The word of the day is “epiphenomenalism”.
Benjamin Libet did an experiment which suggests that thoughts happen inside our brains BEFORE we are even aware of them:
Wikipedia bio
More on Libet’s experiment.
You don’t believe a country like the USA could be involved in state-sponsored terrorism? The United Nations would disagree. Listen while I tell you about Nicaragua v The USA.
Feb 12 is the birthday of Charles Darwin, one of the greatest minds in human history. Did you know he studied theology?
Now… back onto the subject of faith versus reason. Let me state my premise as clearly as I can, one more time:
To believe something exists (let’s say unicorns) without any evidence to support the theory, is not rational.
To not believe something exists (or to hold no opinion on the matter either way) because there is a complete lack of evidence to support the theory, is completely rational and is not a matter of “faith”. Is it a matter of reason. They are complete opposites.
It’s quite simple.
Oh and one more thing. Science is the on-going pursuit of truth through the search for evidence. It is the only rational model for seeking truth. Every other model dispenses with evidence, reason and logic and are, ipso facto, irrational.
And I vote for logic, reason and evidence. And I also suggest that people who are irrational are a danger to us all. You wouldn’t let an irrational person become President of the United States, would you? Oh… bad example.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed.
- If you use iTunes, click here.
- If you use another aggregator, grab our RSS feed here.
- If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read this description in Wikipedia.
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
Psychophysics is a subdiscipline of psychology dealing with the relationship between physical stimuli and their subjective correlates, or percepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical
By the way Cam do you realize that Libet does not come to the conclusion that you do?
Libet himself does not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will—he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds.
Libet, (2003). “Can Conscious Experience affect brain Activity?”, Journal of Consciousness Studies 10, nr. 12, pp 24 – 28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
So Libet states that free will exists, well that’s how I read what he is saying.
Brain… not… rational… mind… overload…
You atheists are even worse than the Christians.
Hey Cam, perhaps you need to do a pamphlet run. Get your message out there. I’d just love to see you bump into the Mormans.
Dave, isn’t the right to veto the action a decision which would act on the same basis as the decision to push a button? I think that the reason Libet ends up at this “free-won’t” thing is the philosophical arguments attatched to the experiment.
from http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm
“This window lasts, on Libet’s account, no more than about 100 milliseconds. Experimental proof is difficult. Libet has conducted experiments in which the subjects were asked to form an intention to move and then veto it at the last moment: apparently an RP appeared and then dissipated, but the weirdness of the mental gymnastics required of the subject seem to leave an element of doubt about the process. Is it possible to decide to move at a random moment while simultaneously holding on to the belief that you will not, in fact, execute the movement?”
I think the whole phycho-sciences is somewhat of a hit and miss affair period.
From my 17 odd years working in medicine, treating mental illness, the study of the mind, and testing it it not an exact science and to rely on any research as being 100% right is presumption at the least. You will find a study like the one Cam is using and there will be one that states the direct opposite.
The brain and mind are too complex and varied and influenced by too many things for anything regarding it’s study to be an exact science.
I found that the actual experiment was flawed by some degree by the fact that you want it to be random as opposed to suggested but randomness and decision by the same individual cancel out each other or one influences the other and therefore the outcome of the experiment.
Interesting also that a scientist changed his opinion of the results based on the philosophical argument that surrounds it. A demonstration that as far as the mind and it’s workings go – not an exact science.
Simon, my wife actually grew up a mormon and her family are all still in the church. As you can imagine, i am satan as far as they are concerned.
So Cam, in Conclusion, you are from now on going to Stop having a go at Bush and the US as they have no Free Will and are in fact just acting out their Biological instructions? Therefor, can you really blame them for doing what they are doing as they have no choice but to do it. It would be unfair for you to blame them and I would have more of a go at you about it except that my biological instructions are telling me that your biological instructions are forcing you to have ago at Bush and the US!
Molly
Hey Molly,
If Camron is right about this then maybe he is just wasting his time and energy trying to ‘cure’ christians. After all if there is no free will and we are all simply running our own biological programs, how will a 1/2 with Cameron change the course of someones life?……
You Know John, I was just coming back to mention that as well. Having said that, you had to make that comment as you have no free will, I had to point out that you had to say it and Cam will probably have to call us both idiots.
