How do atheists reconcile their beliefs when it comes to the Problem of Other Minds?

[Adi Shankara]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I really don't know.

I see most atheists make claim that if it can't be proven, then it must not be true, esp. when it comes to proving a false negative.

so that leaves the question: what of other, independent minds of your own? what measurable proof is there of this completely mental phenomena that can be conceived physically (graphs, brain measuring, etc.) but can never be experienced nor subjected by someone else?

we can't prove them, but the common knowledge is they exist.

we can't see them, yet we know they're there.

we can have physical evidence of them but we can't actually see them or grasp mental capacity tangibly.

So do atheists just take the solipsist view? or do they take a leap of faith to say that minds independent of their own exist?

The only reason why I bring up atheism in this matter, by the way, is because I picked up a book at the library today by Christian philosopher Alvin Platinga called "Gods and other minds" that raises interesting questions on the matter of basic belief

tl;dr: why do atheists believe other minds independent of their own exist, but not god, despite a lack of solid proof for both, and what makes one more believable than the other? (Platinga's argument assumes that things such as brainscanners and MRIs could be a subjective figment of one's imagination)

[¿Que?]

I don't know any complicated philosophical argument, but to me, you either somewhat "have faith" in your perceptions, or it's all basically a crap shoot.

Some people are going make the argument that certain are more reasonable to believe and some that aren't blah blah.

I'm basically an atheist by faith. I took Kierkegaard's subjective truth and ran with it.

[Adi Shankara]

I'm basically an atheist by faith. I took Kierkegaard's subjective truth and ran with it.

Well at least you don't pretend to know, and I highly respect that. I used to say "I know", but realizing how subjective truth is (even though it's not supposed to be), I just say "I believe" now. (though I slip into old habit from time to time)

[¿Que?]

Well at least you don't pretend to know, and I highly respect that. I used to say "I know", but realizing how subjective truth is (even though it's not supposed to be), I just say "I believe" now. (though I slip into old habit from time to time)
I was going to include this in an edit, but I decided to wait for a response.

Anyway, I want to clarify as to what I mean by being an Atheist by faith. The way I understand it, Descartes says we should believe our senses because God would not lie. But I say, we should believe our senses (somewhat) because we really have no alternative. Or rather, the only alternative is basically anything you can imagine.

And since I have not seen any evidence for God, I choose not to believe.

[Raúl Duke]

such as brainscanners and MRIs could be a subjective figment of one's imaginationUmm...one can clearly see that living things have thought processes. There's chemicals and electrical currents at work inside the cerebellum and these things have been measured.
If one wants to ignore those scanners, fine. But they're measuring something real whereas for god not a single measurable and replicable thing has been measured.

Solipsism is more complex than what you are posing. It not only means that other minds are dependent but would also mean that all I'm perceiving right now is an illusion (a figment of my mind/imagination); as in life is nothing but a dream. The issue is this idea, if one takes a rationalist view, is subject to faults. For example, should I just assume that this world is an illusion/dream and that my body/brain is in another plane or "in a vat?" Solipsism is more hypothetical than the idea that this world is real/material and that there are other independent minds. Using occam's razor, one chooses the least hypothetical scenario. Perhaps it's true and maybe we are living in the Matrix but since there's no proof of that than one should go with the more simple/less hypothetical scenario.

[M-26-7]

why do atheists believe other minds independent of their own exist, but not god, despite a lack of solid proof for both, and what makes one more believable than the other? (Platinga's argument assumes that things such as brainscanners and MRIs could be a subjective figment of one's imagination)

Atheists believe in other minds for the same reason that any religious person believes in other minds: because we interact with them on a daily basis. Not because MRIs have observed electrical activity in brains or for any equally esoteric reason. Simply because we interact with them every day.

I don't believe that minds exist independently of brains, by the way - not even in humans, much less in a disembodied spirit in the sky, who isn't posited to have a brain even by the people who believe in it, and with whom I've never had any interaction whatsoever.

[Adi Shankara]

Umm...one can clearly see that living things have thought processes. There's chemicals and electrical currents at work inside the cerebellum and these things have been measured.
If one wants to ignore those scanners, fine. But they're measuring something real whereas for god not a single measurable and replicable thing has been measured.

