Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[peter]

I'm moving toward Av's position; [sings]

"When you're dying
When your di-i-i-ing
The whole world dies with you."

[Vraith]

The topic has moved on a bit, sorry, but I ran across something that relates, in several ways to this thread, morality, and this:

I struggle to see how the survival of the fitest [and by extension natural selection] model for the process whereby evolution of species occurs accounts for the human conscience, which can only ever be a hinderence in terms of survival chances.

I watched the vid. I don't agree with everything he says [for instance, just like Deutsch and many others he makes a totalizing claim about postmodernism that is absurdly reductive and demonstrably false] and not on spirituality per se...still, related. And some things he says are things I definitely agree with, have said myself for years. [and point at the issue of conscience/empathy and such and survival] And maybe interesting to some folk. About 20 min long. About stuff the book [which haven't read] covers. Vid link, followed by a couple quotes from vid and accompanying article:

reason.com/reasontv/2015/01/20/reason-and-science-make-us-moral-michael

Clearly, not all humans are in the moral sphere yet.

"You can't just say, 'This is the way it is, therefore it ought to be that way.' You've got to have good reasons," says Michael Shermer, referencing the common "is-ought fallacy" most famously explained by David Hume. "Well, I claim that we do have good reasons: Democracies are better than autocracies. Free markets are better than tyrannical, top-down economic systems. There are certain things we know work. You can measure it!"

Shermer is the longtime editor of Skeptic magazine, a visiting professor at Chapman University, and author of the new book The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Towards Truth, Justice, and Freedom, in which he argues that humanity has become measurably more moral over time and that this is a direct outgrowth of the rise of Enlightenment ideals of reason, empricism, and the rejection of blind faith and tradition.

[peter]

Gosh V. - I watched this and I'm afraid I have great problems with much this guy has to say.

It'd take me pages to completely say all the things that came out - but suffice to say I started quite agreeing with his undeniable 'reasonable' arguments and then the problems crept more and more to the fore.

I have a serious issue with the tying together with a free mind with free-market economics just on the most basic level; at what point could you deny Keynes a 'free mind' or anything in keynsian economics a barrier to freedom of thought [let alone examples that run in the contrary direction exemplifying how laisez-faire economics can lead to the very stultification of thought rather than the oposit - I give the strength of the 'creationist' lobby in the USA compared to say Denmark or Sweden as just one case-in-point].

Sherman cites 'the empirical' argument on too many occasions in support of the thesis and as we have both read in Deutsch, this approach is already pretty questionable as an explanation of how science [and by association, reason] advances. He see's a much lower base for the development of those knotty problems of altruism and conscience, wher I think we both agree that they are better seen as 'emergent' phenomena [vis a vis the higher brain] rather than a 'selected' for charachteristic.

His argument [taken from Dawkins example] re 'reality' is simplistic at best. Yes of course their is a reality, but which of us can ever claim to have seen it - to have 'true' knowledge of it. Berkely would have had it that we each of us have our own reality and that in line with Av's [semi-humerous] post, it dies with us [for him all reality would cease to exist at the moment the last observer died, such was his subordination of the material ti the idealistic (Samuel Johnson kicked a stone and said of this view "I refute it thus"), but I don't go this far].

The author cites the concurrent increase of morality and freedon with the increase in scientific knowledge and free-market economics since the enlightenment onwards but how and why these are tied together even if you accept that such is the case is only scantily [and not convinceingly] touched upon. We are in the middle of a revolution of 'liberalism' sweeping the world for sure - but as to whether this is making us more 'moral' as a whole I would have some serious doubts. Yes, gay marriage is now accepted where in the past it was taboo and yes women are being accorded suffrage and emancipation at long last - but are these morality issues? The massive increase [and acceptance by western societies as an ok norm] of say hardcore pornography, drug-use, alcohol-use, single parent families, cohabitation instead of marriage, use of bad language in public, greed, envy, lust.... no I'm kidding but you know what I mean; are we truly 'more moral' than say our granfathers or great-grandfathers - yes more liberal, but more moral? [I shudder to think what my grandfather would make of me ].

