Religion for Athiests

[Khandro]

In his new book of this title (Hamish Hamilton), Alain de Botton writes that 'atheism should not hector people about the error of super-natural belief: this is "boring". The real task is to recycle elements of religion for secular use. These elements must be "dislodged from the supernatural structure within which they were first conceived" It is not just ideas that must be dislodged, but the practices that ground them. We need ways of reminding ourselves of our ideals and frailties. All of culture should serve this end.'
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro

It is far, far harder to put together a logical, rational case for dualism - that is, the mind, soul, call it what you will - as a seperate, perhaps immortal entity.

All the neurobiological, biological, anatomical, MRI and pMRI data to date all point to one thing - that the mind, as we call it, that self awareness, that cognitive, rationalising, individual entity that forms you - is an emergent property of the neurochemistry and neurological architecture. At its most simple level of evidence -any event that results in brain injury results in degraded neurological activity. Were the mind, or soul some sort of seperate entity this would not happen.

[jomifl]

Khandro, I will answer the main thrust of you question to me later, however your statement //the computer and everything within it is a product of human thought and imagination// is seriously flawed. The computer and the programs therein are the product of human ingenuity but the data may not be and so the results generated by the computer may be a hybrid. The stunning fractal imagery produced by a computer are, I would suggest beyond human imagining. Many computers used in industry and science routinely acquire data autonomously. and yield results both unexpected and unimagined.

[ludwig]

// Many computers used in industry and science routinely acquire data autonomously. and yield results both unexpected and unimagined. //

True - just ask the people at Natwest :-)

[Khandro]

beso; "The butterfly and the caterpillar are not separate existences but the same creature."
Hardly; insects that undergo complete metamorphosis experience enormous changes in anatomy. In the pupa, almost all the caterpillar tissues are dissolved before the new structures of the adult develop. Most of the nervous system is dissolved as well.

[jomifl]

Khandro, most if not all creatures //experience enormous changes in anatomy// during their development from egg to adult. The point in their life cycle at which the most dramatic changes take place varies enomously from species to species. Butterflies and moths are genetically unchanged throughout their lives, the way some or all of the genes are expressed does however change.

[Khandro]

jomifl; "egg to adult" is not the same as caterpillar to moth, as this entails complete metamorphosis, the caterpillar had already done the change from an egg.
For the record; 'Martha Weiss at Georgetown University, Washington, with colleagues, trained caterpillars of the Carolina Sphinx moth to avoid the odour of ethyl acetate by exposing this odour with a mild electric shock. After 2 larval moults and metamorphosis within the pupae, the adult moths were averse to ethyl acetate, despite that radical transformation of their nevous system. Weiss and her colleagues carried out careful controls that showed this was a real transfer of learning, not just a carryover of odours absorbed by the tested caterpillars'.
The carryover of learning from caterpillar to moth after the dissolution of most of the nervous system would be very puzzling if all memories were stored as material traces.

[jomifl]

Khandro, Thank you for that piece of knowledge, I can't understand how I didn't know that I'll just check my qualifications and see if they aren't in art instead of biology.
Re. the moth memory, what exactly is your point, since you concede that some of the nervous system remains unchanged there is no reason why the memories cannot reside there. However if you have an alternative credible explanation please divulge it.

[jomifl]

Khandro, I would like to hear your definition of // complete metamorphosis //.

[Khandro]

beso; "It is far, far harder to put together a logical, rational case for dualism"
Are you sure? Do you believe that memories are stored as material traces in brains? If so, can summarise the evidence please?
jomifl; I don't know if you have left it too late to metamorphose into an artist, but it's a bit late for me to take up biology :-) my Oxford dictionary defines metamorphosis as 'to turn into a new form'.

[jomifl]

Dualism appears to be an outmoded notion that does not bear rational examination even at the most cursory level. To posit that the mind somehow exists separately to the brain, requires the existance of some other medium within which it exists. This medium though not of the physical world must be inextricably entwined with it otherwise minds would just drift off into the ether. Minds would also require an energy source and a connection to the physical brain in order to be able to control the body. The requirement of an unknown process functioning outside any known spectrum of energy or matter seems to be less likely than an electrochemical process that operates using well understood processes that have been demonstrated to operate in nerve tissue.

[Khandro]

^^ cut and pasted twaddle!

[naomi24]

Khandro, ^^ it’s a shame about that answer. It's not an answer. I believe the existence of the 'soul' is possible, and I have a theory (albeit considered rather wonky by my learned friends here) as to how it might work – but as far as I can see you have talked about caterpillars, butterflies, and memory retention, but have, as yet, failed to explain the basic mechanics of the ‘soul’. Any chance of moving the discussion on to the actual nuts and bolts? How do you think it works?

[jomifl]

Khandro, //^^ cut and pasted twaddle! // err.. which post would that be? I haven't seen any cutting and pasting on this thread.
I take from your response that you have run out of arguments to support your assertions. It is far better to construct a theory from known facts rather than cherry pick facts to support a daft notion.

[Khandro]

naomi; If you are only popping in and out of this thread, the talk of a caterpillar's memory function may seem bizarre, but it is of importance to the debate about what you might call 'soul'. Most scientists believe the universe and life within it is a giant machine consisting of only matter. They have to do this (at least during their day job) to save face with their cohorts, when they have retired or won a Nobel prize it is something else. They would like to demonstrate that mind and matter are the same thing, but they can't, so they make it as an assumption, and get cross with anyone who says otherwise (like me!). There are many good scientists though in India and throughout the Muslim world, who are much more open, and have no problem in including a 'spiritual' aspect to their science.
Francis Crick, after sharing the discovery of DNA, went on to dedicate himself professionally for the rest of his life to "once and for all" prove that only matter existed and to put paid to all talk of Vitalism, but at his death his project was a self-confessed failure, and yet we have people here- no names, no pack drill - who claim to know better!

[Johnysid]

I haven't played any real games since playing "Romans and Britons" at university. Religion has nothing to do with such things. As Coelho says, it is about the "dark night of the soul". It is the realisation that either it all means something or you are a dreadful coward who dares not behave like the machine you believe yourself to be.

It does mean something. Meaning is a succession of events directed at a particular outcome. Say "now" - when is/was that word? A word is a succession of events. The challenge I set the contributors to this thread is to explain how we can have awareness now. If we dont have it now then when can we have it?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Challenge far too much for me, JohnySid: I wave the white flag. Khando's point a lot easier to deal with.See you later, K.

[Johnysid]

On Khandro's caterpillar, many larval neurons are preserved through metamorphosis so the preservation of learning is not a problem. As the authors of a study on memory retention put it:

"Our results are consistent with, but do not provide
conclusive support for the survival of synaptic connections within
the larval brain across metamorphosis, enabling persistence in the
adult brain of memories formed during the larval stage." file:///tmp/journal.pone.0001736.pdf

[naomi24]

Khandro, I may be popping in and out of this thread as far as contributing to it goes, but I’m reading all the posts with grest interest.

//Most scientists believe the universe and life within it is a giant machine consisting of only matter.//

So do I – and I think the ‘soul’, if it exists, consists of a form of energy. Nothing magical or spiritual about it.

//They would like to demonstrate that mind and matter are the same thing, but they can't, so they make it as an assumption, and get cross with anyone who says otherwise (like me!).//

You can hardly complain that others have failed to demonstrate the legitimacy of their theories when you’ve failed to provide an explanation for your own. All you have done is claimed that a ‘soul’ exists. You haven’t explained what you think the soul actually is, what constitutes a ‘soul’, or where within the human body a ‘soul’ resides. I am genuinely interested in hearing your views.

johnysid, your question warrants its own thread.

[vetuste_ennemi]

<<johnysid, your question warrants its own thread>>
But not one for the faint-hearted, Naomi.

[Khandro]

naomi; I have used the word soul in quotation marks, you introduced it, and it was addressed to you; it's not a word I ever use. I am talking about mind having non-physical aspects. I am not able to prove the validity of this thesis, I only indicate the inability of upholders of materialism to prove theirs.