Atheism

JIA, if there is a multiverse - like M theory suggests - than the creation of the universe is a very small part of creation. The cycle goes on and on. It never ends. Even if God were scientifically validated, with everything written on the necessity of a God by scholarly and educated individuals like Patrick Mead, in the end - even the evidence for God is subject to scientific scrutiny.

I have yet to make a life-changing decision, and I just don't know if I should or shouldn't. But I do know that if I do become a true Disciple, it won't be about the scientific facts, it will be about whether or not the choice, and the sacrifices entailed, are worth the risk of me being wrong about this one truth.

Faith is not necessarily following blindly, but it is following the incomprehensible plan of God. To know God through science is to know everything there ever will be to know, for as long as there is the unknown science says God is potentially falsifiable. We are not omniscient.

dolos, man, you are like the embodiment of why I'm so much more into bio/neuro/psych than physics. Much love and all that, I'm legit only making an observation that made me smile, not shitting on what you said (the majority of the last few posts I've agreed with), but talk to a cognitive psychologist about what a "choice" or "truth" is sometime 😉

Originally posted by Oliver North
not shitting on what you said (the majority of the last few posts I've agreed with), but talk to a cognitive psychologist about what a "choice" or "truth" is sometime 😉

Are you saying a choice is irrational by default? All the more reason for God.

Originally posted by Dolos
I am not sure what you mean by that.

the "choice" that "you" make is determined by cognitive systems that are entirely uneffected by "conscious" thought. when "you" feel like "you" have decided something, it is a result of (largely linguistic) areas in the left hemisphere of your brain concocting a narrative based on the most immediate stimuli available to it. The systems that have decided your actions have done so long (in neurological terms) before "you" (the "conscious" experience "you" would call you) ever became aware of your desire to even act, and "your" perception of a choice is something your brain has created for "you" in terms of a continual narrative it tells "you" about why the stimuli coming into your brain make sense.

Originally posted by Dolos
Are you saying a choice is irrational by default?

no, and the concept of "rationality" brings up even more cans of worms... the best answer would be that rationality is tautologically subjective, based on the learned experiences of an individual (memory). Each human would have an individualized system of what is rational, based on previous experience, unique to the experiences they have had. There is no objective "logical" or "rational".

Originally posted by Oliver North
the "choice" that "you" make is determined by cognitive systems that are entirely uneffected by "conscious" thought. when "you" feel like "you" have decided something, it is a result of (largely linguistic) areas in the left hemisphere of your brain concocting a narrative based on the most immediate stimuli available to it. The systems that have decided your actions have done so long (in neurological terms) before "you" (the "conscious" experience "you" would call you) ever became aware of your desire to even act, and "your" perception of a choice is something your brain has created for "you" in terms of a continual narrative it tells "you" about why the stimuli coming into your brain make sense.

no, and the concept of "rationality" brings up even more cans of worms... the best answer would be that rationality is tautologically subjective, based on the learned experiences of an individual (memory). Each human would have an individualized system of what is rational, based on previous experience, unique to the experiences they have had. There is no objective "logical" or "rational".

Originally posted by Dolos
That is why we recondition our behavior. Behavioral meta-cognizance is a factor you're not considering.

"behavioural meta-cognizance" is a term that has no actual meaning

Originally posted by Oliver North
"behavioural meta-cognizance" is a term that has no actual meaning

I am very aware of how my life experiences affect or influence my actions. Or, if not at first, I can find the connection and determine how or why it is affecting my ability to reason. The behavioral patterns my brain has been trained to make are shook up, disrupted, and my behavior might change. It's fluid, not set in stone. It can be a very non-mechanical process.

the "choice" that "you" make is determined by cognitive systems that are entirely uneffected by "conscious" thought. when "you" feel like "you" have decided something, it is a result of (largely linguistic) areas in the left hemisphere of your brain concocting a narrative based on the most immediate stimuli available to it.

The problem with this line of thought is that it's not necessarily immediate. In fact, sometimes a choice is delayed for so long that it obtains a subconscious presence that is affected during conscious thought.

When one consciously scrutinizes the many complex meanings and implications of the abstraction that this potential action represents a relationship is formed that affects both conscious perspective and the physical structures in which you're referring, a feedback loop, eventually your conscious thought becomes interchangeable with the physical structures that affect it.

hey, you asked, I told. There is no reason you have to accept science.

Originally posted by Oliver North
hey, you asked, I told. There is no reason you have to accept science.

