Endercreeper01

Einstein seems to have thought something of them, to the extent that he would have decided that it was worthwhile to write in his journal.

I am yet to see any meaningful response to my post.....

Are you going to at least attempt to respond to any part of my post with any sense?

Somewhat, although with Einstein, it involved stereotyping.

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through. "I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and interact with reality. Yet I still perceive the mind-body in the same way I experience my senses. This does not make me the mind-body, I am still an observer that experiences the mind-body in the present moment in the same way that I perceive the external reality. The question still remains about this "I", the observer. It remains elusive to any scientific explanation that attempts to describe it's existence. I don't "want" doubts to arise, I have doubts based on questions that arise. They appear when there are serious questions that aren't being answered, and instead are being thrown aside like they don't mean anything by the scientific community. The problem of consciousness is not being treated as the major problem with the current scientific and materialistic paradigm that it is. There are serious problems and doubts that need to be addressed as fundamental problems with the current model of reality. If the present scientific world view cannot explain the very core of my existence, then it is not a complete model of reality no matter how well it models the reality around me. I am not finding answers that I am looking for in the scientific construct of reality. Unlike a search for 'garden gnomes', I am searching for answers of the very core of my existence. Consciousness is you, you are the consciousness. Consciousness is not why you exist, it is your very existence. @beecee hardly responded to any of my main points in that post.

Philosophical thinking is also reason. Does it not have legitimacy as a way of finding answers to questions of existence? It is this very "we" or rather the "I" that eludes explanation. Without a proper understanding of the "we" or "I" that experiences as consiousness, many doubts and questions only follow. Doubts arise about the nature of reality and existence that can not be resolved within the scientific framework and cast a shadow of doubt on scientific thought.

There is no reason not to try to look for answers about human existence through reason. Consciousness is more than another unsolved scientificic peoblem; it raises fundamental questions about reality and existence that simply cannot be answered by scientific thought. Philosophical thought, however, may be able to provide answers to these questions in a way that science cannot. Dismissing my points without an explanation does not disprove what I said. My argument was based on reason. The idea that consciousness emerges from the brain does not explain anything more than the idea that consciousness comes from the brain. It is still an idea regardless, and not a conclusive statement about the nature of consciousness. There are so many questions left unanswered about consciousness and so many questions that come from such. It isn't scientific to ignore the questions that are posed by such a hole in scientific thinking as consciousness. One is not only looking for conclusions about existence. Rather it is a continuous process of asking questions, reasoning, and finding answers to those questions through reasoning. One is looking to continue the process by asking more questions, not stopping at the answers reached. A good example is the belief in the scientific method as a way to explain reality. It may be reasonable to hold such a belief, though it is still a belief nonetheless.

You are forgetting that the self is what the "I" is. Myself does not mean the body or the brain that the self experiences through time. This "i" doesn't have to necessarily be considered as part of reality. It may depend on reality to exist as an observer, although it does not have to be a part of reality. Science is all about being critical and finding holes in thinking, and one major hole in scientific thought is the existence of the self. The self eludes any scientific explanation of how it is, let alone what it even is. Attributing a higher power to existence can still be compatible with scientific thought, it only requires a different perspective on reality. Neuroscience explains the brain, not the conscious self experiencing the brain. There is yet to be any sound explanation that scientifically explains the nature and origin of consciousness: how it exists, what it is, and why it exists. There is no explanation as to why the brain should be anything more than a machine. Nowhere should the brain require a conscious self to function if the brain really functions in the way that science says it does. Remember what consciousness is about, it is the self that is conscious. The brain is not conscious, it is the self that exists as the brain that is conscious. I offered examples earlier in the thread about a reasonable approach to faith. There is still much left unexplained by science, including the nature of consciousness. Evolution does not explain how it is possible for a consciousness to exist out of brain matter. Consciousness is a major hole in scientific thought that is simply not being properly addressed. It's set aside instead of being treated as the hole in scientific thought that it is.

