[blhack]

>To an atheist, uncertainty is the source of all hope.

Isn't that somewhat backward? To an atheist, the certainty that they won't be going to an afterlife seems to be a source of hope, and for the religious person, the idea that they might is the same.

[cryptica]

I don't know about other atheists, but I get some comfort knowing that the universe will continue to exist long after I die. I don't believe that there is a god but that doesn't rule out the possibility of some kind of afterlife or reincarnation or alternative form of consciousness. There are still a lot of possibilities on the table and these possibilities are a source of hope.

When you think that your consciousness is special, irreplaceable and irreproducible, death becomes a lot more frightening.

On the other hand, if you believe, based on empirical evidence, that your consciousness can be manufactured out of a piece of meat with some chemicals and electricity as the result of a totally random natural process (evolution), that gives a lot of hope.

[komali2]

> based on empirical evidence

Small nit but my so far amateur understanding of philosophy of mind indicates to me that there isn't empirical evidence connecting Mind to neurochemistry so clearly. Neither, of course, is there any evidence of the reverse, that a non physical Mind can magically influence the physical world through the brain interface.

As an atheist, delving into the materialism vs dualism philosophical debate was fascinating. I was always a stout materialist but learning it hadn't managed to fend off every philosophical thrust was difficult but enlightening.

[cryptica]

There is solid empirical evidence that every human was created out of basic physical materials (e.g. DNA, proteins). If this is the case, and you believe that every human is conscious then clearly the 'soul' must be derived from these physical materials and the processes which were applied to them.

[NateEag]

Human bodies being made from matter does not imply that a hypothetical soul must also be made of physical matter.

It may not be scientific to propose that souls exist independent of matter (it seems a hard hypothesis to confirm or deny experimentally), but an idea does not need to be experimentally testable to be possible.

[komali2]

It doesn't even need to be that there are "souls," we just need to find a way to explain what Thought is. Saying it's the lights on an MRI aren't good enough - all the MRI tells us is that blood goes to certain parts of the brain during certain thoughts. Just like a radar gun displaying 50MPH isn't the car actually going 50MPH, so too do we need a way to explain what a Thought or Mind actually is.

So far this hasn't happened. If it had, it would be breaking news, because consciousness would be "solved."

[komali2]

> There is solid empirical evidence that every human was created out of basic physical materials (e.g. DNA, proteins)

Correct.

> If this is the case, and you believe that every human is conscious

At the very least, I know I am conscious, but let's continue.

> then clearly the 'soul' must be derived from these physical materials

Too far a stretch.

Mind / Thought / Consciousness is a unique problem. It is the unique problem, one that was carefully separated out at the beginning of the age of enlightenment when scientists carefully defined "qualitative" from "quantitative." Before that, heat was the feeling of heat and nothing else. Now, we can describe the "quantitative" properties of heat, that is, how certain temperatures cause certain materials to react, how biological entities react to heat, etc. That isn't the same thing as saying what it is to experience heat. Even though we can put someone in an MRI and touch a hot poker to their arm and watch the entire neurobiological system react and cause the arm to jolt, we still can't quantify the "experience of feeling heat." It's entirely separate, in fact it's separate in our language and scientific systems by design, because the "experience of feeling heat" is qualitative, it is immeasurable.

This is the split between materialism and dualism. Dualists believe the qualitative and quantitative will never shown to be the same thing, that even if quantitative can affect qualitative (heat causes certain thoughts), and qualitative can affect quantitative (thoughts can manifest real-world actions and consequences), they are fundamentally separate, "made of different stuff" (if consciousness is made of anything at all).

The materialist instinct is strong. As an atheist, I feel it too. Dualism implies magic, doesn't it? And magic isn't real. Perhaps, but not necessarily. Quantum physics can at times feel magic, too.

The long and short of it is you can't assume materialism is correct until the problem is more solved. Despite all these technological advancements in brain imaging technology, the fundamental problem of what is Thought remains. Acknowledging this isn't the same thing as acknowledging the validity of religion, or the possibility of the existence of souls - for example, panpsychism is a dualist hypothesis that states that the core nature of all things is consciousness, and that the more complicated things get, the more "conscious" they get. Considering the human brain is the most complicated thing we're aware of, that is a fairly straightforward and, in my opinion, believable concept. Far more believable than the existence of ghosts.

[dQw4w9WgXcQ]

> knowing that the universe will continue to exist long after I die

You can predict the future?