So yes - I'm glad I watched this vid....but I do have issues with it's central thesis. For me it is sooo important to see arguments on both sides of the debate because I sit so firmly in the middle on so many isues.

[Vraith]

The author cites the concurrent increase of morality and freedon with the increase in scientific knowledge and free-market economics since the enlightenment onwards but how and why these are tied together even if you accept that such is the case is only scantily [and not convinceingly] touched upon.

I did say I disagree with him...and this is one of the areas.
And you have to remember, this isn't the WHOLE of his argument...I assume he goes into it more extensively in the book.
But when he talks about empathy/morality/conscience having a physical, biological, evolutionary component---and outside/supernatural explanations are unnecessary, I can only agree.

Also, what he is saying [parts of it] has a reasonable amount of support, and is the kind of thing one has to grapple with, especially to disagree. [Even on this board---how often have you seen Z argue that freedom and capitalist economy are directly connected? That, in fact, the rise of capitalism is a causal factor in the increase in freedom?]

[Fist and Faith]

Most humans have always wanted to be free. Or at least free from brutality, even if they didn't mind working for some feudal lord.

There have always been people who wanted to control, dominate, and/or inflict pain upon the masses.

There have always been people who wanted to wipe out entire societies and/or groups (based on religion, or ethnicity, or whatever) of people.

None of that has changed. We still have every horror being committed. Actually, genocide might be a fairly new thing. (The Jews in the early Soviet Union and Nazi Germany; the Tutsi in Rawanda; the Kurds in Iraq; the Bosnian Genocide...) Women are treated horribly in various parts of the world. Religious wars are still rampant. Kidnappers rape and torture victims to death, or keep them alive for years.

Where is this increase in morality?

[Vraith]

Where is this increase in morality?

It is everywhere. Put all the horrors you mentioned together, and everything is STILL better than it ever was. Death by violence, from the evidence we can find, is literally at least 100 TIMES lower, and may be 1000 times lower or even more.
People, in general, treat other people better. A lot better.

[Orlion]

Where is this increase in morality?

It is everywhere. Put all the horrors you mentioned together, and everything is STILL better than it ever was. Death by violence, from the evidence we can find, is literally at least 100 TIMES lower, and may be 1000 times lower or even more.
People, in general, treat other people better. A lot better.

[peter]

I'm not even sure we have a truly 'free market' capitalism anywhere in the world - it all seems highly 'selectively free' to me [try to bring a dozen flawless 1ct diamonds from Dubai back to the USA to make a quick buck and you'll see what I mean ]. Once you get a handle on just how actually 'unfree' our free-market capitalism really is then the 'morality' connection starts to look a little shaky [if you don't already see it as such ].

[Zarathustra]

The author cites the concurrent increase of morality and freedon with the increase in scientific knowledge and free-market economics since the enlightenment onwards but how and why these are tied together even if you accept that such is the case is only scantily [and not convinceingly] touched upon.

I did say I disagree with him...and this is one of the areas.
And you have to remember, this isn't the WHOLE of his argument...I assume he goes into it more extensively in the book.
But when he talks about empathy/morality/conscience having a physical, biological, evolutionary component---and outside/supernatural explanations are unnecessary, I can only agree.

Also, what he is saying [parts of it] has a reasonable amount of support, and is the kind of thing one has to grapple with, especially to disagree. [Even on this board---how often have you seen Z argue that freedom and capitalist economy are directly connected? That, in fact, the rise of capitalism is a causal factor in the increase in freedom?]

Once again, I strongly encourage everyone here (at least in this discussion) to read NONZERO by Robert Wright. The above topics are discussed with numerous examples from our history to illustrate how the principles shaped our social evolution. And it's a damn good read. Wright is a great writer.

The reason freedom is tied to capitalism is because in order to compete with each other, societies must allow their people more freedom. And the reason individual freedom makes a society better able to compete is because capitalism is a bottom-up organization. Attempts to organize it from the top-down are almost always doomed to fail because it interferes with the processes which make capitalism more efficient/powerful than all other economic systems.

What I found surprising in reading this book is how many "primitive" societies were actually proto-capitalist, including Pacific West Coast American Indians. There was division of labor, capital investment, etc. They were extremely prosperous, compared to other Indian tribes.

