ADVERTISEMENT

Dennett’s attitude towards religion

Supernatural doesn't mean unknown. It means something that can't be explained by natural phenomena.”.

I think you are begging the question. Things that at one time seemed supnatural became unknown and finally known.

“Not because the answer is unknown, but because the answer is genuinely not natural.”.

We tend to dismiss incomprehensible unknowns by calling them supernatural therefore dismissing them as imaginary or fantasy. Some things are simply beyond us.
No, I'm really not. You're confusing two entirely different issues: that of phenomena that people attribute to supernatural causes because they don't understand them, and that of phenomena that are genuinely supernatural. The first category clearly exists. The second is debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
No, I'm really not. You're confusing two entirely different issues: that of phenomena that people attribute to supernatural causes because they don't understand them, and that of phenomena that are genuinely supernatural. The first category clearly exists. The second is debatable.
I think the difference lies with humans, not with the unknown phenomena in question.
 
Not here. My daughter and I are simpatico. In League on basically all things against my ex. Together she and I are like a fruit fly against Godzilla
She's not a full-on teenager yet.

Just wait.
 
If something is unknowable to human beings, why don’t you agree tgat is supernatural?

Take UAP’s. Many hard scientists agree they are real and result from some kind of intelligence, even though they defy all natural science. Are they super natural?

A better question is do you consider supernatural to be figments of human imagination and are in no sense real?
Beyond human comprehension =/= supernatural.

Supernatural means something beyond the laws of nature. A naturalist denies the possibility of anything being beyond the laws of nature, no matter how unknown or unknowable that particular law.
 
Beyond human comprehension =/= supernatural.

Supernatural means something beyond the laws of nature. A naturalist denies the possibility of anything being beyond the laws of nature, no matter how unknown or unknowable that particular law.
A law of nature necessarily means a human construct. Our brains code everything. This coding is the building blocks of laws of nature. We even code observations that are seemingly inconsistent with prior codes, thus the birth of quantum physics.

Hawking discusses this when he discussed the nature of the universe. Hawking acknowledged the distinct possibility that the nature of the universe, as we understand it, as being consistent with what we can understand. In other words it fits our code. But I don’t think we begin to understand the nature of the universe. The first step to doing that is to know why it exists. We aren’t close. Everything else there is to know is beyond comprehension. I mentioned gravity. We obviously see its effects, and can reliably predict how it will operate in different ways. Without gravity there is no universe. We really don’t know what it is. That could be in the realm of supernatural. That is what I think of when I think of supernatural. Not magic tricks.
 
You have free will to choose Christ. Not free will from awful things happening to you. If God intervened every time someone did something bad, there wouldn’t be free will.
This guy says we don't have free will.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
A law of nature necessarily means a human construct. Our brains code everything. This coding is the building blocks of laws of nature. We even code observations that are seemingly inconsistent with prior codes, thus the birth of quantum physics.

Hawking discusses this when he discussed the nature of the universe. Hawking acknowledged the distinct possibility that the nature of the universe, as we understand it, as being consistent with what we can understand. In other words it fits our code. But I don’t think we begin to understand the nature of the universe. The first step to doing that is to know why it exists. We aren’t close. Everything else there is to know is beyond comprehension. I mentioned gravity. We obviously see its effects, and can reliably predict how it will operate in different ways. Without gravity there is no universe. We really don’t know what it is. That could be in the realm of supernatural. That is what I think of when I think of supernatural. Not magic tricks.
I provided the commonly accepted definition of supernatural. I can’t make you use it.

Unless you think there is no objective reality outside human consciousness, nothing you’ve written matters re naturalism v supernaturalism. Naturalism assumes everything is governed by a natural law independent of human consciousness. We do our best to ferret out what those are, but whether or not we do, they still operate in the world—whether they fit our “code” or not. QM doesn’t fit our code even now. No one really understands it beyond the math. But we know it works.

All that said, there are many interesting philosophical ideas in your thinking here. Lots of Kant, who developed a notion of what undergirds our reason and actually some Dennett, whose notions of free will and consciousness assume humans are “coded” in such a way as to be required to believe they have free will even if that concept doesn’t make any sense in a physicalist, natural world.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
Then the opposite is true.... they mutate themselves out of business.
There are always evolutionary dead ends, but that doesn't change the fact that the only driving force behind evolution (which isn't really a force at all, since it's entirely undirected) is an increase in fitness. I'm honestly not quite sure where you are trying to go with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
I provided the commonly accepted definition of supernatural. I can’t make you use it.

