God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

[Daylight63]

Collins: you can see the language of God in the physical principles of the universe, in the intricate genetic code of molecular biology, and in the moral law imprinted our conscience.

That definitely preserves the "wonder" aspect of science for those who wish to add on the extra components of that wonder which they feel is a signal of something deeper.

Dawkins: all human culture, behavior, and morality can be physically reduced to just physics and chemistry. There is no ultimate purpose or meaning to anything. The universe is utterly materialistic.

This seems like a relatively negative characterization. If anything Dawkins is of the opinion that nature is awesome on its own. That we can enjoy the beauty of a flower without adding something "else" onto it.

While I have not read Collins I have read Dawkins. Dawkins pulls no punches, though. It can be a hard read for those who want the version of reality that has a lot of added bells and whistles which makes more sense to them than a more challenging view.

The materialist view is no less awe-inspiring, it is just different. It's like the difference between going out and batting a pickle ball back and forth over the net without abiding by the rules. It is fun and enjoyable. Atheism and materialism say "You can have fun and joy doing this but here are the limitations on where the pickle ball can go". It's more constrained.

 

[Lao Tse]

That definitely preserves the "wonder" aspect of science for those who wish to add on the extra components of that wonder which they feel is a signal of something deeper.



This seems like a relatively negative characterization. If anything Dawkins is of the opinion that nature is awesome on its own. That we can enjoy the beauty of a flower without adding something "else" onto it.

While I have not read Collins I have read Dawkins. Dawkins pulls no punches, though. It can be a hard read for those who want the version of reality that has a lot of added bells and whistles which makes more sense to them than a more challenging view.

The materialist view is no less awe-inspiring, it is just different. It's like the difference between going out and batting a pickle ball back and forth over the net without abiding by the rules. It is fun and enjoyable. Atheism and materialism say "You can have fun and joy doing this but here are the limitations on where the pickle ball can go". It's more constrained.

and what of moral law?

it's for dummies?

of course atoms don't care, but we live in a society of other humans and it matters how we act, and if you don't care, that makes you a sociopath.

it bothers me how scientism is used in the pursuit of inculcating sociopathy in the society in general.

 

[Cypress]

That definitely preserves the "wonder" aspect of science for those who wish to add on the extra components of that wonder which they feel is a signal of something deeper.



This seems like a relatively negative characterization. If anything Dawkins is of the opinion that nature is awesome on its own. That we can enjoy the beauty of a flower without adding something "else" onto it.

While I have not read Collins I have read Dawkins. Dawkins pulls no punches, though. It can be a hard read for those who want the version of reality that has a lot of added bells and whistles which makes more sense to them than a more challenging view.

The materialist view is no less awe-inspiring, it is just different. It's like the difference between going out and batting a pickle ball back and forth over the net without abiding by the rules. It is fun and enjoyable. Atheism and materialism say "You can have fun and joy doing this but here are the limitations on where the pickle ball can go". It's more constrained.

I have only had Dawkins book for one day. I am sure he appreciates art, music, scenic vistas.

AFAIK, humans are the only animal that creates art, and has deep sensibilities about aesthetic beauty and pleasure. I would like to ask Dawkins to explain this human value materialistically using the principles of physics and chemistry

 

[Daylight63]

I have only had Dawkins book for one day. I am sure he appreciates art, music, scenic vistas.

AFAIK, humans are the only animal that creates art, and has deep sensibilities about aesthetic beauty and pleasure. I would like to ask Dawkins to explain this human value materialistically using the principles of physics and chemistry

I like the idea of why humans do "art" or "creativity". I see it more as an outgrowth of our bigger brains but we also find "art" in the animal world. The Bauerbird creates a nest of shiny objects meant to attract a mate. It is not art for art's sake but it is a creativity-driven enterprise.

I don't see a lot of need to explain "art" using anything extra-natural. Art really is another means of bringing ourselves pleasure. We like art because it makes us feel good. People do art because it feels good to them. I think the reason WHY we do art is really more an outgrowth of the extra processing power we have.

But again it's kind of a personal choice. If one feels that art can only be explained by some reference to some abstract concept that isn't limited to the physical that's fine. IT's still possible to appreciate art and even why it exists relying solely on the material as well.

Just depends on how you want to frame it. Do you want to add more to the frame than is absolutely necessary? That's perfectly fine. But it's also possible to appreciate the art in a simpler frame. And it doesn't lose any of the impact.

 

[Cypress]

I like the idea of why humans do "art" or "creativity". I see it more as an outgrowth of our bigger brains but we also find "art" in the animal world. The Bauerbird creates a nest of shiny objects meant to attract a mate. It is not art for art's sake but it is a creativity-driven enterprise.

I don't see a lot of need to explain "art" using anything extra-natural. Art really is another means of bringing ourselves pleasure. We like art because it makes us feel good. People do art because it feels good to them. I think the reason WHY we do art is really more an outgrowth of the extra processing power we have.

