, and was looking for similar experiences and evidential backup done by people like Radin and Sheldrake.

If what nowadays is known as non-material is non perceivable for you, that's OK, I respect your opinion on the subject.

As I've said before, I just asked you to look for the evidence, I wouldn't be mad if you studied it and decided to keep being an atheist...

Kind Regards.

World of Facts said...

Please consider, there was a time I was a strong agnostic and could have become an atheist, It was a rather hasty from your part to assume that I always were a theist...

Sorry for the confusion but I would never assume anything about what you think or believe. I have no reason to think that you were always a theist and never thought so.

I'm not dodging anybody here, I've had experienced NDEs, ESPs, and was looking for similar experiences and evidential backup done by people like Radin and Sheldrake.

These phenomena are, at best, unexplained. They are never proof that there is some sort of alternate reality that we can perceive only when our mind is detached from a body. Actually, the evidence suggest strongly the opposite: the mind is affected when the body is in a situation of stress and that causes people to have all sorts of experience that are labeled as 'mystic'.

I am not denying that these experiences are real. They are. The problem I have is with the idea that this proves anything concerning an immaterial world that exist 'out there'. The world we currently live in provides a lot of explanations for these experiences.

If what nowadays is known as non-material is non perceivable for you, that's OK, I respect your opinion on the subject.

Perhaps this sounds arrogant but it's not an opinion, it's a fact. By definition, what is non-material is literally non perceivable.

Again, that's why Martin and Stan use logical arguments to argue for the existence of an immaterial reality. They ground their arguments with logic, not from the real world. If we start with the real world, we use what's material to get more knowledge, and that knowledge stops at what we humans can perceive. It's only in our minds that we can conceive of things that are not material. They do exist, but only in our minds.

To prove that they exist in reality requires material evidence. Proving that they 'exist' outside of reality re-define the term 'exist' to include things that are outside the reach of our material senses.

As I've said before, I just asked you to look for the evidence, I wouldn't be mad if you studied it and decided to keep being an atheist...

This assumes that I did NOT study any of this... what a ridiculous remark. Finish your degree in engineering and let me know if your beliefs in an immaterial world helped you with anything ;-)

Martin said...

Finish your degree in engineering and let me know if your beliefs in an immaterial world helped you with anything

Just a quickie (no time!): I would say that it is obvious that engineering of all things requires belief in an immaterial reality: mathematical objects. Any particular math formula, such as the pythagorean theorem, would hold true even if everyone believed it to be false. If everyone died, and a new species emerged later, they could rediscover it. Even if no material objects existed at all, it would still be true that the square of they hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and false that the square of the hypotenuse equals 3x the sums of the squares of the other two sides.

A reality, that holds independently of what humans believe, and yet isn't made out of anything.

yonose said...

Hugo,

I would wish you did study these kind of phenomenon more thorougly.

The "stress" you are talking about may be caused by LSD of whatever, but does not mean you have an OBE.

When people have and OBE and their bodies are still quite healty, the patterns from EEGs are not exactly the same from people who is under control of some psychoactive substance (Also look at the works of Karl Pribram, Stanislav Grof, and the take a look at this little book, so if you like, I'd be pleased to discuss this further... remember what I said about the non-locality of the electron?).

That that experience may raise the chances I agree, but that does not mean you may have one.

And also, it is not stress, it is a state which may be examined probing the surface of the brain with an EEG, where alpha wave patterns are almost absent when measured in exchange for delta waves(it is like a trance, deep sleep).

You seem to only focus too much in what may trigger such experiences (a property) but not what those experiences really mean, so you could distinguish which are real and which are not.

"Again, that's why Martin and Stan use logical arguments to argue for the existence of an immaterial reality. They ground their arguments with logic, not from the real world. If we start with the real world, we use what's material to get more knowledge, and that knowledge stops at what we humans can perceive. It's only in our minds that we can conceive of things that are not material. They do exist, but only in our minds."

Yeah I agree with that, but I'm afraid that you assume aforehand that the material is the only thing every human being could perceive. That's Radical Skepticism.

"This assumes that I did NOT study any of this... what a ridiculous remark. Finish your degree in engineering and let me know if your beliefs in an immaterial world helped you with anything ;-)"

This means you did not do it more thoroughly. For my degree, well, I just need to be patient ;) ... (I'm not the best either, but at least I'm proficient programming microcontrollers like Arduinos-Atmel AVR, ARM Cortex micros and Parallax Propeller chips). I was not 100% about my position after researching my experiencies for more than 5 years.

Kind Regards.

RK said...

Even if no material objects existed at all, it would still be true that the square of they hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides

If nothing material existed what would be square?

yonose said...

