Why do I feel threatened?

I wonder whether the difference is in part between survival and atheism. From a personal perspective there seems to be a lot of evidence to support survival however very little evidence to support the existence of a particular deity (eg Jehovah, Allah, Jesus etc). I wonder sometimes if people conflate the two?

I suspect that we’re a lot more comfortable with certainty than doubt. Whether that’s the certainty of the atheist or of the believer. 

You’re certainly not on your own being disturbed by opinions or facts that seem to undermine a settled opinion. I think it’s probably human nature.

From my own perspective, which may not help you, I start from the position that I don’t know everything however after much research there are certain things that boil down to an opinion and which cannot be reduced to an objective fact. 

I don’t think anyone can prove some sort deity doesn’t exist, however I don’t think any of the organised religions have it right either and they don’t  provide what I would call conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, hence the necessity of “belief”. 

When someone expresses a strong opinion, the only way I can test it is against what I know or have strong reason to believe. If the fear is that we do not survive, then either a conclusive personal experience (hard to engineer) or a broad knowledge of the research (which I am attempting to achieve in my own case) will give me confidence that my opinions are broadly based on fact but not the final picture. Thus any new information has to be a) fully understood to determine how it applies and b) correlated with the other information that I feel confident about. 

Strong opinions from notable people should, imho, be subjected to the same test as opinions from elsewhere. For example, Stephen Hawking’s opinion on survival or the existence of a god is of less value than the reason for that opinion. If, as is often the case, it’s based on ‘very little to no understanding’ of the actual evidence, it’s worth ‘very little to nothing’ to me.

I suspect that we’re a lot more comfortable with certainty than doubt.

I’m quite comfortable not knowing. That way life is like permanent foreplay. Ooh er! 

I think that we’d get on quite well, although it seems I’d have ‘very little or nothing’ to offer. Often I can’t get across my reasoning well, although I feel I have more than sufficient evidence to have an opinion that’s off the fence.

I’m quite comfortable not knowing. That way it’s like permanent foreplay. Ooh er! 

I think that we’d get on quite well, although it seems I’d have ‘very little or nothing’ to offer. Often I can’t get across my reasoning well, although I feel I have more than sufficient evidence to have an opinion that’s off the fence.

I think you’ve cracked it Stan. Comfortable with not knowing (or perhaps not being certain).

What you do have to offer is curiosity and an open mind. It leaves the door open to further reconsideration. I suspect it takes quite a while for some of us to reach that position though.

I’m quite comfortable not knowing. That way life is like permanent foreplay. Ooh er! 

I think that we’d get on quite well, although it seems I’d have ‘very little or nothing’ to offer. Often I can’t get across my reasoning well, although I feel I have more than sufficient evidence to have an opinion that’s off the fence.

Is "off the fence" better than "off the wall"?

I think perhaps sceptics often go for "off the shelf" in their opinions.

Is "off the fence" better than "off the wall"?

I think one can be both lol

Question to self: why do I feel so threatened when I read comments by atheists and materialists?

I'm surprised you do, Dave but I respect your honesty. I find the certainty of atheists irritating and arrogant. Their reasoning is every bit as 'naive' as believers (if it's a contest of naivete) and yet they seem to be under the delusion that their view is somehow vastly superior.

Leaving aside the question of "God" (the unknowable) on evidence alone, survival is much more likely, anyway. For me, near death experiences (the well documented and researched ones) point to it.

I'm surprised you do, Dave but I respect your honesty. I find the certainty of atheists irritating and arrogant. Their reasoning is every bit as 'naive' as believers (if it's a contest of naivete) and yet they seem to be under the delusion that their view is somehow vastly superior.

That certainty and arrogance, I think, comes from what I mentioned in my OP: consensus. They feel safe in the belief that most of the world's best minds (scientific, medical and academic) share their perspective. 

If most of the world's best minds agree that Climate Change is a threat and so do I, then I feel safe in assuming that I am right. It would take an awful lot of counter-argument to convince me that I am wrong and, to be honest, I'm quite unlikely to listen to those counter-arguments. For me, Climate Change is case proven.

I think that the question of survival, for most atheists, belongs with religion and is not worthy of consideration having already decided that the case against religion is proven. God, the soul, heaven and hell are all human inventions which are designed to keep the faithful in line. It is a powerful argument and one which I, to some extent, agree with except that they threw out the baby with the bath water. 