Solipsism is more complex than what you are posing. It not only means that other minds are dependent but would also mean that all I'm perceiving right now is an illusion (a figment of my mind/imagination); as in life is nothing but a dream. The issue is this idea, if one takes a rationalist view, is subject to faults. For example, should I just assume that this world is an illusion/dream and that my body/brain is in another plane or "in a vat?" Solipsism is more hypothetical than the idea that this world is real/material and that there are other independent minds. Using occam's razor, one chooses the least hypothetical scenario. Perhaps it's true and maybe we are living in the Matrix but since there's no proof of that than one should go with the more simple/less hypothetical scenario.

that's the kind've answer I was looking for. I just wanted to get an atheists perspective on it. thank you.

[Adi Shankara]

Not because MRIs have observed electrical activity in brains or for any equally esoteric reason. Simply because we interact with them every day.

but then again, I guess that takes us down the even more esoteric path of "is our brain generating these thoughts of interaction and experience with "others"?" also, Alvin Plantinga argue that the exact same argument you just used can be used by believers to justify their belief in god; for some people, god is as real as those of other, independent minds. a stretch in my own opinion, but an interesting thought on it.

EDIT: if you want to read the book (or at least get a summary) you can buy it here, or I'm sure you can download it for free somewhere. but it's an interesting argument, and while I'm not agreeing with him entirely, he says atheism relies on as much faith in the non-existence of gods as the faith in the existence of minds. (don't shoot the messenger, just want to see the response to that )

[Stephen Colbert]

God creates the heavens and the earth and puts all people on Earth. Why? Fun?

Have you seen the shitter most of the world is in?

"It's part of god's plan; Repent"

Horseshit.

I don't claim to know. Most people are atheists for 99% of all the God's that have ever existed. It only takes one more god to be atheistic about.

[x371322]

he says atheism relies on as much faith in the non-existence of gods as the faith in the existence of minds.

That is such cowshit. ;)

To be clear, as an atheist, I don't claim "I believe there is no God." Instead I say, "I don't believe there is a God."

There's a difference between those two statements. One implies a belief. The other implies a lack of belief. Hence, no faith required. I mean, does it take faith not to believe in zeus? What about Poseidon? And of course I don't even have to mention the almighty flying spaghetti monster?

These arguments that try to pass off atheism as just another religion are bogus. To say atheism is a religion is like trying to say that having the flu and not having the flu are the same things.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't see why "other minds" would be a problem for an atheist. We can clearly see, on a daily basis, that other minds are out there merely by interacting with other people.If one doubts that other minds exist then what can one assume is true about the world of sense perception in general? I'm a bit shaky on this but I believe Kant was working along these lines.

We have no evidence that God or the gods exist, at least no evidence that can be scientifically verified. Religious or spiritual people can say that this does not necessarily refute a believe in God or a sense of the divine. It could be a "different way of knowing". This can get tricky because it can rapidly turn into post-modernism or obscurantism.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't see why "other minds" would be a problem for an atheist. We can clearly see, on a daily basis, that other minds are out there merely by interacting with other people.If one doubts that other minds exist then what can one assume is true about the world of sense perception in general? I'm a bit shaky on this but I believe Kant was working along these lines.

We have no evidence that God or the gods exist, at least no evidence that can be scientifically verified. Religious or spiritual people can say that this does not necessarily refute a believe in God or a sense of the divine. It could be a "different way of knowing". This can get tricky because it can rapidly turn into post-modernism or obscurantism.

well he was talking about how someone with psychosis would perceive the world entirely different from someone who doens't have it, so if everything we have in our world view is based on our perceptions, who is to say the psychotic is wrong? what makes his experience invalid if that's the way he interprets the universe? If he can never know anyone else's perception, from a philosophical stand point, is he crazy, or is everyone else crazy?

obviously his question is rhetorical, but it has a point on perception, where we can only know that which interacts within our own world view. for example, I hear colors and see noises at certain times, as I was diagnosed with partial synesthesia as a child. no one would believe me, but it's true so far as anecdotal evidence goes, that such a condition exists. however some people may say I'm making it up because there is no evidence. but how can I say my world view is wrong if that's all I know?