Hugo and anyone interested:

Whoops!! Bad link...

Here's the little book I'm talking about.

Kind Regards.

Martin said...

If nothing material existed what would be square?

Assume nothing solid exists at all. Nonetheless:

"The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle (if one existed) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides" would be a true statement, and...

"The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle (if one existed) is equal to 3x the sum of the squares of the other two sides" would be a false statement.

And yet...nothing solid exists to ground the first one as true and the second one as false.

RK said...

My comment should have read:
If nothing material existed what would be triangle?

"(if one existed)"

If? If nothing material existed you think there is the possibility of triangles?

Debunkey Monkey said...

Martin, you realize that math is essentially a language, right? Pythagoras' theorem describes properties of a triangle, which in itself it just another descriptor. In other words, Pythagoras' theorem has the same "immaterial existence" as the word "blue."

However, if you want to continue to describe the "immaterial word" as things which are completely conceptual (imaginary if you will), then I believe we can agree that gods do exist in this immaterial world.

Martin said...

The word "blue" is a representation that has a referent: namely, the actual wavelength of light that we call "blue". So there are two things there: word, and referent.

In a world of pure energy, with nothing solid and no triangles, the pure energy teacher would be teaching his pure energy students about the thing that we call "the Pythagorean theorem" even though no actual triangles exist. Just like we can easily study the mathematics of 4 and more dimensional objects whether they exist or not.

To say that the Pythagorean theorem is completly imaginary is to say that no one math student's answer is correct. There is no objectively right answer. But clearly, there is. And even if the entire planet were brainwashed into thinking the Pythagorean theorem were false, it would STILL be true despite that.

I.e., it is entirely independent of anyone's mind. Same goes for other mathematical objects as well.

Debunkey Monkey said...

*facepalm* Math is a language that deals with sets. Numbers don't actually exist. Just because two people come up with the same concept and can derive the same ideas from these concepts does not mean the concept is real.

Debunkey Monkey said...

"To say that the Pythagorean theorem is completly imaginary is to say that no one math student's answer is correct."

The English language is completely made up. Yet if I point to a flower and call it "my house," am I not incorrect?

zilch said...

Martin, you say:

The word "blue" is a representation that has a referent: namely, the actual wavelength of light that we call "blue". So there are two things there: word, and referent.

That's not quite accurate. "Blue" is the name we humans give to our sensation of light of a certain, not perfectly defined, range of wavelengths. What we perceive as light is not "color"; it is only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, about an octave in musical terms, of higher and lower frequencies. Our division of light into particular colors is an artifact of the three kinds of receptors in our cones. So the referent for "blue" is a great deal more complex than merely an "actual wavelength of light".

To say that the Pythagorean theorem is completly imaginary is to say that no one math student's answer is correct. There is no objectively right answer. But clearly, there is. And even if the entire planet were brainwashed into thinking the Pythagorean theorem were false, it would STILL be true despite that.

Mathematics is a language, as debukky says, and it describes part of the order we see in our universe. This does not mean that it is "objectively true", any more than our gravitational constant is "objectively true". You are in no position to say if our mathematics works in all possible worlds. Thus, mathematics is only "immaterial" in the same sense that the law of gravity is "immaterial": it is inherent in the order of our world, but to claim that it is an essence independent of material is merely speculation. You might be right, of course; but I don't see any evidence that math (or logic) demonstrate the existence of an "immaterial realm" independent of matter.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Should someone explain to Martin that he's linearly extrapolating to unique states which is a no-no?

Nah. Post ponies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD60KoZuueA

zilch said...

Dybukky- "linearly extrapolating to unique states" is indeed a very good way to describe how all these cosmological arguments work.

Chris said...

"Linearly extrapolating to unique states" - I must confess, I like that way of putting it.

Nevertheless, " It should be possible to restore to the word "philosophy" its original meaning: philosophy- the "love of wisdom"- is the science of all fundamental principles; this science operates with intuition, which "perceives", and not with reason alone, which "concludes."

Subjectively speaking, the essence of philosophy is certitude; for the moderns, on the contrary, the essence of philosophy is doubt: philosophy is supposed to reason without any premise (voraussetzungsloses Denken), as if this condition were not itself a preconceived idea; this is the classical contradiction of all relativism.

Everything is doubted except for doubt."

- F. Schuon

Vincit Omnia Veritas

zilch said...

Chris- my my, Latin and German both. Let's see what I can do:

Die Wahrheit ist ein Modell, die unabdingbar ist; aber die hängt von der Welt ab.

Veritas necessarius est, quod vincit Mundus.

cheers from kühlem Wien, zilch

Chris said...

Zilch,

Very good. I'm working on the Latin, but my German....ooof.