But again it's kind of a personal choice. If one feels that art can only be explained by some reference to some abstract concept that isn't limited to the physical that's fine. IT's still possible to appreciate art and even why it exists relying solely on the material as well.

Just depends on how you want to frame it. Do you want to add more to the frame than is absolutely necessary? That's perfectly fine. But it's also possible to appreciate the art in a simpler frame. And it doesn't lose any of the impact.

That doesn't explain the aesthetic sensibility inherent in humans by citing materialistic principles of chemistry and physics. If Dawkins is a strict physical materialist, he should have an explanation that conforms to his strict scientific materialism ideology.

I don't think religionists have all the answers.

And I don't think physical materialists have all the answers either.

There are questions neither one has the answers to, and it's unfortunate that both sides often lack the free thinkers who can either admit they don't know, or are too reticent to go outside the guardrails defined by their respective dogmas.

 

[Lao Tse]

I like the idea of why humans do "art" or "creativity". I see it more as an outgrowth of our bigger brains but we also find "art" in the animal world. The Bauerbird creates a nest of shiny objects meant to attract a mate. It is not art for art's sake but it is a creativity-driven enterprise.

I don't see a lot of need to explain "art" using anything extra-natural. Art really is another means of bringing ourselves pleasure. We like art because it makes us feel good. People do art because it feels good to them. I think the reason WHY we do art is really more an outgrowth of the extra processing power we have.

But again it's kind of a personal choice. If one feels that art can only be explained by some reference to some abstract concept that isn't limited to the physical that's fine. IT's still possible to appreciate art and even why it exists relying solely on the material as well.

Just depends on how you want to frame it. Do you want to add more to the frame than is absolutely necessary? That's perfectly fine. But it's also possible to appreciate the art in a simpler frame. And it doesn't lose any of the impact.

you think artists aren't trying to get laid?

 

[Daylight63]

That doesn't explain the aesthetic sensibility

I may not know what you mean by "aesthetic sensibility". When I think of art it really feels more "physical". That we like art because it wiggles whatever reward centers are in our brain. This is why there is no objective standard for art.

There was a cool story on NPR several years ago about what makes "great art" and basically it turns out to be largely arbitrary. I just googled it to find it again. It's here: https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right

(Kind of wild, actually!)

inherent in humans by citing materialistic principles of chemistry and physics. If Dawkins is a strict physical materialist, he should have an explanation that conforms to his strict scientific materialism ideology.

For the same reason humans like sugar and masturbation. It feels good.

I don't think religionists have all the answers.

And I don't think physical materialists have all the answers either.

Agreed. But between the two one has fewer things to explain it. ISn't that called "Parsimony" in philosophy? Something like that.

There are questions neither one has the answers to, and it's unfortunate that both sides often lack the free thinkers who can either admit they don't know,

Actually the materialist side is often a hard route to go precisely because the admit they are working from incomplete information. They start the process by admitting it is all just a guess.

I have yet to see a religious explanation that ever admits that their belief could be mistaken. But that's part of religion. Faith is the "evidence of things unseen". Which is kind of a fancy way of saying "What we'd REALLY like it to be and what explanation makes sense to us even without any evidence".

It's not even really the same game the sides are playing.

But I definitely agree that neither side has all the answers. One sides says "I can only use the info I have and this is what makes the most sense". The other side says "I've got some extra info that not everyone agrees is real".

or are too reticent to go outside the guardrails defined by their respective dogmas.

 

[Daylight63]

you think artists aren't trying to get laid?

....AND that.

 

[IBDaMann]

I still can't stop laughing that you were so deeply impressed by the content, syntax, and organization of my posts ...

How did you reach that conclusion from my correction of your error?

 

[IBDaMann]

AFAIK, humans are the only animal that creates art, and has deep sensibilities about aesthetic beauty and pleasure.

I, too, believe that humans are the only creature that creates what humans consider to be art.

I would like to ask Dawkins to explain this human value materialistically using the principles of physics and chemistry

Dawkins is always very clear that human nuerology runs on electrochemical processes that create the illusions to which we assign form, purpose and aesthetics, even in obvious randomness. Humans are able to "see" forms in clouds and ink blots.

 

[Cypress]

I may not know what you mean by "aesthetic sensibility". When I think of art it really feels more "physical". That we like art because it wiggles whatever reward centers are in our brain. This is why there is no objective standard for art.

There was a cool story on NPR several years ago about what makes "great art" and basically it turns out to be largely arbitrary. I just googled it to find it again. It's here: https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right

(Kind of wild, actually!)



For the same reason humans like sugar and masturbation. It feels good.



Agreed. But between the two one has fewer things to explain it. ISn't that called "Parsimony" in philosophy? Something like that.



Actually the materialist side is often a hard route to go precisely because the admit they are working from incomplete information. They start the process by admitting it is all just a guess.

I have yet to see a religious explanation that ever admits that their belief could be mistaken. But that's part of religion. Faith is the "evidence of things unseen". Which is kind of a fancy way of saying "What we'd REALLY like it to be and what explanation makes sense to us even without any evidence".