Unless you think there is no objective reality outside human consciousness, nothing you’ve written matters re naturalism v supernaturalism. Naturalism assumes everything is governed by a natural law independent of human consciousness. We do our best to ferret out what those are, but whether or not we do, they still operate in the world—whether they fit our “code” or not. QM doesn’t fit our code even now. No one really understands it beyond the math. But we know it works.

All that said, there are many interesting philosophical ideas in your thinking here. Lots of Kant, who developed a notion of what undergirds our reason and actually some Dennett, whose notions of free will and consciousness assume humans are “coded” in such a way as to be required to believe they have free will even if that concept doesn’t make any sense in a physicalist, natural world.
You said “A naturalist denies the possibility of anything being beyond the laws of nature, no matter how unknown or unknowable that particular law.”.

I believe laws of nature are a human construct. The natural world is a world we understand, not necessarily all that there is.

You said “Naturalism assumes everything is governed by a natural law independent of human consciousness.”.

I believe if humans accept something as natural law, that something must be part of human consciousness.

This discussion is why I voted for From Bacteria to Bach and Back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manichi
You said “A naturalist denies the possibility of anything being beyond the laws of nature, no matter how unknown or unknowable that particular law.”.

I believe laws of nature are a human construct. The natural world is a world we understand, not necessarily all that there is.

You said “Naturalism assumes everything is governed by a natural law independent of human consciousness.”.

I believe if humans accept something as natural law, that something must be part of human consciousness.

This discussion is why I voted for From Bacteria to Bach and Back.
The natural world isn’t limited to what we understand. It’s everything in existence.

I think it would be fun to read that book.
 
You said “A naturalist denies the possibility of anything being beyond the laws of nature, no matter how unknown or unknowable that particular law.”.

I believe laws of nature are a human construct. The natural world is a world we understand, not necessarily all that there is.

You said “Naturalism assumes everything is governed by a natural law independent of human consciousness.”.

I believe if humans accept something as natural law, that something must be part of human consciousness.

This discussion is why I voted for From Bacteria to Bach and Back.

This reminds me of one of the Buddhist concepts of emptiness, which is the line between what we perceive and what is. I think you are on the correct "post-modern" track.

Matthieu Ricard, Nepalese French writer, monk: "Because Buddhism refutes the ultimate reality of phenomena, it also refutes the idea that consciousness is independent and exists inherently, just as much as it refutes that matter is independent and exists inherently. This fundamental level of consciousness and the world of apparent phenomena are linked by interdependence, and together they form our world of thought and the exterior physical reality is a mere illusion. There’s only one reality or, rather, only one lack of intrinsic reality! Buddhism does not adopt a purely idealist point of view or argue that the outer world is a fabrication of consciousness. It just points to the fact that without consciousness, one cannot claim that the world exists because that statement already implies the presence of a consciousness."
 
This reminds me of one of the Buddhist concepts of emptiness, which is the line between what we perceive and what is. I think you are on the correct "post-modern" track.

Matthieu Ricard, Nepalese French writer, monk: "Because Buddhism refutes the ultimate reality of phenomena, it also refutes the idea that consciousness is independent and exists inherently, just as much as it refutes that matter is independent and exists inherently. This fundamental level of consciousness and the world of apparent phenomena are linked by interdependence, and together they form our world of thought and the exterior physical reality is a mere illusion. There’s only one reality or, rather, only one lack of intrinsic reality! Buddhism does not adopt a purely idealist point of view or argue that the outer world is a fabrication of consciousness. It just points to the fact that without consciousness, one cannot claim that the world exists because that statement already implies the presence of a consciousness."
LOL @ the idea of a pomo CO.H.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BradStevens
LOL @ the idea of a pomo CO.H.

COH had a wild childhood

reatemurphy-the-golden-child-1986-2JD872C.jpg
 
This reminds me of one of the Buddhist concepts of emptiness, which is the line between what we perceive and what is. I think you are on the correct "post-modern" track.