It would seem that you're both an infidel and a gentleman.

State buoni se potete.

Keepin it Real from the City That Never Sleeps.

zilch said...

Chris,

Why thank you. And I must confess- my Latin is pretty sketchy- mostly what I've gleaned from singing. And I can't really take any credit for my German, since I live here.

cheers from cool Vindobona, zilch

Look me up if you're ever around this way, and the vinum is on me.

Chris said...

Niiiice!

World of Facts said...

@yonose

I would wish you did study these kind of phenomenon more thorougly.

Again, who are you to pretend that you know I did not study these phenomenon? Stop the mind reading and false assumptions please…

The "stress" you are talking about may be caused by LSD of whatever, but does not mean you have an OBE.

No, again, wrong assumption. The "stress" I am talking about is the stress the body is going under not matter the context. People don't have an OBE randomly like that when lying down on the beach. It happens when people are almost dead, or when being half-awake half-asleep or, as you said, under the influence of drugs, or surely other context. The point is that the brain is going through something unfamiliar, something weird, something difficult to process and/or while the processing process is altered. The point is that the brain IS working when it happens and it thus do not prove, at all, that there is a literal separation between the mind and body.

Note one thing though: I don't pretend that ALL cases are explained. I don't pretend that any of these people are lying. I have seen myself a documentary called something like 'The day I almost died', and the stories are fascinating. One is truly unexplained. A lady, whose brain was supposed to be completely off at the time, claims to have flown out of her body. She could see the tools and was able to describe them later on. She had never seen these tools so it was "impossible" for here to know.

The problem? Confirmation bias. People are extremely susceptible to confirmgin the beliefs they already have. I am not immune to it so that's why I actually watched something like 'The day I almost die', that's why I am here writing on a blog written solely for the purpose of discrediting my disbelief in gods, that's why I discuss with others.

(1/2)

World of Facts said...

(2/2)

However, at some point, you need to take a position. The case against PSY phenomenon is overwhelming. The evidence does not add up and is at best weird anecdotes that happen once in a while. No mechanism is presented to explain any of this and people who already believe in them see all sorts of spooky stories confirming their beliefs while skeptics keep showing more and more of them as bogus. That's why I am forced to say that 'no', in this case, I am not opened anymore to the idea that it might be true.

The latest experiment I saw about it, the 'coup de grâce' that made me reject them completely was presented in NewScientist a few months ago. It was a fascinating experiment where people showed some behaviors that led to think that they were influenced by events that would happen later in time. For example, people taking a memory test were better at it if they studied the words right after, compared to people who did not study the words.

There were 2 problems with it. First, the correlation was extremely small. It was just above the threshold to be considered pure chance. It thus required more experiment to be considered valuable. But most importantly, it has been shown that there were statistical errors in the processing of the results. Moreover, it has been shown that studies conducted by skeptics lead to bad results while studies conducted by believers lead to positive results, but barely.

In other words, science tested these phenomenon and nothing interesting came out of it. Nothing surprising pop out and nothing leads us to believe that it must be true anyway. People will always believe in these things so we will always have stories talking about them, but that's it. There is nothing more to say about PSY phenomenon. But again, I am just giving my opinion and explaining why I am not even considering reading/watching anything about it now… There are too many books, too many documentaries, too many things in general to do to be stuck with such nonsense.

World of Facts said...

@Martin

Just a quickie (no time!): I would say that it is obvious that engineering of all things requires belief in an immaterial reality: mathematical objects. Any particular math formula, such as the pythagorean theorem, would hold true even if everyone believed it to be false. If everyone died, and a new species emerged later, they could rediscover it. Even if no material objects existed at all, it would still be true that the square of they hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and false that the square of the hypotenuse equals 3x the sums of the squares of the other two sides.

A reality, that holds independently of what humans believe, and yet isn't made out of anything.


Others have replied already since I am "late" (2 days is late here ;)), but I wanted to say that this kind of comment confirms once more that we need to know what you mean by 'existence' when you talk about Atheism versus Theism.

To me, it's quite simple: the 'imaginary reality' you described is purely conceptual. In that "reality", God does exist because that's where all concepts "exist". The problem is that I have yet to see a Theist who believes that God is a concept… do you? ;)

To say that the Pythagorean theorem is completly imaginary is to say that no one math student's answer is correct. There is no objectively right answer. But clearly, there is. And even if the entire planet were brainwashed into thinking the Pythagorean theorem were false, it would STILL be true despite that.

I.e., it is entirely independent of anyone's mind. Same goes for other mathematical objects as well.