[Demogorgon]

Well I could be a brain in a vat hooked up to a sensory experience machine, but the prospect of everything I experience being simulated just to fool me seems pretty remote. I can't state with absolute certainty that is is impossible, but at the same time in the absence of any proof of it, it seems silly to entertain it for long. At the end of the day choosing between the world being real and it all being a vast illusion should lead to the former conclusion if one applies Occam's Razor.

And if the world is indeed real then it follows that I am not utterly unique from other people. They can think too.

[mikelepore]

I see most atheists make claim that if it can't be proven, then it must not be true, esp. when it comes to proving a false negative.

so that leaves the question: what of other, independent minds of your own? what measurable proof is there of this completely mental phenomena that can be conceived physically (graphs, brain measuring, etc.) but can never be experienced nor subjected by someone else?

Review the difference between proof and evidence. If something is proven, no doubt can remain. The only people who can deny a proof are those who are unaware of the proof or who do not understand it. But evidence is whatever points to a conclusion, makes the conclusion *evident*: footprints in the snow make a recent presence of a visitor evident; bite marks make the recent presence of teeth evident. Evidence has to be interpreted.

There is no proof of the existence of other minds, but there is a lot of evidence for it. Sensory perceptions, including communications, provide the evidence.

There isn't the slightest trace of evidence for the existence of a god. It's not a case of having sensory experiences of a god, seeing it with our fallable eyes, and then having a need to interpret those perceptions either rightly or wrongly. It's a case of there being no such experiences at all.

[Adi Shankara]

There isn't the slightest trace of evidence for the existence of a god. It's not a case of having sensory experiences of a god, seeing it with our fallable eyes, and then having a need to interpret those perceptions either rightly or wrongly. It's a case of there being no such experiences at all.

so what about those like Max Planck and co. who saw the very act of existence as a testament to a higher power? or Adi Shankara, who said "why be born at all"? (think about it: we come from nothing, live for a while, and then go back to nothing? where is the logic in that? where is the scientific cause?)

because not only are the probable odds insurmountably high, there might be proof that people inherently believe in religion through biology, and none of this explains why I am "me" and you are "you", of which if there was to be a scientific law on it, it'd have to be fairly consistent and measurable.

people see evidence for a higher power in different ways. I see it through the unexplainable, subjective realities that can't be explained from neither a materialist nor objective point of view, and the intrinsic act of creation (whether an improbable higher power or just a bunch of improbable random happenings). I'm thinking about minoring in mathematics just so I can combine philosophy and mathematics and try to reach some conclusions, although god is illogical, just like so much of our universe is illogical and doesn't even seem to make any sense. (things like Schrodinger's cat, the problem of other minds, etc.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To answer the OP: As far as I can tell, I am a relatively typical human being. I have no reason to believe I am the only living thing on this planet that has a mind, or at least the very convincing illusion of same.


so what about those like Max Planck and co. who saw the very act of existence as a testament to a higher power?

That's just a bald assertion.


or Adi Shankara, who said "why be born at all"? (think about it: we come from nothing, live for a while, and then go back to nothing? where is the logic in that? where is the scientific cause?)

Consider the alternative. If I had not been born, someone else would have been. If the human species did not exist, perhaps some other sapient life form would. If sapient life had never existed, for whatever reason, there would be nobody around to point out the fact.


because not only are the probable odds insurmountably high, there might be proof that people inherently believe in religion through biology, and none of this explains why I am "me" and you are "you", of which if there was to be a scientific law on it, it'd have to be fairly consistent and measurable.

If religion has a biological basis then the existence of God becomes less rather than more likely.


people see evidence for a higher power in different ways. I see it through the unexplainable, subjective realities that can't be explained from neither a materialist nor objective point of view,

How is that evidence for a higher power? What you describe tells me that our knowledge of human cognition is pretty primitive.


and the intrinsic act of creation (whether an improbable higher power or just a bunch of improbable random happenings).

The evidence strongly suggests that our universe is the result of blind natural forces.


I'm thinking about minoring in mathematics just so I can combine philosophy and mathematics and try to reach some conclusions, although god is illogical, just like so much of our universe is illogical and doesn't even seem to make any sense. (things like Schrodinger's cat, the problem of other minds, etc.)