It's not a coincidence that the most totalitarian societies are the least capitalist. And when you introduce capitalism into a place like China, the people end up with more freedoms than they had before (even if they still have a long way to go).

But the book isn't about capitalism. It's about mutually beneficial relationships in nonzero-sum games, and why some societies ended up out competing others. China, for instance, was at one time poised to be the dominant global force long before the Western world rose to power. It had the three crucial inventions that gave Western society the ability to advance: gunpowder, printing press, and ocean navigation. However, little quirks of history caused China to not develop these to their full potential (e.g. too many characters in its alphabet to make the printing press really take off).

Another topic it deals with is why Europe was so far advanced beyond North/South America. The resources of the Americas were plentiful. The peoples of America--especially Central America--were socially sophisticated enough to build vast empires. And I mentioned proto-capitalist societies. So what happened?

The answer--spelled out with example after example in an ingenious way--is population density. That was the crucial factor. A civilization is a "communal brain." The faster idea can spread through it, the faster a civilization will evolve. Low population density is a barrier to idea propagation. That's the simple answer ... the book does a much better job discussing all the factors.

Read it! You won't be disappointed.

[peter]

Have purchased a copy on e bay [in the spirit of exposing my self to enemy fire in order to test my own invulnerability (only kidding )]. Will report back in due course.

[Zarathustra]

I realize it's a joke about enemy fire, but I want to stress that the book isn't pushing any political ideology. It's descriptive. It's about the logic of nonzero-sum relationships, and how humans have taken advantage of it, often unwittingly. That last part is important, because this logic shapes our evolution even when we're not aware of it. This logic even rules the chemical and biological realms, down to molecules. Life itself is a collection of molecules that are bound in a nonzero-sum relationships, where individual molecules reap benefits from other molecules in virtue of their relationships, creating a sum greater than its parts.

This logic will shape our future, therefore it's vital that we become aware of it and stop following it unwittingly, so that we stop doing things that slow it down and work against it. Most of all, we must remember that reality is not zero-sum.

[Orlion]

Thanks for reminding me of Mr. Wright, Z! I've read his book on God and was extremely impressed (I think he uses his non-zero concept throughout the book). I'll be keeping my eye open ( I don't normally order stuff online, since I don't want to try and keep track of receipts for state taxes).

[peter]

Point taken on that Z. and I'm all for it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect some basis of logic behind any belief system that aims to be rational.

In relation to the 'zero-sum' [or otherwise] can I just qoute the following [again from Chris Potters work How to Make a Human Being

In the book he quotes particle physicist Frank Close;

The positive energy within matter can be counterbalanced by the negative sink of the all-pervading gravitational field such that the total energy of the Universe is potentially nothing; when combined with quantum uncertainty this allows the possibility that everything is.....some quantum fluctuation living on borrowed time. Everything may thus be a quantum fluctuation of nothing.

and Gevin Gorbran (science writer);

Zero exists now; it has always existed. It is the native state of existance. It is what physicist David Bohm called Implicate order. It is the timeless quantum superposition of all universes and all life in an infinite universe. As the most brilliant physicists have long held, a perfect zero is the most ordered state of all, it just isn't found in the past where time begins. It exists in the future where time ends

Potter carries on in his own words;

Energy leaks out of the vacuum for no reason at all exept randomness and the pressure exerted by a sink of infinite negative energy. Overall the universe is nothing at all.

I will try to apply what you say to these quotes and the result to the book when it arives. I feel I may have a way to go.

[Zarathustra]

The nihilism of your quotes, Peter, is what I'm talking about when I say we should remember the truth of nonzero-sum existence and not work against it. Calling the universe "nothing" is ludicrous.

It's true that the universe is heading for the great Heat Death, and in cosmological terms, net energy isn't created, and every increase in order locally leads to a decrease in order universally. However, for all practical purposes (i.e. life in the universe while it's still possible), our existence is virtually nonzero in the sense that we can raise our own quality/complexity/prosperity of life without cost to each other. In fact, our greatest gains are made together, achieving levels not possible on our own. While this doesn't increase the order of the universe as a whole, the universe is already wasting more energy than we can feasibly use, even right here in our solar system. We're not going to speed up the sun's entropic march toward death by using its wasted energy to increase our order.