Here again we see why choosing terms carefully is important. Objective and 'to exist' are not mutually exclusive at all the way I see things. Everything you say concerning objectivity is correct, because we agree that the truth of something does not depend on minds. If it were to depend on minds we would call that an opinion. But I disagree with your use of 'imaginary' because the theorem IS completely imaginary. It is purely conceptual; it does not exist as a real thing.

For something to exist, not as a concept, it requires more than just an objective existence as part of a conceptual framework, if you see what I mean? But again, that's because I define 'to exist' as being part of reality, this reality that my body lives in. For you? I don't know, it's still unclear what to exist (not as a concept) actually means for you.

Oh and… well… I did facepalm like DM when reading your comments… because seriously, after all these numerous comments over several days, you still clearly don't understand the difference between the 'immaterial reality' that minds can think of and the 'material reality' we live in. I am not saying you should 'believe' that the material reality is all there is; most people actually believe that and I don't have a problem with it; I am just puzzled as to how you can still not understand the position of the people like me… Yes Martin, we know there are things in your head, we just don't believe all of them are real.

yonose said...

Hugo,

I'll try to discuss the issues you are mentionin here:

"No, again, wrong assumption. The "stress" I am talking about is the stress the body is going under not matter the context. People don't have an OBE randomly like that when lying down on the beach. It happens when people are almost dead, or when being half-awake half-asleep or, as you said, under the influence of drugs, or surely other context."

I'm afraid you did not carefully read what I mentioned above:

"And also, it is not stress, it is a state which may be examined probing the surface of the brain with an EEG, where alpha wave patterns are almost absent when measured in exchange for delta waves(it is like a trance, deep sleep)."

Nevertheless, please remember that an NDE may have an OBE as a consequence, but not necessarily an OBE come by cause of an NDE.

"The point is that the brain is going through something unfamiliar, something weird, something difficult to process and/or while the processing process is altered. The point is that the brain IS working when it happens and it thus do not prove, at all, that there is a literal separation between the mind and body."

Show me the evidence of the cases where it was not possible to prove it, so we can discuss it more thoroughly, to see where were the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used while investigations were taking place.

"I have seen myself a documentary called something like 'The day I almost died'"

I tried a google search from a SSL proxy and also DuckDuckGO, and it did not give me the results I was looking for about 8 pages of 100 results each, an about 300 results from DuckDuckGO.

I know there are stories and attention should be paid but, Why do you expose this as if it were the only way these kind of phenomenon have been studied? Is there a documentary with that title alone? I'd curious to see...

"The case against PSY phenomenon is overwhelming. The evidence does not add up and is at best weird anecdotes that happen once in a while. No mechanism is presented to explain any of this and people who already believe in them see all sorts of spooky stories confirming their beliefs while skeptics keep showing more and more of them as bogus. That's why I am forced to say that 'no', in this case, I am not opened anymore to the idea that it might be true."

If evidence against PSI is overwhelming, again show me the evidence so we can discuss it, I'm still waiting...

As you said No mechanism has been shown to try to explain these phenomenon... I just wonder why do you think I'm wrong without while as the same time evading the issues at hand.

(1 of 2, continuing below)

yonose said...

(2 of 2, continuing from above)

"The latest experiment I saw about it, the 'coup de grâce' that made me reject them completely was presented in NewScientist a few months ago. It was a fascinating experiment where people showed some behaviors that led to think that they were influenced by events that would happen later in time. For example, people taking a memory test were better at it if they studied the words right after, compared to people who did not study the words.

There were 2 problems with it. First, the correlation was extremely small. It was just above the threshold to be considered pure chance. It thus required more experiment to be considered valuable. But most importantly, it has been shown that there were statistical errors in the processing of the results. Moreover, it has been shown that studies conducted by skeptics lead to bad results while studies conducted by believers lead to positive results, but barely."


This is a totally different research, and what you mention here is somewhat misleading. A mechanistic memory process only, does not have at all to do with the research done about remote viewing, and remote viewing is something we were not discussing here.

Also, show me the correlation level (p < ?)... what does in that context "barely" means? does this mean that PSI is automatically disproved, if so, then why?

"
In other words, science tested these phenomenon and nothing interesting came out of it. Nothing surprising pop out and nothing leads us to believe that it must be true anyway. People will always believe in these things so we will always have stories talking about them, but that's it. There is nothing more to say about PSY phenomenon. But again, I am just giving my opinion and explaining why I am not even considering reading/watching anything about it now… There are too many books, too many documentaries, too many things in general to do to be stuck with such nonsense."


Again, why do you tell me I'm wrong, if now you honestly tell me that you don't want to discuss it further, as if you know everything about it... When someone gets you some material to discuss about, why don't you read it? isn't that a stronger confirmation bias?