Damm Biological programming.
Also, Is the proof, evidence and understanding of “No free will” any more then that of God that many, many people claim that they have contacted god and the best selling book of all time was written about?
And lastly, if we are biologically programed, who programmed us? God? A God? Multiple Gods? The creator? Aliens?
Molly
Molly,
Well all I hope is that some of the potential backers for the podcast network have not been listening to these podcasts, especially if they are right wing Christians.
If they are then Poor Camerons biological programming may have just resulted in him shooting himself in the foot !!
But dont worry Cam, if i see you out there busking I will put $10 in your hat if you give me a rendition of ‘the right wing christian blues’……..
If you cant play the harmonica Cam, now might be a good time to start learning !!!
John M
It’s very simple guys.
Yes, we are all living out our biological programming. Bush’s make him an international criminal. Mine makes me criticize him and try to get people thinking about what’s going on. Christian’s make them accept fairytale delusions over reality.
But biological programming doesn’t mean we can’t or don’t change our behaviour as a result of external inputs. Regardless of what your genetic pre-disposition and your prior lifetime conditioning, the brain can and does learn. It adapts. It grows new neurons, re-configures existing ones.
And all of this happens without free will. In the same way as your skin cells grow without it. The same way your hair grows, your blood flows, all without you being “in control”.
Brain cells grow as well. And thoughts happen in the brain.
Molly, your question “who programmed us”, is primitive and you know it (and I know you’re just trying to piss me off). But for the sake of people who genuinely think that way, I’ll answer it.
There is no evidence of a “who”. Only a “what”. And the “what” is evolution, natural selection, the amazing process by which subtle changes occur over successive generations, and, over hundreds of millions of years, produce amazingly complex behaviour.
John, that’s probably a possibility but the way I figure it, if investors aren’t really interested in building a media company that is about open conversation, then they aren’t the right investor anyway. Better to know that up front.
Cam:
I have been trying to figure out how to respond to your recent spurt of evangelism for your interpretation of “logic”.
Like many evangelicals, you seem terribly offended that there are people that have come to a different conclusion than you. You are quite critical and imply that we have never even read a book. That is quite far from the truth in my case.
In my profession, reason and logic are well respected and necessary. However, we also have to carefully interpret evidence and understand that there are things that are real for which humans have not yet been able to find direct evidence. For example, no one has ever seen a neutrino, a quark, or even an electron, but we recognize that they have to exist in order to explain what we are able to observe.
For me, the fossil evidence of variations in species over the millennia is real, but the explanation put forth by many biologists does not account for all possible interpretations. They attribute the variations to random chance, but it has been my experience that complex, organized systems do not occur without creative choices. Beauty is sometimes a result of randomness, but functioning systems seem to me to be evidence of creation.
I will agree that an adamant declaration that the world came to be in a single creative week 6000 years ago is ridiculous, but I also maintain that attributing the vast expanse of earthly creatures to pure random natural selection is also unsupportable in view of physical laws, especially the second law of thermodynamics.
If I were to dig in a modern landfill, I could find evidence of “evolutionary” mechanical and electrical systems, but I would never attribute them to some kind of natural selection – I would attribute them to a series of unknown, but very real creators called engineers, artists or designers.
I have my doubts and concerns about people that I would label as evangelical or fundamentalist Christians, but it seems to me that the real teachings of Christ are not threatening. He was a teacher who lived the way that he wanted others to live; he loved his fellow humans, he refused to adhere to the prejudices and small minded behaviors of the establishment of his time.
If he was divine (and I tend to believe that he was) his sacrifice was as clear a demonstration as possible that God gave all people the right to make their own choices, even if they are bad ones. By giving all people free choice, that ensures that some very bad things happen in the world – including invasions of other countries, wars to impose beliefs on resistant populations, and killing the son of God.
However, free choice also ensures that people can do amazing things – including inventing new communication networks, solving world hunger, curing infectious diseases or new sources of emission free energy using the resources that have been developed by others.
I do not really want to get into a large argument, what I want is to provide you with a different line of thinking. I will close by providing one more observation from my 25+ professional career. In a gathering of natural scientists, there is almost never a blessing or an invocation. In a similar gathering of engineers, there almost always is a blessing and a recognition of the creator.