Schrodinger's cat was an attempt to illiustrate the problems with the Copnhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, an interpretation that is not accepted by all physicists. I think any attempt to be philosophical about it is to miss the point of the thought experiment entirely.

As for other minds, I don't see how that is a problem at all. I am a human, and I have a mind (or at least I think I do!). I observe other humans behaving as if they had minds, and assume that I am not particularly special and that therefore having a mind is typical for human beings.

Furthermore, to fill gaps in our knowledge with supernaturalism is very poor strategy. Rest assured that as our knowledge of the universe and human minds increases, God will have fewer and fewer places to hide...

[mikelepore]

so what about those like Max Planck and co. who saw the very act of existence as a testament to a higher power? or Adi Shankara, who said "why be born at all"? (think about it: we come from nothing, live for a while, and then go back to nothing? where is the logic in that? where is the scientific cause?)

because not only are the probable odds insurmountably high, there might be proof that people inherently believe in religion through biology, and none of this explains why I am "me" and you are "you", of which if there was to be a scientific law on it, it'd have to be fairly consistent and measurable.

people see evidence for a higher power in different ways. I see it through the unexplainable, subjective realities that can't be explained from neither a materialist nor objective point of view, and the intrinsic act of creation (whether an improbable higher power or just a bunch of improbable random happenings). I'm thinking about minoring in mathematics just so I can combine philosophy and mathematics and try to reach some conclusions, although god is illogical, just like so much of our universe is illogical and doesn't even seem to make any sense. (things like Schrodinger's cat, the problem of other minds, etc.)

What you're talking about used to puzzle me also, until I realized that it's only a trick of rhetoric that people use in debates.

When religious people are talking to nonbelievers, they drop all of the details of their own religions and reduce it to a single feature, the mystery of creation and cosmic order.

But that's not how the population uses the name "God" on a daily basis. All of the rest of the time, except for that five minutes of debating with an atheist and trying to identify a wedge issue, the entire population of religion people use the name God to refer to a collection of highly specific features. The details represented by the name "God" typically involve an invisible being who has human personality and emotions, including our very worst emotions, observes what people are doing, hears prayers, performs miracles to help both individuals and nations, dictates moral rules and also a number of silly and arbitrary pseudo-moral rules, and presides over ghosts in an afterlife.

Religious people swing back and forth on this pendulum. On every typical day they insist on a mass of details -- right up until the moment that a skeptic poses a "why do you believe" challenge. Then the believers invariably say: Didn't you know that the name God merely refers to the mysterious power that created the universe?

This is a bad habit as well as a logical fallacy -- the tendency to give the primary vocabulary word in a debate a meaning that is as specific as possible, but a moment later give the same word a meaning that is as non-specific as possible -- and to make this switch at will, just to appear to have won points in the debate. I am not fooled by it anymore.

[Dirigible]

I do have a good reason to believe that other minds, just like my own, exist in other humans. I am a human, and I have a mind. There is no reason to believe that other humans don't have minds. I can't prove that they do, but I am more certain that they do than that they don't.

I have no reason whatever, other than unpleasant, murky semantic arguments which I reject anyway, to believe that gods exist. Thus, I don't give the idea of gods any credence.

[Adi Shankara]

I do have a good reason to believe that other minds, just like my own, exist in other humans. I am a human, and I have a mind. There is no reason to believe that other humans don't have minds. I can't prove that they do, but I am more certain that they do than that they don't.

that's not empirical evidence though. that's just assuming because you have something resembling mind, that every other thing in your subjective view does. if you have depression, are you going to assume everyone else does as well?

Trust me, this question has been debated for the last thousand or so years, I doubt it'll be answered on revleft.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

that's not empirical evidence though. that's just assuming because you have something resembling mind, that every other thing in your subjective view does.

Not "every other thing", just the humans I observe. Both myself and other humans express outward manifestations of mind, such as emotions and the ability to communicate original concepts.

If the "default state" of human beings is not to actually have a mind but only to give the strong impression that they do, why am I the apparent exception?


if you have depression, are you going to assume everyone else does as well?