It is the chance that their certainty is justified which troubles me. I have been over the arguments in my head a million times. I have discussed them with my fellow forum members here and elsewhere. I have read books and listened to talks by people who rank up there with the greatest minds (but are far from forming a consensus) who make similar arguments to those I have decided make my own case. But that opposing consensus does trouble me and not because of the strength of their argument but purely because it is a consensus.

Perhaps, on the other hand, I should attempt to inject some balance in my discussion of this threat to my confidence in my worldview.

I've talked about the reasons for that threat but there is a positive column on the balance sheet. I've already mentioned one of them: the move of some materialists towards panpsychism. While Kastrup is almost certainly right in his caution that this is an attempt to assimilate consciousness into the physical realm, they at least recognise that consciousness is real (as opposed to the eliminativists like the Churchlands and Dennett). Not only real but not some by-product of the human brain that disappears when that brain dies. If consciousness exists everywhere and in everything, then it is not dependent upon a human brain. 

They still have a long way to go, however, before accepting that the human consciousness (mind) can exist independently of the physical human form. Sciborg is better at these philosophical definitions but I imagine that they do as materialists always do and reduce consciousness to some micro components.

Nevertheless, any step away from the Churchlands is a welcome step, in my view.

Secondly, there is the increasingly popular hypothesis that we are all part of a simulation. Obviously, physicalists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson would insist that this simulation is something created by some higher alien species using a massively advanced evolution of our own primitive computer simulations. These guys gently mock the scientists of old who speculated about advanced clockwork automatons of the future but the likes of Tyson can't seem to see that he is speculating in exactly the same way: projecting our current technology into the future.

So why do I find this speculation encouraging? Because when you strip away the assumed computer technology you are left with a virtual reality not so far removed from the kind of illusory reality described by the sages of antiquity. Maya, for example (again I defer to Sciborg for a better explanation) from the Hindu Vedanta. VR is something upon which the so-called Big TOE of Tom Campbell is based. 

For myself, VR or Maya or the Matrix are just ways of describing what I imagine reality to be like: a mental construct. No computers, no alien software developers; the mind creates the environment and the shared experience, whether that be according to and bound by physical laws here on earth or some other dimension which we might call heaven or the afterlife where different rules apply.

There comes a point where the atheist's "advanced intelligence" starts to look a lot like a god.

Perhaps, on the other hand, I should attempt to inject some balance in my discussion of this threat to my confidence in my worldview.

...

There comes a point where the atheist's "advanced intelligence" starts to look a lot like a god.

I don't think there's anything for me to add regarding the details, you covered everything with clarity.

I would disagree with Kastrup largely on the basis of strategy - fighting Panpsychics *and* Materialists is too much to take on in a single lifetime. At least for me.

That certainty and arrogance, I think, comes from what I mentioned in my OP: consensus. They feel safe in the belief that most of the world's best minds (scientific, medical and academic) share their perspective. 

If most of the world's best minds agree that Climate Change is a threat and so do I, then I feel safe in assuming that I am right. It would take an awful lot of counter-argument to convince me that I am wrong and, to be honest, I'm quite unlikely to listen to those counter-arguments. For me, Climate Change is case proven.

I think that the question of survival, for most atheists, belongs with religion and is not worthy of consideration having already decided that the case against religion is proven. God, the soul, heaven and hell are all human inventions which are designed to keep the faithful in line. It is a powerful argument and one which I, to some extent, agree with except that they threw out the baby with the bath water. 

It is the chance that their certainty is justified which troubles me. I have been over the arguments in my head a million times. I have discussed them with my fellow forum members here and elsewhere. I have read books and listened to talks by people who rank up there with the greatest minds (but are far from forming a consensus) who make similar arguments to those I have decided make my own case. But that opposing consensus does trouble me and not because of the strength of their argument but purely because it is a consensus.

The mention of consensus here with regard to consciousness and survival is, in my opinion an illusion. Those holding the view that the material world is all there is and that consciousness cannot have an independent existence, almost invariably fail to provide any evidence. It is a situation where everyone leans against the next fellow, in the belief that while they personally have not checked the evidence, they assume someone else has.

I was watching a Rupert Sheldrake talk yesterday, from about two years ago. He reminded me of something I had forgotten, or pushed to the back of my mind. That is, the role, behaviour and effects of the sceptical movement.

Most of the material here will be familiar to many of us, but I found it a useful reminder.

Rupert Sheldrake–University of Northampton–Psi in Everyday Life, Evidence and Debates

It is quite long, but there are no slides or visuals, I just listened to the audio while I was doing something else.