After all, wasn't this the point of the Chronicles we all love? Truth and Beauty must perish, but this doesn't mean it's meaningless to resist the process and preserve as much as we can ... certainly we shouldn't help nature along on its destructive path.

Locally, our reality is nonzero, because we sit in a sea of energy that to us might as well be limitless. [But all this discussion is blurring the meaning of "nonzero" in its usage in the book. "Nonzero" should be thought of as "in the same boat." Keeping the boat from sinking benefits everyone in it, without deriving that benefit from some for others. Your benefit doesn't have to be subtracted from the other passengers in order for your fate to have improved. That's why it's "nonzero." Your gain doesn't come from someone else's loss]

[peter]

Yes I did think it was slightly unfair to switch to a different 'zeo/non-zero' tack like that Z, but I just wanted to get your take 'from the ground up' as it were on the issue. Zero-sum is a word that has been chucked about a fair bit of late and I'm not quite sure what it refers to [although I get the idea as say applied to the above quotes]; it seems to be becoming a sort of philosophical octopus that stretches it's tentacles wherever it will and it will be good to get a book that will perhaps shed a little light on the ideas behind it.

[To be fair to Potter Z, he makes that last quote only as a 'summing up' comment against which to then unleash the other side of the argument - with equally strong quotes from a variety of scources. He does not proselytise in one direction or the other.]

[Zarathustra]

Eh, I've been misusing the term, too, in participating with in the entropy discussion. "In the same boat" is a great way to think about it. It's the classic nonzero scenario, a perfect metaphor that just happens to also be literally accurate.

[Dondarion]

Z wrote:

I'm still kind of in awe of the fact that purpose can be introduced into reality in the first place, even if only subjective. It comes about from entirely purposeless events, in a universe without purpose. That's kind of amazing.

 
I believe that the universe certainly has purpose, and it is sufficient (for me at least) to say that its purpose is to please our creator and give glory to him that created it and us in his image and likeness to dwell therein.  Just as our bodies have purpose, as a repose for our conscience and our souls, so the universe has purpose, as a dwelling place for creation, for God’s spirit to be made manifest.  Isn’t that purpose enough?  Can we claim to know the grand purpose of a vast universe, other than to simply say it is because it is (“I am that I am”), and it is good, and its purpose is to be good.   Do we have a right to say that because we cannot know its precise purpose that therefore it has no purpose?  Can we not acknowledge that these things are beyond our understanding, but that they can still matter immensely, have great purpose?  Why does it have to come down to randomness?  Because we can’t define the origins of everything, therefore they must be chance happenstance?  We aren’t happy unless we have the light of actual knowledge.  And yet there are other kinds of light as well.  The light of wisdom, the light of faith, and the light of love.  Wisdom is a prophetic type of light, coming to understand that greater truth can exist in simply the way something is perceived differently than it was before, a higher understanding if you will, perhaps gained from experience.  Faith is accepting that we cannot know everything, but that we trust in it nevertheless (like when we were children we trusted our parents absolutely).  Love is the willingness to give oneself over to these higher truths for the betterment of another in the same fashion that our creator did by giving himself up for us, to show them/us that the only way to absolute truth is through living in a manner that is “other-centric”.  We will one day know all these truths, but not as we are now.  That’s not our immediate calling. But that doesn’t mean there is no purpose behind it all.
 
Peter wrote:

If human conscience has no genetic basis, then from whence did it spring. In a harsh and brutal struggle to survive not to steal the bread from a sleeping child because it makes you feel guilty ain't going to improve your survival chances.

 
The idea of conscience must come from outside of our human selves and our human development.  As you suggest, it would appear against the laws of nature to have conscience, and yet we know once we violate its construct, we ought not to have done so.  How do we know this, if it is not something we are graced with from without.
 
Fist in Faith wrote:

Until you give me reason to believe there is such a thing as human conscience - as opposed to some people feel one way, and some feel another - I don't have to show how it came to be. I don't suspect anyone here agrees with me, since I've never heard anyone say they did in my many times posting about this. OTOH, nobody has ever explained why, despite huge numbers of people acting against it every day, they think there is such a thing. The most anyone has done is, citing C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, tell why some of those who do feel that way act after acting against it. Which is a world away from giving evidence that all who act in certain ways are acting against their feelings. Until there's reason to believe otherwise, the default position is that those who act a certain way feel that way.