Why do I the self exist? Why does I the consciousness exist? Why is it I, whom is experiencing a brain, exist? Science can not even explain consciousness. It would be considered a belief to believe that it does. Remember, I am not the body nor the brain. I am experiencing a brain. This I is the very thing that eludes any explanation whatsoever. How does that give you reason to dismiss the pondering of one's existence as a conscious self? Are you going to dismiss something only because it could lead to reasoning something that you disagree with? Science is all about finding explanations, not dismissing any attempt at them. When that happens, it becomes a system of belief rather than science. Why can't you just say that you don't know if there is a higher power, or that such would fall outside of the limits of science? It doesn't make sense to use science to dismiss faith when it falls out of the reach of science. I would agree with what you said, as faith has lost it's original value and meaning over time. It can definitely be that faith is sometimes based in a response rather than reason. It can also be the other way around in other instances.

Science gives explanations for reality, not existence. Answers about one's own existence can come from philosophically reasoning about the nature of existence. Such reasoning can lead one to belief in a higher power. There is no reason to be immediately dismissive of an attempts to do such.

It's not that it has to be considered racism to acknowledge racial differences. He could have simply not seen anything wrong with acknowledging such differences. Again, one doesn't have to be a racist to be one that acknowledges racial differences.

We can't assume there is no reason for existence without trying to find one first. It should be possible for one to reach the conclusion based on reason. The reasoning that follows can lead one to several paths, although this would only be one of them. I only provided a basic outline of a reasonable approach, not a detailed explanation. What exactly would one such as you believe about existence? Science is used to explain reality, not explain existence.

The thoughts that he writes down in his journal would be a much more accurate reflection of his true opinion, rather than the face he presents to the public. Speaking out a few times against does not necessarily prevent one from having natural racist tendencies in the past. Differences in ethnicity should be acknowledged as long as they are true.

I have not offered a comprehensive explanation yet, I am only providing a basic explanation of the approach. An example of such an approach would be reaching the conclusion that it is ones self that has an independent existence, and therefore reasoning that reality does not exist independently of the self. Thus, in accordance with such reasoning, reality could be attributed to what could be called a higher power.

A reasoned approach could start with questioning the nature of the self and of the reality that it exists within. Once certain conclusions are reached in this way, they can cause more reasoning and lead to other conclusions.

There is a reasoned approach to showing a higher power could exist, although my point is only that it is possible to have such. Although, such a discussion should be held in a different thread. I am making the argument that it is possible for a belief in a higher power to have basis in reasoning, rather than having no reasoning behind it and being strictly based in faith.

It shows how he would not ignore racial or ethnic differences and accept them rather than pretending they don't exist. Being bigoted or racist is not the same thing as acknowledging racial differences. His personal thoughts show much more about his true opinion than does his outward appearance to the world of being against racism.

Not that there is anything wrong with his ideas, only that they were honest thoughts about the observations that he made.

We shouldn't assume that there is no reason for existence. There is a need to search for answers about existence, just as how in science there is a need to search for answers about the universe and it's functioning. Why can't belief in a higher power have any reasoning behind it? It can become trust and be supported by reasoning while still being a belief. Such as the belief in science as the only way to explain reality.

Einstein was willing to acknowledge racial or ethnic differences. Not that I'm saying that there was anything wrong with his ideas. They can be considered a different ethnicity. I'm not claiming that there was anything wrong with his ideas, only that he was wiling to acknowledge differences between ethnicity. He can still acknowledge differences between races or ethnicity while being against racism. There's nothing wrong with that. I would agree with you if assuming that there was anything wrong with his ideas. Otherwise I'm not so sure if there is really anything wrong if he had such views. It could even be considered to be a good thing, as he was being honest in acknowledging differences between ethnicity. Even if it was wrong, that shouldn't mean that we view him any differently.

What I am trying to say is that a belief or faith in God can have some reason with it, instead of being purely based in faith. A faith in a higher power having some basis in reason is possible.

Acknowledging racial differences doesn't have to be considered racism or bad in this case. Einstein can still acknowledge racial differences while not being a racist. There are differences between groups of people that can be acknowledged in the way that Einstein has.

When I said racism, what I was really trying to say was racial differences. And in those instances I was being philosophical rather than scientific.

That's not all that there is to faith. Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

I didn't say that Einstein was racist, I said that he acknowledged racial differences. And I'm not anti science...