Bad example. Depression is but one of many states of mind that humans manifest.


Trust me, this question has been debated for the last thousand or so years, I doubt it'll be answered on revleft.

I think it's a meaningless question, in that while it adheres to the rules of English grammar and syntax, semantically it is completely empty. You can't answer questions like that.

[Adi Shankara]

I think it's a meaningless question, in that while it adheres to the rules of English grammar and syntax, semantically it is completely empty. You can't answer questions like that.

I really don't think you get it, and I'm not trying to be rude; I just really don't think you do, and maybe I'm not explaining it very well, but it's not an English question; It's asking, what selects us to be who we are? why was I born in this body (I'm not a dualist, but that's just to help understand)

Why were you born where you were, and me born where I was?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I really don't think you get it, and I'm not trying to be rude; I just really don't think you do, and maybe I'm not explaining it very well, but it's not an English question; It's asking, what selects us to be who we are? why was I born in this body (I'm not a dualist, but that's just to help understand)

Why were you born where you were, and me born where I was?

Because your parents had to have you born somewhere.

"what selects us to be who we are?" - that question assumes that there is some selection process other than evolution occurring, but why should we assume that? Why is sheer dumb luck so unsatisfying an explanation, when it handily explains why someone wins the lottery every day?

[Adi Shankara]

Because your parents had to have you born somewhere.

"what selects us to be who we are?" - that question assumes that there is some selection process other than evolution occurring, but why should we assume that? Why is sheer dumb luck so unsatisfying an explanation, when it handily explains why someone wins the lottery every day?

because the universe doesn't rely on luck, nor is there any emperical evidence to assume it's luck; to paraphrase Max Planck, Stephen .D Unwin, and many others, putting faith into extreme probability (luck) is no different than putting faith into an equally improbable god.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

because the universe doesn't rely on luck, nor is there any emperical evidence to assume it's luck;

Really? So there's a physically plausible way for me to win at Roulette every time?

Tell me your secret.


to paraphrase Max Planck, Stephen .D Unwin, and many others, putting faith into extreme probability (luck) is no different than putting faith into an equally improbable god.

It's not a matter of faith; I know that if I roll a dice enough times, I can roll 124 sixes in a row. Were I to roll more dice, my chances of getting more sixes increases.

Luck alone doesn't account for universal processes. Luck and large amounts of time and space do.

[Adi Shankara]

Really? So there's a physically plausible way for me to win at Roulette every time?

Tell me your secret.



It's not a matter of faith; I know that if I roll a dice enough times, I can roll 124 sixes in a row. Were I to roll more dice, my chances of getting more sixes increases.

Luck alone doesn't account for universal processes. Luck and large amounts of time and space do.

but that luck has to strike out within the anthropic principle, which is 14 billion years roughly. so it's not just "alot of time" it's a matter of a limited time. and the odds were beaten. you put faith into an improbable odd. I put faith into an improbable higher power. maybe we're both delusional.

[eyedrop]

but that luck has to strike out within the anthropic principle, which is 14 billion years roughly. so it's not just "alot of time" it's a matter of a limited time. and the odds were beaten. you put faith into an improbable odd. I put faith into an improbable higher power. maybe we're both delusional.
If you are thinking of the probability of intelligent life to appear in that timespan humanity doesn't have a clue of the probability and anyone who claims to know is a crook, or out of his field as scientists often are.

Or even if the probability is really low, how do we know there doesn't stand a billion, billion "failed" universes to everyone that succeeded in creating intelligent life.

[Adi Shankara]

Or even if the probability is really low, how do we know there doesn't stand a billion, billion "failed" universes to everyone that succeeded in creating intelligent life.