I was a Strong Agnostic, and did not believe in any kind of PSI, but I dedicated some time to study it because something "non-familiar" happened, not in the context you mention it, and those at least 6 years of self-teaching, gave some results and was a pretty hard process for me to swallow.

Nevertheless, you don't pay attention to some of the scientists that are and were investigating this complicated stuff.

If you wish or will, look at the documentation I'll post here:

1)The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot:

2)This little book

3)Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method I admit this book has some Scientific Method critiques which are not very accurate.

4)A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

5)NDE Review

And las but not the least:

6)how there could be skeptics manipulating evidence.

These are some of the ones i've read.

If you will, take the time to study more thoroughtly these issues, then you will have to search more resaons to try to refute it... we both win, you learn, I learn.

Kind Regards.

yonose said...

P.S.

Also important:


"The latest experiment I saw about it, the 'coup de grâce' that made me reject them completely was presented in NewScientist a few months ago. It was a fascinating experiment where people showed some behaviors that led to think that they were influenced by events that would happen later in time. For example, people taking a memory test were better at it if they studied the words right after, compared to people who did not study the words.

There were 2 problems with it. First, the correlation was extremely small. It was just above the threshold to be considered pure chance. It thus required more experiment to be considered valuable. But most importantly, it has been shown that there were statistical errors in the processing of the results. Moreover, it has been shown that studies conducted by skeptics lead to bad results while studies conducted by believers lead to positive results, but barely."


If there's no valuable data, then you may change the experimental conditions, also that means more experimentation ahead to gather more statistics, and this entails that more rigid testing methods should be applied.

If some skeptics manipulate data or don't know how to adequately give the conditions for the experiments, then all data should be reevaluated, and that goes for believers too... that does not mean a full stop. It is somewhat but not in its entirety analogous to say that the investigations about the muon-neutrino should be stopped because no energy observed as a particle may pass the speed of light.

Kind Regards.

World of Facts said...

@yonose

(1/?)

I appreciate your tenacity and desire to get evidence. As I mentioned already though, I am simply not really interested in PSY phenomenon anymore... and I will simply dismiss them after that… For me, they are nothing more than a collection of anecdotes.

Note one thing though! You did present several links to support your claims so I took the time to go through some of them. Here are some impressions...

First, I read several pages of the book "The Holographic Universe" that are available on the Amazon preview page, and let me tell you that it was honestly worse than I expected! Just one example... lucid dreams being voyages to parallel realities? Seriously??

Another thing I don't like is the use of emotional appeal in order to make the reader feel special. Ohhhh, you will learn controversial ideas in this book! These people lost their jobs because they were so passionate about what they do! Our deep connection with the universe can finally be understood! And on and on and on... Obviously that's just the intro but that's already too much for me. It shows the obvious bias that the author has and the readers will fall for it...

Look at this comment I found right after reading, it says it all:

Ok, the book is really great, first of all. It has just countless paranormal experiences and explains them using the "holographic universe" point of view. Great idea, awesome analogy, and amazing stories...
One story in particular just blew my mind. On page 150 (soft cover), it talks about this guy, Sai Baba. The book claims Sai Baba could actually create any object he wanted and it would flow from his hands. It spent 4 pages on stuff Sai Baba has done, and how it's been confirmed. This intrigued me so much, I did a simple Google on "Sai Baba". After maybe 5 minutes of research, I found a website that had videos of Sai Baba producing random objects, and the videos were SOLID PROOF that Sai Baba is a fake. Not only a magician, but a terriable magician!
The book presented his knowledge with such enthusiasm that I believed it. Only after some basic research did I realize it wasn't true. It seems like the author didn't set his skepticism level high enough, and just took ANY paranormal story he could get his hands on, and printed it in his own "hologram" perspective to try and prove his point. I feel very cheated! What other stories in the book are completely false, I wonder?
Overall: awesome idea of reality, and mind blowing, but c'mon! How hard is it to do some basic research?


I wanted to check the commenter's findings. You can find more info on the Wikipedia page for this 'Sai Baba':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

World of Facts said...

(2/?)

Now moving on to the 4th link (Sorry I opened all tabs and realize I was not going in order... I am thus posting on these 2 for now and will move on in order...) After quickly reading your 4th link I have only this to say: Personally, I don't have any issue with people studying this stuff. I would never try to stop anyone or label someone as stupid for searching. I am simply unimpressed and unconvinced... and I feel like this persecution complex tells a lot more about the believers than the skeptics who just watch...

yonose said...

Hugo,

"and I feel like this persecution complex tells a lot more about the believers than the skeptics who just watch...

Nope, I was just asking you for claims of the opposite, but you did not give them to me.