Matthieu Ricard, Nepalese French writer, monk: "Because Buddhism refutes the ultimate reality of phenomena, it also refutes the idea that consciousness is independent and exists inherently, just as much as it refutes that matter is independent and exists inherently. This fundamental level of consciousness and the world of apparent phenomena are linked by interdependence, and together they form our world of thought and the exterior physical reality is a mere illusion. There’s only one reality or, rather, only one lack of intrinsic reality! Buddhism does not adopt a purely idealist point of view or argue that the outer world is a fabrication of consciousness. It just points to the fact that without consciousness, one cannot claim that the world exists because that statement already implies the presence of a consciousness."
There is a lot to get lost in here. At a fundamental level, reality is nothing but matter and energy. Our brains are nothing but the same. Our brains are landlocked from the outside world and can only perceive and understand through specific senses that I think taken together means consciousness— but I’m not sure. . We know our senses are limited to a significant extent. For example, we can only see a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. What if we could see all of it? We believe we know and use invisible electromagnetic waves, we still don’t know if we know all of it. Yet we think that is all there is. We think we know reality.

Just some of the things a retired old man thinks about.
 
There are always evolutionary dead ends, but that doesn't change the fact that the only driving force behind evolution (which isn't really a force at all, since it's entirely undirected) is an increase in fitness. I'm honestly not quite sure where you are trying to go with this.
It is funny how things evolve ..... drug companies sure wish they could control that... they could make a lot more money. My wife worked in an area where she worked to modify the DNA to make an organism produce more product... just about all modifications were negative rather than positive.
 
It is funny how things evolve ..... drug companies sure wish they could control that... they could make a lot more money. My wife worked in an area where she worked to modify the DNA to make an organism produce more product... just about all modifications were negative rather than positive.
Yes, individual mutations tend to be negative. Evolution happens when a mutation is lucky enough to have a positive effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manichi
You really need a gummie. Want me to send you a box? And this jobs and time - don’t you have a phone? Multitask? I’m sitting on the couch watching clarkson’s farm texting and responding on here. Takes two seconds. In an entire day it might be fifteen minutes

I’ll tell you bowl this board is full of morons. Hyper partisan dolts. Genuinely dumb people. Uninformed. Misinformed. Those with a middle school ability to relate and joke. You’re not one. You’re smart and can contribute but you have to stop getting so personal. We need you. There aren’t many decent posters. If you want to unload do so on the dolts. For yucks. But not thoughtful posters and/or smart/critical posters
If I go on a rant will you send me a box?
 
We saw that in real time with Delta --> Omicron.



It's not really fitness, it's reproductive success.

this book made the rounds in 2000s. I only remember highlights but really enjoyed it.


Good arguments for big brains largely being the result of sexual selection and not just a byproduct. proposes that early hominids didn't need such complex brains to survive but rather it increased the chances of getting laid.

okay, imma gonna Wordle for a bit and see what the wife's doing...
 
this book made the rounds in 2000s. I only remember highlights but really enjoyed it.


Good arguments for big brains largely being the result of sexual selection and not just a byproduct. proposes that early hominids didn't need such complex brains to survive but rather it increased the chances of getting laid.

okay, imma gonna Wordle for a bit and see what the wife's doing...
Smarter hominids lived longer so they got laid more and had greater reproductive success.
 
this book made the rounds in 2000s. I only remember highlights but really enjoyed it.


Good arguments for big brains largely being the result of sexual selection and not just a byproduct. proposes that early hominids didn't need such complex brains to survive but rather it increased the chances of getting laid.

okay, imma gonna Wordle for a bit and see what the wife's doing...
Strictly speaking, all of human civilization is a complex sperm delivery mechanism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manichi
Sometimes the only thing my wife and daughter can agree on is that I'm an asshole. nothing like having both of them standing next to each other, arms crossed, the disgust just oozing from their eyes.
My poor dad had three girls, so he was doomed. It’s the only thing we could all agree on for awhile too.
 
I wouldn't be so high and mighty if I were you. I've seen how you can be so dismissive of VPM's particular brand of belief.
@UncleMark
Killing time before a flight and looking at some threads from earlier this week.

I’ve never been dismissive of VPM’s “brand.” In fact, I share it. We’re both Christians.
What I do call him out for, and I’ve been very specific about this, are some of his posts that, in my view, are inconsistent with, and even directly contrary to, the teachings of Christ. I wouldn’t expect that from someone who holds himself out as a pastor.

In any event, that’s a far cry from dismissing churches as “traps for irrational allegiance to patent nonsense.” That’s pretty arrogant. So is someone who says they figured out at the age of 12 that God doesn’t exist and that, by extension, religious faith is bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT and CO. Hoosier
@UncleMark
Killing time before a flight and looking at some threads from earlier this week.

I’ve never been dismissive of VPM’s “brand.” In fact, I share it. We’re both Christians.
What I do call him out for, and I’ve been very specific about this, are some of his posts that, in my view, are inconsistent with, and even directly contrary to, the teachings of Christ. I wouldn’t expect that from someone who holds himself out as a pastor.