We really don't, but that's beginning to beg the question a little bit, seeing as we have no indisputable proof for god, billions of "failed" multiverses, or other intelligent life from our own, or even the big bang (it's still not universally accepted, even if those scientists are in the minority now)

[danyboy27]

We really don't, but that's beginning to beg the question a little bit, seeing as we have no indisputable proof for god, billions of "failed" multiverses, or other intelligent life from our own, or even the big bang (it's still not universally accepted, even if those scientists are in the minority now)

well, theories like the big bang, multiverse, even if they still theories are based on scientific data, the existance of god isnt.

i mean, its possible that our universe or our planet was engineered by aliens, powerful being made of energy(aliens too). even tho its not based on any real scientific data, it would be more logic than anything else you could find in the bible the koran or any other bronze age comic books.

and if those being are aliens, why would you worship them?
http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/apophis.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We really don't, but that's beginning to beg the question a little bit, seeing as we have no indisputable proof for god, billions of "failed" multiverses, or

Which is why neither are currently considered as materialist explanations for our universe.


other intelligent life from our own,

Haven't you ever considered the possibility that while life is common in the universe, intelligence is extremely rare? The building blocks of life are surprisingly common in space, yet in terms of intelligence there is a deafening silence.


or even the big bang (it's still not universally accepted, even if those scientists are in the minority now)

The indisputable evidence that the universe is expanding, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) means that alternative theories have a lot of things to explain.

[Adi Shankara]

The indisputable evidence that the universe is expanding, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) means that alternative theories have a lot of things to explain.

But it's still not fact or law, which thus implies a degree (albeit small) of faith into something that could be (albeit small) wrong.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But it's still not fact or law, which thus implies a degree (albeit small) of faith into something that could be (albeit small) wrong.

Every good scientist admits to the possibility that they may be wrong. But working with what one knows to a reasonable degree of certainty, and changing one's mind based on evidence, is the very opposite of faith.

[x371322]

Every good scientist admits to the possibility that they may be wrong. But working with what one knows to a reasonable degree of certainty, and changing one's mind based on evidence, is the very opposite of faith.

Yes exactly. Faith is often defined as a belief without evidence. Considering we have nearly undeniable, extensive evidence of this, then there's really no faith involved here. And as you said, the willingness of scientists to change their minds, pretty much puts the nail in the faith coffin. I've never seen a deeply religious person easily drop a particular belief because of new evidence. Instead they stubbornly hold on to what is obviously wrong. That is what faith does to a person. Science is not about faith. But about following the evidence to the most likely conclusion.

[deLarge]

External minds are epistemological posits, like physical objects, that are only true insofar as they are useful. Disbelieving in god is one thing -- nothing really changes except some rituals. But good luck disbelieving in people; I mean, what would you do? Not talk to people you meet? Act like an an asshole to every-non-body? Even if they were figments of your imagination, there is really nothing to gain by denying they exist, except possibly make it more confusing, so I question the logic in throwing out the baby with the bathwater (which is what you get with Descartes-level skepticism). To quote Quine from Two Dogmas of Empiricism:



As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html#18b) comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.

[Philzer]

Hi Thomas!


why do atheists believe other minds independent of their own exist, but not god, despite a lack of solid proof for both, and what makes one more believable than the other? (Platinga's argument assumes that things such as brainscanners and MRIs could be a subjective figment of one's imagination)


I think your bug is not to differentiate between threedimensional cognition & behavior, this means all willing-based-opinions & actions, like all religions - including the pantheism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3) of bourgeois, and the attempt to recognize the objectiv reality in scientific way. Note: the falsity is always present in the way of truth, but we have to outlaw the "freedom of opinion" because they are nothing else than a takingover of rules from the unconscious life, the justify of all willing-based actions of the individuals.

reasons for to be religious (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125)

scientific pluralism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1845727&postcount=9)

Kind regards

http://s3.directupload.net/images/100821/7zwf7wa5.gif (http://www.directupload.net)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

^ That makes absolutely no sense at all. ^

[synthesis]

That image makes me think of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).

Carry on.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


..... Science is not about faith. ....

I think you underestimated completely the psychological function of religion as a strategy of a consciousness step.

religion&opportunism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125)

I think Religion is a step of consciousness between animals and human, which merged the human creativity with the strategies of the unconscious life, like carelesness (permanent overcrowding & overexplotation of biotop which ever leads to starvation and war ) and also the principles of the strongest.

I.E.: All opportunistic societies, like also the capitalistic democracy, are nothing else than "evolutionary stabil strategies", so the group form assumed from the unaware life, complements with a discipline blind enforced by the productive forces.

(Marx: the relations of production constitute a historically specific mode of production.)


Kind regards