They may “feel” that way, but it’s not about feelings.  We act the way we “feel” all the time, and yet we can know that we ought not to have acted that way before, during and after the action.  We act on our “feelings” all the time, sometimes for good and oftentimes for ill.  I don’t “feel” like taking out the trash, paying that visit, taking that phone call, etc., but I do it anyway, and when I don’t, I know I should have.  Why? Because some learned human trait has taught us that our pack partners will make our lives miserable if we don’t and therefore we do it for selfish reasons anyway?  Perhaps that enters into it, but I think more often we force ourselves to do it because we want to do what’s right, we want to do it for one another, it pleases us to make another person happy.  We have seen it play out both ways and we know that it’s simply more worthwhile, more joyful if you will, to behave one way rather than the other.  We have a truth of wisdom about it, and we trust that the same understanding applies to other things as well and so we begin to take on that manner of behavior in general, and then we understand that there is a design to it, that it comes from a love of the whole idea of it, and that how it all works in people’s lives is the right way of living.  And so it all came about not from what we “felt” about it, but from what we “did” about it because we knew we ought to have done it.
 
Peter wrote:

At the end of the day alls I can say is 'I don't know'.

But we know that these various kinds of truths exist, and that they lead to something higher and outside ourselves.  That should lead us all to start to put our faith in something other than what mere science can explain.
 
Peter wrote:

A question that arises from a reading of the Old Testement [and I'm sure the New when I get there] is 'why would these people lie about the things they say the saw, the things they say happened to them?'

 
I totally agree.  The examples of the lives of the myriad of people that have walked in our shadows of the past, and testified to so many amazing experiences and incredible miracles, and just plan everyday lives radically changed, lead me to wonder how it could be all just a random function of fabrication, chance and/or coincidence.  The conspiracy theory is just too mind boggling to imagine.
 
Peter wrote:

…but the nature of the tales, interwoven as they are in the historical story of the Jews does fascinate and puzzle me.

 
I love that line.  It does to me as well.  It haunts me, and I can only conclude that God really did choose this people for his grand and special revelation of his truth and mercy.
 
Z wrote:

After all, wasn't this the point of the Chronicles we all love? Truth and Beauty must perish, but this doesn't mean it's meaningless to resist the process and preserve as much as we can ... certainly we shouldn't help nature along on its destructive path.

I don’t disagree that the world is changing all the time, and one day will assuredly end.  We humans do what we can with the time we are given, and that’s pretty much all we can do.  But that’s all we’re expected to do.  And so we can’t become anxious or overwhelmed by it all (or tempted to despair, as Lord Foul would have of us).  We press on and frustrate the evil ones of this world, doing things they won’t expect, making a difference, changing a life, our own lives, for the good of one another and our creator.  And why can’t that be reality?  It sounds like a nice plan to me, if only we’d all agree to stick to it.  I think I’ll start with myself.

[Zarathustra]

I believe that the universe certainly has purpose, and it is sufficient (for me at least) to say that its purpose is to please our creator and give glory to him that created it and us in his image and likeness to dwell therein. 

If that's true, then he's one sick bastard. Who would take pleasure, for instance, in a place that repeatedly produces mass extinctions? That's not even delving into the issue you'd no doubt excuse by referring to freewill (like rape, murder, child prostitution, war, etc.).

Either that, or this "purposeful" universe has gotten out of his control, which doesn't speak well of his "glory," much less his purpose ... how can the purpose of an omnipotent being go awry? Either god revels in all the evils of this world (hence, 'sick bastard') or he didn't plan for there to be evils in the first place (blame it on Lucifer, Adam, whomever). Surely he didn't plan for his glorification by creating place that would need a Hell. Thus, if the creation of evil wasn't his intention, his plan, that means the universe violates his purpose.

Now we're left asking what's the point of claiming that the universe has a purpose--specifically one that suits god's pleasure--if that universe explicitly violates it? That's the same as it not having this purpose you're talking about.