In any event, that’s a far cry from dismissing churches as “traps for irrational allegiance to patent nonsense.” That’s pretty arrogant. So is someone who says they figured out at the age of 12 that God doesn’t exist and that, by extension, religious faith is bullshit.
Not sure we should expect it from anyone who loves to so publicly proclaim himself a Christian, either:

Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount​

5 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them.

The Beatitudes​

He said:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Eye for Eye​

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies​

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Prayer​

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[j]
but deliver us from the evil one.[k]’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Judging Others​

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 
Beyond human comprehension =/= supernatural.

Supernatural means something beyond the laws of nature. A naturalist denies the possibility of anything being beyond the laws of nature, no matter how unknown or unknowable that particular law.
I view the whole of creation as supernatural because it is definitely impossible that life got here and the Universe came to be all by itself. The smallest cell in our bodies has enough information that if it was typed out could fill a library. We have billions of cells. Life exists on the Earth for a variety of reasons. We are at the right distance from the Sun to not burn or freeze up. You don't see planets bumping into each other or we would all be gone. Too few planets or too many planets and it wouldn't work. In fact if you looked at it from a galactic perspective you don't see galaxies bumping into each other or stars within each galaxies bumping into each other. What you see is a Universe which exists like it was created to function the way it does. So we are supernatural and the Universe is supernatural because God created everything which exists John 1:1-3,13
 
I view the whole of creation as supernatural because it is definitely impossible that life got here and the Universe came to be all by itself. The smallest cell in our bodies has enough information that if it was typed out could fill a library. We have billions of cells. Life exists on the Earth for a variety of reasons. We are at the right distance from the Sun to not burn or freeze up. You don't see planets bumping into each other or we would all be gone. Too few planets or too many planets and it wouldn't work. In fact if you looked at it from a galactic perspective you don't see galaxies bumping into each other or stars within each galaxies bumping into each other. What you see is a Universe which exists like it was created to function the way it does. So we are supernatural and the Universe is supernatural because God created everything which exists John 1:1-3,13
Are you saying you think

(1) everything is supernatural because everything is the result of a supernatural event (a first cause outside the laws of this universe)

(2) everything in existence is supernatural in the sense that nothing that is in existence is bound by and can be explained by natural laws (even beyond that initial first cause)

or

(3) something different that I am not capturing?
 
Are you saying you think

(1) everything is supernatural because everything is the result of a supernatural event (a first cause outside the laws of this universe)

(2) everything in existence is supernatural in the sense that nothing that is in existence is bound by and can be explained by natural laws (even beyond that initial first cause)

or

(3) something different that I am not capturing?
I would tend to say 1 but I was being specific. The first cause is God. On your second point, I would say that laws would tend for us to see an intelligent design and not a chaotic beginning to the Universe. The bottom line is when we study the human body and the Universe at large we see more evidence for a creator. Of course as a gospel preacher I get specific and make the point that the Son of God was the creator which is what John 1:1-3,14 says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
In fact if you looked at it from a galactic perspective you don't see galaxies bumping into each other or stars within each galaxies bumping into each other.

Except for the fact that we do see this going on all over the place. It's commonplace across the visible universe.

Together, the system is known as Arp 87. While such interactions are drawn out over billions of years, repeated close passages will ultimately create one merged galaxy. Although this scenario does look unusual, galactic mergers are thought to be common, with Arp 87 representing a stage in this inevitable process.

 
I would tend to say 1 but I was being specific. The first cause is God. On your second point, I would say that laws would tend for us to see an intelligent design and not a chaotic beginning to the Universe. The bottom line is when we study the human body and the Universe at large we see more evidence for a creator. Of course as a gospel preacher I get specific and make the point that the Son of God was the creator which is what John 1:1-3,14 says.
Dennett spent a lot of time thinking about how the universe and all that we see in it could come about via natural laws, and especially evolution. He's not an easy read, but he does try to make things intelligible to a lay audience, which is more than I can say for some academic philosophers.

Your last sentence is an interesting one: you read that passage as meaning Jesus was the creator of the universe?
 
Dennett spent a lot of time thinking about how the universe and all that we see in it could come about via natural laws, and especially evolution. He's not an easy read, but he does try to make things intelligible to a lay audience, which is more than I can say for some academic philosophers.

Your last sentence is an interesting one: you read that passage as meaning Jesus was the creator of the universe?
Yes, Jesus is the Word who was God and then became flesh in verse 14 of John 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT