I have a question for atheists

I ask atheists why they are so sure of themselves when they hve no way to explain consciousnes. In this video I did make one big mistake: I meant to say "Colin McGinn" at one point but I said "Colin Wilson." Sorry about that. Colin McGinn refers to himself as a "mysterian." Colin McGinn is himself an atheist, as is Chomsky.

[@iljuro]

_"Why would anyone think that science is going to explain reality when it can't tell us about the single most important aspect of our experience of the world, namely consciousness"_ a) Science is evidently the most reliable tool we have to explain anything well enough to build other reliable tools. b) Methodological materialists generally don't expect science to explain everything. Both the uncertainty principle and the incompleteness theorem tell us that we can't explain everything.

[@iljuro]

_"Isn't it interesting that there are no scientific laws, no mathematical equations, that say anything whatsoever however about subjective experience"_ Not really. The universe is full with processes we don't understand. There are no laws or mathematical equations we can use to predict the shapes of the northern lights or river deltas.

[@richardhammerud3809]

In principle, the laws of physics necessitate the shapes of the northern lights or deltas, though the calculations far exceed our capabilities.

[@iljuro]

@@richardhammerud3809 And I know no rational reason to assume that the consciousness is any different

[@kwahujakquai6726]

@@richardhammerud3809 Do you understand chaos theory? I suggest reading Chaos by James Gleick, if you haven't yet.

[@Bill_Garthright]

A question for atheists, huh? Oh, I enjoy these things. And just one? Great! That should be quick enough. _"I have a question for all of you materialists out there who believe that science is the only way to answer the questions of what is true about reality or that science is the only way to tell us what is true about the world we live in."_ Um,... I thought this was supposed to be a question for atheists? But in your very first line, you present a question for _materialists,_ not atheists. And then you either misunderstand materialism or are only asking the question for a particular subset of materialists? (It's hard to tell which.) I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or gods. I don't call myself a materialist, and I don't think that science is the only way to tell us stuff. So right away, this seems to have nothing to do with _me._ But I suspect that you _are_ addressing atheists, probably through confusion about what atheism even is, right? So I'll attempt to answer the question, anyway. As far as science goes, I'd say that the scientific method is easily the best way we've ever discovered of distinguishing reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. If you have a _better_ way, a more _reliable_ way, of distinguishing reality from delusion and wishful-thinking, I'd love to hear it. Do you? Naturally, not every question is a question of science. But other evidence-based fields of study can - and have - learned a lot from the clear progress of science in recent centuries, don't you agree? Of course, it's not the only way to answer questions of reality. You can guess, for example. That's another method. I'd say it's not a very reliable method, though. What do _you_ say? Maybe that's how _you_ determine questions about reality? _"you never find any reference to consciousness [in science]"_ You're simply wrong about that. Check out neuroscience. I'm not a scientist myself, and I know little about this field of science. But why didn't you do what I did and just do an internet search for "which scientific discipline studies consciousness"? It would have taken you only seconds to find out that you're wrong. _"How do we explain consciousness?"_ Why do we have to explain consciousness? As I say, I know very little about what neuroscientists have discovered about consciousness, but there are lots of things we don't know. So what? You do know that science would _stop_ if it knew everything, right? Science would end if scientists already knew everything. The whole _point_ to science is that there are things we don't know. But if you don't know what the Sun is - or you don't believe what scientists say about the Sun - that doesn't mean it _has_ to be Jesus driving a golden chariot across the sky. It just doesn't. If you don't what the Sun is - or you don't understand consciousness - the correct answer is "I don't know." Of course, maybe you think you _do_ know? That's where you need to provide evidence backing up your claims. After all, "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." _"Science tells us absolutely nothing about how we experience subjective feelings."_ So what? Science isn't _about_ subjective feelings. _"I also find it interesting that the majority of scientists... are atheists"_ That _is_ interesting, isn't it? Pew Research (again, it's an easy internet search) has demonstrated that scientists are _far_ less likely to believe in a god than people like you and me who know little or nothing about science. Oddly enough, philosophers are _also_ far less likely to believe in a god than people who know little or nothing about philosophy. (Check out the PhilPapers Survey about that.) Interesting, isn't it? It seems like the more you know the _least_ likely you are to believe in a god. Of course, some scientists and some philosophers still believe in a god - if they're theists, it's almost always the particular god they were taught to believe as a child - but it's much fewer than in the ordinary population of people (like you and me?) who are relatively ignorant about science and philosophy. As you say, that's very interesting, isn't it? But how do you interpret that as a theist, yourself? What does it tell you when ignorance, not knowledge, is on _your_ side? _"I personally believe that God exists."_ Why? Do you have any good *evidence* that your god exists? If not, why do you believe it? And is it the same god you were taught to believe as a child? Is _that_ why you believe it? After all, faith-based people worldwide _overwhelmingly_ believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. That's just a fact. Converts exist - in every direction (Muslims on KZbin are always bragging about the Christians they've converted to Islam) - but they're a small minority. So, how about one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is real rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* please, but be specific. After all, evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Do you have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? I've never heard of any. That's why I'm an atheist. _"One possible explanation for the possibility of subjective experience... is that there's a god."_ Why? Why would that be a possible explanation? That doesn't explain _anything_ as far as I can tell. But OK, let's start by seeing your evidence that a god is even _real._ How about _my_ possible explanation for subjective experience, which is that magic leprechauns are real? Can you take _my_ "possible explanation" seriously? If not, then perhaps you can see why I can't take _yours_ seriously, either? You need to _start_ by demonstrating that "God" is even real. After that, you can start proposing him as an explanation for stuff. _"There's a subjective aspect to God"_ Yes, I agree. Every believer imagines their god in a different way. It's all subjective. That doesn't mean that one of those subjective aspects _isn't_ true, of course. But _most_ of them must be false, because they contradict each other. _"God is spirit"_ *Evidence?* And what does that mean? Please define "spirit." How do we tell "spirit" from "not spirit"? _"I guess the idea is that"_ I think you're guessing _far_ too much here. Maybe you should learn something about this stuff, rather than just _guessing_ about things you know nothing about? _"I guess that's how most scientists look at it."_ Again, maybe you should do a lot less _guessing_ about this stuff and actually learn something about it, instead? Look, I'm not a scientist. And I'm not a materialist - not a philosophical naturalist, at least, though I might be a methodological naturalist. (But in general, I'm wary of labels.) I'm an atheist - an agnostic atheist, to be precise - although I don't even care about _that_ label. So, if you don't like the label, just skip all of that. I don't believe in a god or gods (atheist), but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary (agnostic). So if you want to talk to an actual atheist, let's talk. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but just for myself. But I have to wonder how many atheists you've known. And I enjoy talking to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion. So, if you want to talk, let's talk.

[@iljuro]

_"The dominant "religion" of the modern era is science"_ Notice that "science" is evidently the most reliable tool we currently have to explain anything well enough to build other reliable tools. Including upgrading the tool "science". If science is a religion, it's a religion where anything that doesn't produce verifiable results gets thrown out. Or possibly ends up in a basement or a windowless office if someone is motivated enough to keep it going despite not producing verifiable results.. _"Science can tell us absolutely nothing about how that happened"_ Science actually do have quite a lot to say about the emergence of consciousness. _"Any honest atheist would be a little less dogmatic in their absolute assurance that there is no god"_ Why? That would be based on an argument from incredulity. Until there is reliable evidence of a god affecting anything, a god is not even an alternative.

[@davidddd2001]

you're presupposing a certain definition of "evidence" for God operating in the world, which I am almost certain that you cannot justify

[@iljuro]

@@davidddd2001 The same definition I use for all other natural and supernatural claims

[@FluffyBuffy27]

Consciousness is not particularly touched upon in science and therefore Atheists realistically have nothing of any substance to say on the matter. Just because a worldview cannot explain something doesn't mean its therefore wrong and *vice versa*. I personally don't believe anyone really has a firm idea of what consciousness is let alone where it comes from.

[@GrendelNin]

"when your atheism cannot explain even begin to explain consciousness" Why would not being convinced in the existence of gods in any way explain consciousness? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. If consciousness is not an emergent property of a brain, then why can drugs alter someone's consciousness? Why can a physical blow to the head render someone unconscious?

[@Kekekekekeekekekhgfv]

God of the gaps

[@yongtuition]

As you mentioned him several times, could you explain how Chomsky became a forerunner of socialism which is based on materialism?

[@iwilldi]

All we know of that which we can know we know through science. That's why it is called science. You can fill in the gaps however you like. But why should i care? You can speculate about mental activity in an immaterial domain. But since you only know your mind in the material world, you cannot possibly know anything about an immaterial mind. I can fill books about things which no one can know or verify. But who cares? Question: why is it important to explain causality? maybe it is not important at all. I could ask: how to explain a mind pre causality and pre chaos? What we mostly explain is causality based. And then we see the rest which aparently escapes causal explanations, meaning there will be none.

[@williamoarlock8634]

Consciousness is an elctro-chemical process in the brain why is it so hard for theists to acknowledge this?

[@rhett_rydinhood]

_"I ask atheists why they are so sure of themselves when they hve no way to explain consciousness."_ And I ask you as a theist, why you are so sure of yourself when you also have no way to explain con- sciousness. This requires (as silversurfer already said) proof that ONLY your 'God' CAN be the cause of consciousness.

[@richardhammerud3809]

I don't claim to explain consciousness. No more than physicist claim to explain quantum mechanics or any of the four fundamental forces. At some point explanations come to an end. My point is that consciousness is irreducible to any physical explanation. It is irreducible. Electromagnetism is also not explainable in terms of any physical properties. It too is irreducible. And I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists. I don' t think anyone can prove that God exists or doesn't exist.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@richardhammerud3809 You asked a question of atheists here, and you received some replies (including one from me). Are you going to address the replies? What was the point of asking the question if you were just going to ignore what we said in reply?

[@RetireMentalityChallenged]

Atheism is just another form of evangelism where in both cases someone is claiming they understand reality. I only know one thing for certain which is I know nothing about who or what or why I am. We are products of what we know so believe carefully.

[@djKeu]

God exists in the human domain, can't deny that. But outside of that? He's totally useless.

[@andyjackson2901]

I think your pontificating gives way too much credit to science for somebody who tries to draw on philosophy. You mentioned Descartes after all, and as such you should already know that science is an empirical endeavour that can never teach us what is true, but rather only persuade us that which cannot be true. This is the whole damn starting point of Cartesian philosophy. “I think therefore I am” is the only certain truth that can be know. The empirical sciences can only theorize about that which we seem to experience, including not only our consciousness but even our subconscious, etc. And this it does via observation and the repetition of these observations. We hypothesize on causality and accept the results that might be true until further observation requires us to modify (or jettison) our theories of reality in favour of new theories. And so on. This really is first grade philosophy of science. As I mentioned previously, empirical science is based on observation, and in so far as it contains any ‘truth’, it can only for certain tell us what *cannot* be true. One thing thoughtful people have observed is that our world could not have been designed by a being that is both omnipotent and benevolent (as God is often described to be). This is because we’ve observed at least one instance of evil has occurred in the world. An imperfect world (even just one instance of the slightest imperfection) is not a world we would expect from such a being. Theists have never been able to get around this problem, and as such I am an atheist. Of course, some have tried to explain this with concepts such as ‘free will’, but this only limits God’s power and/or puts other interests ahead of his benevolence. I suppose there is one possible exception to my atheism - that there is a God but he is not benevolent. Rather, he is indifferent. That’s a remote possibility. But what would be the point of making a religion out of him. If you’re unfamiliar with this religiously fatal philosophy, you’ll find it in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

I am still trying to understand...why someone who would post their views regarding bible commentators... would bother posting things regarding science verses religion.. or atheism verses theism.. are you a garage philosopher... or do you actually have any degrees in the topic you are discussing?.. I can halfway.. appreciate.. you giving your opinion on bible commentary notes... such as Scofield's... because as you stated before... you HAVE used the Scofield's.. bible.. and thus are familiar with its notes... and text.. but do you really know anything regarding conscience other than what you yourself have ?.. when you make videos such as these do you not realize that you are doing the same thing that you accuse people like Scofield of doing... which is passing off your opinions.. to others as if they are in fact reality?... your opinions regarding conscienceness are in fact just that your opinions... and this should be stated in NO UNCERTAIN terms... completely thru your presentation... just as you demanded that Scofield should have done regarding HIS comments... do you see how that works both ways?..

[@velkyn1]

Poor fellow, more baseless claims and ignorance from their cult. Unsurprisngly, he has nothing more than god of the gaps argumenrts. We are still researching consciousness. We dont' have the answers*yet*. We may never have the entire answers. Still no evidence for your imaginary friend.

[@richardhammerud3809]

Explanations come to an end at some points. Science does not seek to explain any of the four fuindamental forces; they are used by scientists to explain the way the world works. Consciousness, I believe, is an irreducible element of reality (which Spinoza also believed). I am not arguing for a God of the gaps because I don't think anyone can prove that God exists or doesn't exist. The god of the gap argument is used to prove that God exists, but I don't think any such proof exists. So if this makes me a "poor fellow,: then so be it.

[@velkyn1]

@@richardhammerud3809 And Richard lies which is unsurprising. Physicists have and are still doing research on the four fundamental forces, so you are lying dear. No one cares what a liar claims, since you can't show that consciousness is "irreducible" at all. And appeals to authority fallacies dont' work either. You are making god of the gaps arguments, and it's always amusing when a christian claims otherwise, when their argument is "I dont' understand it so god did it". You claim your god exists, and now you claim that somehow no one can show this is true or not. Ah, nothing like a theist with nothing.

[@kwahujakquai6726]

@@richardhammerud3809 Are you at all familiar with Karl Popper and his contribution to the scientific method? I think if you use critical rationalism when you're making observations, and reduce hubris in your god belief, you may actually arrive at a better understanding of other people's perspectives.