If you are going to claim that PSI is not real, next time back it up.

If you want to mock about my beliefs because you do not seem to agree with them, is OK for me... just read the whole book -and everything else- before mocking.

If you want to stop there, that's OK too, proof of your beliefs shall I receive none.

Kind Regards and happy holidays.

World of Facts said...

(3/8) (wow, 8... sorry for the flooding. I am done for a while after this...)

Link #2... The very first page states a strong appeal to authority. What a terrible way to start for someone who claims a few lines above that he might be " a touch more balanced and inclined to rational thinking than your average person."...

Then he asks a question about flies' color, which would not work with me because I would have simply thought that it was a weird fly, an albino perhaps or something like this. Nothing extraordinary... it's still a fly. Extrapolating this to what he is trying to prove, I feel like I will be left thinking that all he is talking about is human experiences... anecdotes... but let's read a bit more.

Wow, right after, he asserts that he will prove this:
First: our mind is not entirely dependent on the physical brain. A part of the mind shows what physicists call nonlocal and nontemporal behaviour: it can be conscious of events happening at a different location and in the future. This part of the mind can also transmit thoughts at a distance and can influence inanimate matter.
Second: human personality survives physical death and is capable of interacting with the physical world it has left behind.


As the 'questioner' in the book says, it does sound like colossal nonsense... let's move on...

Oh no, now comes the persecution card.... *sigh*

World of Facts said...

(4/8)

Next, an anecdote... again, what a surprise, but that seems to be expected since the 'skeptic' in the book says exactly that. (Yes, it’s a cute and somewhat odd story, but I must say that that didn’t blow me away…)

Oh, the guy reads a looooot about it; I had never seen an appeal to authority one oneself before... that's new. Oh and everything will be revealed at the very end, if we just listen/read carefully. I am afraid I will get bored before :\

On day 3 we now have a powerful quote:
Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty University departments all over the world, and several hundred highly respected scientists in various fields, many of them originally hostile to the claims of the psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased observer can come to must be that there does exist a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other people's minds, or in the outer world, by means yet unknown to science.

Let's Google... randi.org mentions that:
In 1983, Eysenck, with Dr. Carl Sargent, produced Know Your Own Psi-IQ, a naive book designed to enable the layperson to design and perform extrasensory perception (ESP) tests. Attempting to provide a simple, convenient randomization method, for example, the authors instead gave users a highly biased procedure that would make experiments meaningless and certainly discourage further investigation by the amateur.
In 1957, before very much was known about the poor control and sometimes devious methods used by some scientists to develop their evidence for paranormal phenomena, Dr. Eysenck wrote: ... [the quote]


Puts things in perspective a little bit I guess; but does not prove/disprove anything...

World of Facts said...

(5/8)

However, I also find something that I agree with, and that you will agree with, since it gives a good reason to keep an open mind (but not too much...):

We at AMHF prefer to keep an open mind with respect to the roots of coincidence, be they in dreams, in the physical world, in realms we cannot yet comprehend. Newtonian physics may have launched humankind to the moon and sent research satellites to the ends of the solar system. But in fact, the truer physical universe is almost the one informed by "superstition"; the one described by Albert Einstein in his mind-bending and counter-intuitive theories of relativity. If physics shows us the existence of negative mass, black holes in space, the possibility of time moving backward, if even pets and wild animals sense a world beyond our five human-animal senses, why would similar breakthroughs not be in store for those of us who delve into the magical matters of the mind?


Moving on we find this gem in the text, page 11:

Hear me well here: the experimental evidence accumulated so far is so significant
that the current view – shared even by the most hardcore skeptics – is that there is no need of any additional proof that psi exists.


That is pure nonsense... especially after the author quoted the above quotes out of context, it's obvious that this is an attempt to impress without backing up the so claimed 'facts'... There is not even a single example in this book apparently... perhaps later?

More extravagant claims are put, no more actual sources, just books, but scientific papers are supposed to support the view; I wonder which ones... getting there soon I guess.

World of Facts said...

(6/8)

OK, finally, a "good" example, the famous Zener's cards. Well, nothing new here; not impressive. Did you read this article about them? (http://www.skepdic.com/zener.html) I had read that a long time ago and it's easy to find...

OMG! Look now at this claim:
In one set of experiments, for instance, 2400 total guesses were made and an excess of 489 hits (correct guesses) were noted. The probability of
obtaining this outcome by chance is equivalent to odds of 1,000,000 to 1 and thus show significant evidence that "something occurred."


That is a pure manipulation! Look at the numbers and the words used! He is saying that the odds of getting EXACTLY 489 correct out of 2,400 is one out of a million. Well ya, but who cares!? 489/2400 is... 20.375% Super close to 1/5. That is EXACLTY what you would expect by change!

