On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is > solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the > trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, and the > brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that humans > are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by > biochemistry. Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, > and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is.
And then, On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote: > The philosophical discussion has been outlined again > by Dan, and I can't improve on it. But I agree with > you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or > unproven. When those articles have no measurable consequences, yes. But it seems to me that if the atheist argues according to the outline given by Dan, he must lose. Not because atheism is false, necessarily, but because when Dan outlines the debate he invites the atheist to permit his beliefs to live or die according to the success of a purely empirical, naturalistic metaphysics. Because atheists tend to be gung-ho on science, they often accept these terms and end up arguing forever about the implications of quantum mechanics and consciousness and whether or not science can explain everything worth knowing. Which is awfully hard. Fortunately, the phenomena that make naturalistic metaphysics difficult, perhaps even impossible, cannot themselves prove the truth of any particular theology [*], so in the end there's really no reason for the atheist to assume that his belief (or lack thereof) must live or die according to a certain metaphysics. And of course there is ample fodder for skepticism in the history and character of religious belief itself. Lately I've been wondering if we're not in a second Axial Age, paralleling the the time when the world turned from simple tribal nature deities based on eternal seasonal cycles to psycologically complex, mercantile/imperial deities designed to give meaning to broad civilizations existing in a more linear mythological time. The new gods are ideologies; God is a fetish; and wisdom as ever means reaching beyond the tenets of conventional belief. [*] Although a multiverse-interpretation of QM seems to "fit" well with Buddhism's notion of infinite beings inhabiting infinite planes of existence. And how does the self-consciousness argument work with Buddhism, anyway, where there is no "self" and the perception of thoughts and emotions is as a mechanical a process as perceiving the hand in front of one's face? Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