It's not even really the same game the sides are playing.

But I definitely agree that neither side has all the answers. One sides says "I can only use the info I have and this is what makes the most sense". The other side says "I've got some extra info that not everyone agrees is real".

Anyone who has ever gone to an art museum or listened to music knows that humans have a sensibility tuned to aesthetic pleasure.

There aren't any reputable biologists who say animals clearly create art for symbolic, ritualistic, or aesthetic pleasure.

Human aesthetic sensibility is not explained to my knowledge by Dawkins in his materialistic framework, by the principles of chemistry and physics .

Materialism has to invoke a physical explanation - chemistry and physics.

 

[Lao Tse]

Anyone who has ever gone to an art museum or listened to music knows that humans have a sensibility tuned to aesthetic pleasure.

There aren't any reputable biologists who say animals clearly create art for symbolic, ritualistic, or aesthetic pleasure.

Human aesthetic sensibility is not explained to my knowledge by Dawkins in his materialistic framework, by the principles of chemistry and physics .

Materialism has to invoke a physical explanation - chemistry and physics.

do you think artists are not just trying to get laid?

like the birds with their shiny things?

 

[Cypress]

But I don't think morality begins and ends at utility and reciprocity. Selfless sacrifice for complete strangers or charitable treatment of rivals and enemies is not explained by utility or the laws of biology and natural selection.

So even the famous atheist evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says that humans deliberately cultivate pure, disinterested altruism - something that has no place in nature, and something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world..

 

[Daylight63]

Anyone who has ever gone to an art museum or listened to music knows that humans have a sensibility tuned to aesthetic pleasure.

It's the "pleasure" part. That's the key. It's why there is no universal standard for "good art".

There aren't any reputable biologists who say animals clearly create art for symbolic, ritualistic, or aesthetic pleasure.

The aesthetic pleasure bit is questionable. If it attracts a mate then at least one member of that animal is attracted to the thing constructed. It's hard to see how that isn't the same thing. But I generally agree about the "symbolic" and "ritualistic" stuff. That's 100% human.

Human aesthetic sensibility is not explained to my knowledge by Dawkins in his materialistic framework, by the principles of chemistry and physics .

I just did a quick google search and it sounds like some people are doing exactly that.

"Conducted by University of Toronto researchers, the eight-year long, seven country-spanning meta-study details a vast spectrum of newfound information gleaned from past researach that may prove the age-old adage of art for art’s sake. Some aspects of the original tests included having participants view paintings and make aesthetic analyses, while others asked participants to view the artworks freely, and in any manner they desired. All the while, repeated brain scans proved that art directly tickles our synapses. Regardless if it’s mesmerizing or polarizing art, we react to it. This is good. This might be what makes us human.

"One of the finds includes the ways in which our brain’s “anterior temporal lobe, which is involved in…higher-order conceptual integration of information in relation to objects (e.g. how does a knife function),” is stimulated through the viewing of art. This essentially means that our own logic regarding how particular objects works enters into dialogue with the logic of the object in question. This directly correlates to art’s influence over thinking."

Science Suggests Humans Are Biologically Wired To Like Art

This is your brain on art.

www.vice.com

 

[Daylight63]

So even the famous atheist evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says that humans deliberately cultivate pure, disinterested altruism - something that has no place in nature, and something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world..

pure disinterested altruism? That sounds interesting.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

it's by a combination of evolved social behavior and an innate intelligence that can see how evolved ingroup systems can be used to great benefit in other contexts.

peace is, in fact, more rational than war.

your job is just killing so you have peverted your soul to support your dark master.

you're spiritually dark and you seek to actually devolve humanity with your evil nihilist precepts.

basically, you're a shit human being at this point.

but you are smart enough to reform and choose good,.

there is forgiveness. there is compassion. there is redemption.

but you must choose it.

I love it when the mentally ill rant. It's very revealing. Sad, but revealing.

 

[IBDaMann]

What the ancient prophets and sages seemed to be saying ...

I don't think you quite understand that the musings of an ancient caveman who was considered a "sage" by other ancient cavemen normally does not merit consideration today.

What makes you think there ever were any "prophets"?

 

[IBDaMann]

It's the "pleasure" part. That's the key. It's why there is no universal standard for "good art".

There is an objective and universal standard for "good art" and thus far, only one work adheres to it. It's a painting named "Onement VI" and all terrestrial life finds it wonderfully pleasing. This painting sold for $43.8 million in 2013 at a Sothesby auction.

 

[Lao Tse]

I love it when the mentally ill rant. It's very revealing. Sad, but revealing.

nothing to say, eh dumbass?

yes, you're that stupid.

 

[Lao Tse]

I don't think you quite understand that the musings of an ancient caveman who was considered a "sage" by other ancient cavemen normally does not merit consideration today.

What makes you think there ever were any "prophets"?

masons have to pretend that there are superhumans from the past who are better than all of us now.
this is how they keep their appeal to authority fallacies in place for all time.
this is what masons do.