Cam:
If you are interested in some reasonably well argued expansion on my comment, you might want to visit http://www.panspermia.org/index.htm .
Warning – your belief system might be tested!
So, you are allowed to use all these “amazing” things, that we don’t fully understand but there is a little bit of evidence that some sort of thing is happening, but christians have to 100% prove god/Jesus? Now that is double standards, Mr Pot (or is Mr Kettle).
How come anything you don’t want to explain is “Primitive”. And if we have no Free will. We are biological beings that just want to continue our genes, why aren’t I just out there banging any women I find? And if you say I would get arrested, why would our culture evolved to a point that it is wrong to advance the Gene pool?
Molly
Rod, a lengthy debate is required! On the show! Are you up for it?
I’m not “offended” that people come to a different conclusion than I. I am appalled that we live in the 21st century, surrounded by evidence of natural order, and yet intelligent, educated people still feel required to believe in mythological, supernatural entities, in the complete absence of evidence to support their theories. I think it is an affront to the human mind and is a danger, not just to the future of our species, but to all life on Earth.
How do you claim to know “the real teachings of Christ”? Did he write anything down? Did he even exist?
And, if he did, are you sure he was worth following? For example, according to Matthew 15:4, Jesus states:
“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
So you’d be prepared to follow Jesus’ teachings and murder your child if they should “curseth” you? I don’t know many teenagers would survive beyond their 16th birthday if we all followed *that* teaching. What happened to the “Golden Rule”? Was Jesus just having a bad day?
Then there is Luke 19:27 where the Jesus says:
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
Now what were you saying about “the real teachings of Christ are not threatening”?
Again, my basic premise is that it’s all about the genuine search for truth. We are either interested in determining the truth or we are prepared to hide behind a construct of falsehoods which make us feel better about our lives and our place in the Universe. I think the latter position is inherently dangerous and self-defeating. The only way we can grow as a species is to continue the search for truth.
So my question to each of you is – are you truly interested in the search for truth?
If so, we each need to be prepared (and that of course includes me) to let go of our beliefs and constructs and embrace the evidence. And, as new evidence comes in, we need to be prepared to adapt to it.
Cam you Matthew 15:4 line is complete an utter crap and you know it. Its like me saying that in episode 180 you said god existed! I am sure if I take 10 words of yours completely out of context, I can find 10 that says you said god existed.
Now lets take Matthew 15 in its entirety and see a completely different story (from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015;&version=31;):
See a different story now.
Molly
Rod, haven’t had a chance to read that website you sent in detail yet, but had a quick glance and immediately found this paragraph on natural selection which pretty much destroys the entire credibility of the site and the author:
“According to this paradigm, evolution is driven by chance… It is analogous to saying that a great work of literature such as Moby Dick could emerge from lesser preexisting books, if there were enough typos and swapping of paragraphs along the way.”
This kind of pithy statement indicates that the author understands little about the theory of evolution and form part of the “disinformation” program carried out by Christians which make me so angry. Anyone who has ever read a single decent book on evolution could *never* come away with such an impression. Evolution is significantly more complex and awe-inspiring than this author suggests by dismissing it as “chance”.
Chance actually plays a very small role in evolution. The genetic mutations caused by chance are then exposed to the forces of natural selection which choose the most positive mutations and continue them in the next generation. Harmful mutations usually disappear in successive generations so they don’t interfere with the beneficial mutations. It’s a marvelous process which should be understood and appreciated by everyone, especially 150 years after Darwin first suggested it. I could understand people in the 19th century not fully appreciating its magnificence but COME ON! It’s 2007!
You say that “complex, organized systems do not occur without creative choices” – well that’s what natural selection is. A wonderful, naturally occurring, creative choice.
As for one of your other arguments, the second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” or “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.”
But don’t forget the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.
None of this requires a mythical, supernatural force. It’s all natural processes of chemical and nuclear forces. Every year we understand more about it.
Molly, quoting the whole chapter doesn’t change it at all! The fact is that Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for not obeying the Old Testament! He is quoting Yahweh from the OT as an example. So you have your “lord” telling people to follow the OT which clearly says you should murder your children if they don’t honour you.