Sorry but I am done with this book. How could we trust anything it says after such blatant insult to our intelligence? What a waste of time...

Anyway, I am done completely now. Actually, I also read about that Russian girl who can see through people. You know what I am talking about, right? The story is ridiculous. Her defenders say that she was good under control, she got 4 out 6 but the "mean" skeptics don't find that good. Well duh, they had ALL agreed BEFORE that she was 100% correct, and that at least a 5 was to be expected. But more importantly, one of the cases she missed is a metal plate that she confused for a missing appendix, or something like that. It's just ridiculous, if she is that good, how could she not "see" a metal plate! Come on! In any case, she uses cold reading and charge people for consultation... enough said.

World of Facts said...

(7/8)

By this time you wrote something more. I said:
"and I feel like this persecution complex tells a lot more about the believers than the skeptics who just watch...
And you said
Nope, I was just asking you for claims of the opposite, but you did not give them to me.
The links you pointed to all have at least one mention of how skeptics are discreting them, how they don't recognize the truth, how the results are there but the terrible terrible people out there just want to silence them or not fund their research. My point is that this is rubbish. Perhaps some people do, actually I am sure some people do want to stop them, but I am saying that it is NOT my case. Because... I. Don't. Care.

If you are going to claim that PSI is not real, next time back it up.

I've done as much as I can to explain why I don't believe all these claims. I don't intend to prove anything to you and I consider that I have given attention to this much more than what it deserved. There are lies, manipulations and a lot of emotion evolves (read, especially for NDE...). Most people simply believe these things but a few are abusive the masses to make money. That's the truth.

If you want to mock about my beliefs because you do not seem to agree with them, is OK for me... just read the whole book -and everything else- before mocking.

If you want to stop there, that's OK too, proof of your beliefs shall I receive none.


Isn't ironic that while you wrote that I was actually reading the book? Look at it, after only a few pages I showed you how the author appeals to authority, emotions, mine quotes and manipulate data right under your nose... I am not mocking you, I am trying to tell you why I don't believe such claims, and I am trying to tell you that it's not something new to me, it's not something I refuse to look at or anything like that. I am just tired of looking at it actually. Tonight was fun though because you had a lot of resources and what appear to be strong ones... yet...

Anyhow, to conclude on a more "open minded" note, I'd like to say that... who knows, perhaps in a few years I'll take the time to look at that again, let me know if you ever find THE miracle of the century... but that's not going to be anytime soon I am afraid!

World of Facts said...

(8/8)

For your information, the documentary I was talking about was actually called "The Day I Died" and you can watch part 1/6 there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1vWoUoiaP4

The paper that was mentioned in a NewScientist article can be found here:

http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

...and the articles themselves are:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827915.700-psi-investigator-on-magic-and-being-a-maverick.html

Take care, and Happy Holidays to you too my fellow (future) engineer!

zilch said...

I also took a brief look at yonose's links, and I can only corroborate what Hugo said. Sorry, yonose, this is all just a bunch of basura. Especially glaring (given your field of study) is this claim, which Hugo already mentioned:

In one set of experiments, for instance, 2400 total guesses were made and an excess of 489 hits (correct guesses) were noted. The probability of
obtaining this outcome by chance is equivalent to odds of 1,000,000 to 1 and thus show significant evidence that "something occurred."


Yonose, if you're studying to be an engineer, you must know about standard deviations, ¿no? If so, you must know that a deviation of around 2% from the expected value, in a sample of only 2400, is nothing close to "odds of 1,000,000 to 1". What I'm guessing happened here is that there were 489 correct hits, that is, only 9 hits more than chance would dictate, and somewhere along the line that got translated to 489 hits more than expected, that is 989 correct hits total, which would indeed be statistically significant (supposing the experiment to have been properly run).

In any case, I will also second Hugo's sentiments: ¡Feliz Navidad, y un prospero año nuevo!

zilch said...

Oops, sorry, I meant 969 rather than 989 above. Doesn't affect the argument, though. Errare humanum est.

cheers, zilch

Chris said...

What is intuition?

yonose said...

Hugo, Zilch

I see a lot of hasty conclusions, just read the rest, I see you are omitting lots of imformation now.

I don't have much time right now, but I'll be pleased to read the data shown to me, to extrapolate (Hugo, you should've done this from the beginning).

Also, I know about standard deviations, but it is not enough since, for scientific tests, stochastic processes are also done, and stantard deviation alone is not a stochastic process.

Kind Regards.

Happy Holidays.

World of Facts said...