You're saying that the brain comes to an illogical or logical (objective) conclusion based on experience, or subjectively conditioned notions of right and wrong. Which is true, however, it's not impossible for this subjective notion to be right on the mark with objective fact.

this might blow your mind: what you think of as objectivity is a subjective definition based on your own experiences. Not only is the human brain incapable of objectivity, it is incapable of having an objective notion of what objectivity is in the first place.

not using a desk as a cutting board only makes sense because you have preconceived notions of the way those items are used in the society you come from. There is no Plato-esque characteristic of "desk-ness" outside of the way the human mind categorizes things, subjectively.

if we can't actually be purely objective, do you at least think there are ways of approximating objectivity via the scientific method or empiricism, as opposed to just going with whatever personally makes sense? or is there nothing that makes science inherently more objective than intuition.

Originally posted by Oliver North
this might blow your mind: what you think of as objectivity is a subjective definition based on your own experiences. Not only is the human brain incapable of objectivity, it is incapable of having an objective notion of what objectivity is in the first place.

not using a desk as a cutting board only makes sense because you have preconceived notions of the way those items are used in the society you come from. There is no Plato-esque characteristic of "desk-ness" outside of the way the human mind categorizes things, subjectively.

My point is our subjectively formed notions can be objectively logical. Not defined by me, just what is actually logical.

Mathematics are strictly independent of whoever practices them, as long as an axiom is properly defined. The subjectivity is on how the axiom is defined (I'd assume), but once we leave that level there is something that we can call objectivity.

Originally posted by red g jacks
if we can't actually be purely objective, do you at least think there are ways of approximating objectivity via the scientific method or empiricism, as opposed to just going with whatever personally makes sense? or is there nothing that makes science inherently more objective than intuition.

sure, I think science is the best we have, largely because it tries to do away with such subjectivity where it isn't useful. If we measure that something is X, and many people measure it and find the same, the likelihood is that the thing is X. Where there is a benefit to subjectivity comes when we have to ask "Why is it X" or "of what use is X", where having many people with different experiences and perspectives will produce an abundance of new ideas to test using empirical methods.

Originally posted by Dolos
That wasn't my point.

My point is our subjectively formed notions can be objectively logical. Not defined by me, just what is actually logical.

there is no "actual logic"

Originally posted by Bentley
Mathematics are strictly independent of whoever practices them, as long as an axiom is properly defined. The subjectivity is on how the axiom is defined (I'd assume), but once we leave that level there is something that we can call objectivity.

generally, yes, though math can be a bit tricky. in theory (less so in practice when it is applied to real world things), math is simply a self contained set of logical rules. It is objective in that its rules are tautologically true: things work the way they do because that is how they work, essentially. In practice, and because math was developed to describe real word things, these tautological rules do tend to follow certain aspects of the physical universe (Pythagorean theorem, for instance). However, just because something is a closed system of logical rules doesn't mean it has to reflect objective reality. There is no reason you couldn't come up with a system was, idk, a^2 - b^2 = c^2 (as opposed to a^2 + b^2 = c^2), but it would be useless as a tool for understanding anything outside of the system itself.

I'd say, conceptually sure, there might be something we can call "objective", but even the human use of math is done through our subjective sensory and cognitive systems. So, like, I might know my height is 6'1", and there is objectivity in that single piece of data, but only insofar as our measurement of height is reflective of reality and I would imagine some issue related to how much variance there is between people about how large an inch is.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd say, conceptually sure, there might be something we can call "objective",

But there.

Originally posted by Dolos
But there.

... finish reading the paragraph

Originally posted by Oliver North
... finish reading the paragraph

If behavioral awareness and reconditioning only improves the chances of being closer to making an objectively logical decision, than where was your argument with me to begin with?

Although, the chance may be only slightly better than infinitesimal, it is still better unless you have an argument against that.

As you've argued, the pursuit of knowledge through science never ends, even if the Christian God were demonstrated He's been made fallible by virtue of being found through science. So perhaps the decision to be Christian shouldn't be influenced by a scientific experiment, but instead should be influenced by introspective (however subjective) notions of whether or not the chance of being wrong about Christianity is worth the risks of sacrificing time and resources on serving God.

I am leaning toward no. As it turns out, I was wrong, the Bible says to scientifically scrutinize the existence of God in one verse, and in another it claims that if I do so I should have no excuse not to believe in the Christian God. Therefore the Bible makes a paradoxical statement, as there's always the possibility one's scientifically validated theory could be invalidated.

Originally posted by Dolos
If behavioral awareness and reconditioning only improves the chances of being closer to making an objectively logical decision, than where was your argument with me to begin with?

there is no such thing as an "objectively logical" decision. logic is a construction of human philosophy. something can be logical in a certain context given certain goals, not logical in a sense that transcends human experience or culture.

the line you quoted (from my reply to Bently) was merely an acknowledgement that I believe there is some type objective world distinct from human perception.