So this whole notion that Jesus was all about loving one another is just false propaganda.
Thats not what Jesus is saying at all! If you actually read it, he says that the “Pharisees and teachers of the law” are having a go at his guys for not cleaning before eating because its against god, yet there are other “laws of God” that they blatenly flaunt in the name of god. Infact he calls them hypocrites!
If you ask me, it is a perfect piece to point out as it fits the whole Bush situation where he (and/or others) says some things are done because of him being a Christian yet other fly straight in its face.
Yes the Old testerment is a bit rough and ready and I guess thats why it isn’t really consider as important as the life of Jesus (i.e. the new testerment).
Molly
PS. Seeings you use Podpress, how about enabling audio comments?
PS. PS. and download counts as well?
Molly, are you suggesting that Jesus *didn’t* believe in the OT?
Re Podpress – just installed it last night, getting my head around it still.
3. Now when the tempter came to Him, he said “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread”
4. But He answered and said “It is written ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”
5. Then the devil said “Yeah, but it was a bit rough and ready… I mean not every word of the Old Testament should be taken as gospel”
Anyway, by the logic that the New Testament is more important than the Old one, doesn’t that mean that the book of Mormon should take precedence over the New one?
Cam, JC had a direct line to the big man up stairs (in fact, he is the same person, isn’t he?), he didn’t need to read the OT or follow the word of God, he was a new age dude that did what he wanted and set new rules.
Molly
Cam:
The interpretation of the second law that I was referring to is the concept that no closed system can organize itself. The examples that you provide of “order” pale in comparison to a single celled creature that can feed, grow, and identically reproduce itself. None of them are even on the same scale of organization as a complex creature with a circulatory system, a respiratory system, and an immune system that is capable of organized movement and self healing.
If you accept that what you call natural selection is “A wonderful, naturally occurring, creative choice,” then we are not that far apart in our understanding of the world.
In my humble attempts to comprehend the world, I simply replace your word “natural” with my word “God”. I do not have a full understanding of either one, but believe that the force(s) that have created the world still exist and still make innumerable choices every single day. I have read a number of works about evolution, I have taken college biology courses, I have read lengthy portions of Darwin’s original work and I even married a biologist. I am awed by the beauty of the design that allows reproduction and systematic variation.
I believe that mankind and its incredible, collective and individual creativity is one of the most wonderful design choices (actually a very long series of design choices) ever made.
Something that you should think about – one of the first observations that led Darwin to his published work was the fact that human breeders had managed to come up with some incredible variations on certain species of birds. There was certainly a role for selection in that process, but it was also not random or “natural”.
Like Molly, I think that you are tending to pull quotes out of context from the stories and parables. I have never ever developed a fondness for Bible quotation, mainly because I cannot speak or read the original languages. Focusing on single phrases seems really risky because of the ability of individual translators to change single words that alter the whole meaning of the phrase. Even if I could read the original text, I am well aware of the fact that the stories were not written down for a few hundred years after Jesus died. I have played the “telephone” game enough to know how quickly verbal history stories can be distorted.
In context, however, the story of Jesus is the teaching that people should care deeply for all people, they should make friends, they should be willing to wash other people’s feet, and they should recognize that events that seem miraculous are well within the realm of possibility if they work really hard at making it so. Faith – maybe, but it is not illogical based on countless examples in the real world.
Jesus was a man endowed with divinity who was able to feed a crowd simply by asking if anyone had anything to share, was able to accept the idea that people had free will, even to the point of allowing them to execute him when he obviously had the power to stop that event, and who could resist all temptations. In your immortal words, he had the ultimate ability to tell even very powerful forces like devil to “go f— yourself.”
Rod, I think we agree on a lot of things. And I’ve never suggested that we shouldn’t read the bible (both the OT and the NT) as an enduring and important work of literature and take from it what lessons we can.
But as you say, none of it was written by Jesus, let alone anyone who actually KNEW him, and in fact many secular scholars doubt he even existed.
So… getting back to my point about the search for knowledge. With your education, training and experience you must surely appreciate the value of skepticism, inquiry and evidence-based reasoning in determining the truth.