@yonose

Thanks again for sharing information, but as I have mentioned before, don't assume that I reach hasty conclusions. The stuff you presented is not new... not new in general and not new to myself; I have seen these things before.

Cheers!

yonose said...

Hugo, zilch

Also, please take your time, read the whole Michael Talbot's book without much haste, and if you want, look at some basic tips of the scientific research that had been done about, ignore the rest, and research deeper (I've read all the book, is slighty less than 350 pages)... I also don't believe in everything about what has been written in the book, but I admit some experiences described are similar to the ones I've had.

Also please, take your time and read the rest.

Having some view of the articles:

1) In here:

I've studied some stuff abour Dr. Richard Wiseman before, and I'm afraid he has been manipulating evidence, as I showed in the link above in my previous post, please take some time to read it, wihtout much bias.

Nevertheless, what puzzles me is that, why according to that information, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology "has touched off controversy by rejecting the first attempts to repeat the work without sending them out for peer review."?

I'm not suggesting is something biased from their part, they are pretty much unbiased from any side, just puzzles me :P

Meta-Analyses are necessary for replication, I don'y see any particular, detailed reason about why is Dr.Wiseman reluctant to that iniciative.

in here:

This is inconclusive at best, and does not show conclusive evidence againt PSI yet (although I admit that failed attempt is a plus for you, that may be a bad experiment) although I'd like to see how well/bad does it fare.

in here

Well, I respect the expertise and opinions of his, the analysis is detailed and in some stuff I respectfully agree with him, but precognition is just one part of the whole thing called PSI. I don't see in any way how his article is going to discredit the whole view of it, but at least he has some valid points and the controversy is still spot on.

A slight problem I see with him is that in his opinion is that there is a paradox for not following "orthodox methods"... that's a bit a of dogmatic view... these kind of issues are well discussed in Perelman-Corredoira's book called "Against the Tide".

Kind Regards.

Happy Holidays.

P.S. IF you have more issues to discuss against, I'd be willing to discuss them.

zilch said...

yonose- with all due respect, I'm not going to read 350 pages about paranormal phenomena. As Hugo said, it's not as though any of these claims are new or unique. It's just that after seeing claims for the paranormal fail over and over and over and over and over, there comes a point when you have to move on with your life.

Do you believe in astrology? In phrenology? In reading chicken entrails to foresee the future? If not, why not? I'd be willing to bet you haven't read all the literature available, and thus are in no position to reject any of these things. Or if you accept all of them, how about alien abductions? Crop circles? The Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary?

If you want to take that as a refusal on my part to look at the truth, be my guest. But all of us, at least those who have only 24 hour days and a real life besides, must draw lines about how many hundreds of pages they are willing to read about superstitions that have been defenestrated over and over- and that's on the other side of mine.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

yonose said...

Zilch,

If you're not going to read that's OK. But plase, also with all due respect, stop mocking me and probing me about what those specific "stuff" I do believe.

I'll give you the answer, and is none of those mentioned above. Also, I'm open to more answers refuting paranormal phenomena as I am to those in favor, even if I'm biased to the latter... but you unfortunately my friend, are resorting to ridicule to dismiss the material I show you.

If you don't want to discuss it further, plase don't resort to such stuff. With this:

"with all due respect, I'm not going to read 350 pages about paranormal phenomena.

If you want to take that as a refusal on my part to look at the truth, be my guest."


Should've been enough, also... why do you think the book is only anecdotal experiences... I know it has many of them, I read the book, but that's not the only content it offers.

Your Radical Skeptcism just shows up.

"But all of us, at least those who have only 24 hour days and a real life besides, must draw lines about how many hundreds of pages they are willing to read about superstitions that have been defenestrated over and over- and that's on the other side of mine."

I also have my time as anybody else, I study (a double bachelor program: computer science/electonics engineering), I'm planning to mount a startup to help myself better to pay my studies, I have a blog here" where I test the equipment I acquire, etc etc...


Kind Regards,

Happy holidays.

zilch said...

Yonose- Sorry, I didn't mean to mock you, and I appreciate that you have a life beyond this particular debate too. I will definitely check out your blog, and I wish you best of luck with your studies.

But you must also appreciate that I, like everyone else, must draw lines about what I read. And I'm simply being honest, not mocking, when I say that I don't see any evidence that, say, clairvoyance is any less of a superstition than, say, reading chicken entrails.

In any case, all the best to you, and a happy holiday season. If you ever get out this way, please drop me a line (my email address is in my Blogger profile) and yo pago el almuerzo.

yonose said...

Zilch,

Understood, your stance about these issues is respectable.

If you want to drop me a line regarding the stuff I'm doing, I'll be willing to help when I can :)

Kind Regards,

Happy Holidays.