And if this universe doesn't violate god's purpose, in other words, if it was god's purpose to create a place where evil can take root and cause the suffering of billions, you might as well call Lucifer the Creator. There's no glorification in such a place.

[Fist and Faith]

I believe that the universe certainly has purpose, and it is sufficient (for me at least) to say that its purpose is to please our creator and give glory to him that created it and us in his image and likeness to dwell therein. 

If that's true, then he's one sick bastard. Who would take pleasure, for instance, in a place that repeatedly produces mass extinctions? That's not even delving into the issue you'd no doubt excuse by referring to freewill (like rape, murder, child prostitution, war, etc.).

Either that, or this "purposeful" universe has gotten out of his control, which doesn't speak well of his "glory," much less his purpose ... how can the purpose of an omnipotent being go awry? Either god revels in all the evils of this world (hence, 'sick bastard') or he didn't plan for there to be evils in the first place (blame it on Lucifer, Adam, whomever). Surely he didn't plan for his glorification by creating place that would need a Hell. Thus, if the creation of evil wasn't his intention, his plan, that means the universe violates his purpose.

Now we're left asking what's the point of claiming that the universe has a purpose--specifically one that suits god's pleasure--if that universe explicitly violates it? That's the same as it not having this purpose you're talking about.

And if this universe doesn't violate god's purpose, in other words, if it was god's purpose to create a place where evil can take root and cause the suffering of billions, you might as well call Lucifer the Creator. There's no glorification in such a place.

Z, would it not be possible for a being of such a different nature from ours to have a higher state of consciousness at all times? To have "a deep sense of connectedness with the universe, as if everything was just as it was supposed to be."? To not have "any resentment, aversion, or displeasure with any aspect of reality."? As though "It was all embraced with the 'holy' YES."? Just because I'm having fun busting your chops (:mrgreen:) doesn't mean I'm not honestly wondering why such a being couldn't see it the same way you do when on psilosybin.

My own response to that quote of Dondarion (Welcome back, Dd) is that I don't believe that, so will not discuss it from that angle. You, Linna, and others can have that conversation, and I hope it brings you joy. But I take my joy in the other side of the coin.

[Dondarion]

I find the analogy of the relationship between a parent amd child helpful. A parent's purpose in having a child is for the child to bring joy to the parent, and to the world, and so to find happiness and contentment in this new creation, which by its nature and purpose is good. One would not deny this is valid and true. However, when as the child grows, things go awry in the carrying out of that purpose, but it does not mean the purpose itself was an evil, or was some pointless scheme of some "sick bastard" parents. The raw source of the intention at the creation of that child was pure and good, the love of the parents, and the desire to bring joy into the world. That the world is filled with evil and wrongdoing that creeps into the life of this child (including that brought from the parents own failings as well) by no means makes the whole enterprise pointless and some sick joke. Each person in the world is throughoit their lives an opportunity for another to be kind, to show mercy, to be thankful. The evil that men do to screw al this up is not of the creator, it is of men. Perhaps it is from a prior generation or age that has lingered in the world, but it is man made nonetheless. But to insinuate that there is any pleasure taken by God at such evil doings as mentioned is preposterous. In fact, there must be many tears. Yes, the universe is indeed acting in violation of its own purpose, but not as a function of the creator, rather as a function of the creature, namely mankind. It was never the intention for there to be anything but goodness. Again, that would coincide woth the will of a parent toward a child. And yet the child is exposed to evil right from the start. Great suffering entered the world, right from the very beginning. And yet right from the beginning, the life of a child (and life in general) is precious and good nonetheless, and the light in them is pure, and the light of mankind is made to outshine evil and darkness, if only mankind would turn to the light. Alas, mankind does not, and so the darkness and evil crush the little ones, the innocent ones. And we say the creator must be a "sick bastard" to allow this, as I assume the same person would say a parent must be a "sick bastard" for permitting bad things to enter the life of their child. But, lf course, it is absurd to say this. Those that bring about those unthinkable sufferings you mention will one day be damned, God willing, and so there is a Hell because they must be separated from the light for all time, since they rejected the light, the purpose of which was goodness.