How, then, can you jump to statements like “Jesus was a man endowed with divinity”?? I fail to understand how someone with such an appreciation for the methodical search for knowledge can also accept ancient mythologies based on no evidence whatsoever.
BTW, Rod, I’m surprised you haven’t started the “conspiracy theory” call about my Nicaragua vs the USA story.
Rod, just re-reading your comment above about closed systems. Remember – a living cell is *not* a closed system. It gets energy from the sun.
And now for a breather from the god myth and some light entertainment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI
This is a pretty funny series.
Cam:
Unfocused energy is not a source for organization. If I put a bunch of matter into a container, it will never organize itself into something functional. That statement does not change if I simply add energy by shining a light or by turning on a burner.
On the other hand, with a little creative arranging and a proper application of energy, a human being can turn a pile of ingredients into something with beauty, function, taste, or a whole host of other useful characteristics.
As a man who has done a lot of reading and thinking, I thought you might recognize that my understanding of Jesus is more of a parable or an allegory than as a history lesson. It is difficult to state in a straightforward manner, but I believe that what the concept is trying to teach is that we are all a bit divine and that by living a life like that described of Jesus that we can all “sit on the right hand of God”.
I fully believe in rational thought, but I recognize that there is still much that is not yet explainable. I am humble enough to admit that I do not have all of the evidence to completely understand the world and never will. Therefore, some facets of the world’s behavior seem awfully spiritual to me.
Rod, if you put the “right” bunch of matter into a big enough container, add a bunch of sunlight and leave it… ohhh 4.5 BILLION YEARS, I don’t think either of us can say for certain whether or not something might come out of it. The problem is, as you say, we understand very little about the universe. But why leap to supernatural explanations? What is the rationale for leaping to mystical explanations when there is such overwhelming evidence to suggest the Universe can operate just fine without the intervention of the Gods? I don’t understand why you feel the need to go there.
As I’ve said before, I’ve got no problem with the Jesus myths being used as parables or literature. They stand with The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Old Testament, Shakespeare and Beowulf as ancient texts we can all read and use as food for thought.
When we start believing that they are unique or imbued with some kind of “divine” qualities is when we move from rational perspectives to irrational.
Especially considering that the Jesus stories aren’t even original or internally consistent. All of the evidence suggests they were cobbled together from older stories and retro-fitted (poorly) by their anonymous author/s to parallel the OT.
Groan, the old Fundamentalist evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics statement. No it doesn’t. The earth is not a closed system. Energy is supplied by the sun.
The arguement from design is nothing short of the arguement from incredulity revamped. Life is poorly “designed”. Homologies are best explained by phylogenetic decent, not creation, as are fossil genes and “junk” DNA. see this link http://richarddawkins.net/article,232,The-Fact-of-Evolution,Sean-Carroll–NPR-Science-Friday There is plenty of evidence of accumulative change at the molecular level. The only rational explanation is evolution, and given the great wastage in the history of life, there is no reason to conclude that evolution was directed. If we assume a creator, we then have to ask where he came from. Who designs gods? The theist way of saying god always existed id intellecually poor (if not self limiting retardation – otherwise we would still believe the earthis flat and that god creates earthquakes etc). To invoke a cod is to introduce a concept for which there is no evidence for, and also throws up other questions
If you want some verses to trouble christians, try Micah 5:2. When read in context, there is no way (as matthew claims) that it is a prophecy that jesus will be born in Bethelehem. It concerns a king that will fight the assyrians. Similarly the virgin birth prophecy (isaiah 14:7) Is not about the messiah being born to a virgin. It is a reassurance given to king Ahaz for King Ahaz that two other kings will not threaten the country. This concerned events about 720 years before the birth of jesus.
I found this site by accident, and doubt I will be back. I just had to nip that second law nonsence in the bud. Get stuck into them Cam
Oh yeah, and many translations refer to a clan of Bethelehem (he was a person in the bible) and not a town – Contrived or what? Check all those footnoted prophecies in the bible for yourself and read their original context – prepare to be suprised (mat 2:15) where jesus comes back from egypt in particular makes me laugh. In context the verse is about the REBELLIOUS nation of isreal – your foot notes will tell you where to look.
Bye