Holism vs Reductionsism

[Strychnine]

Semi-theological, mostly philosophical?

Holism : a theory that the universe and especially living nature is correctly seen in terms of interacting wholes (as of living organisms) that are more than the mere sum of elementary particles

The belief that your consciousness and awareness can not be located in your physicality. You are you. Your knee alone is not "you" any more than your ear is "you." They are all made of the same parts (atomic / subatomic particles) but none, by itself, contains "you." You are more than the sum of your parts.


Reductionism : a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms

The belief that everything can be reduced to it's smallest constituent (atomic / subatomic particles) and that, in this sense, consciousness and the concept of "self" will be explained by nothing more than physical / chemical reactions dictated by science.





As much as this sounds like BS, I really don't mean for this to degrade into the typical us vs them mindset of this subforum.

Having said that - what is the general stance of non-religious people? Is there a common belief? Or is the notion that science will one day answer the question all that matters?

I only phrase it that way because the answer for the religious crowd should be obvious, but if someone wants to restate it they are more than welcome.

[Maddhattter]

Semi-theological, mostly philosophical?

Holism : a theory that the universe and especially living nature is correctly seen in terms of interacting wholes (as of living organisms) that are more than the mere sum of elementary particles

The belief that your consciousness and awareness can not be located in your physicality. You are you. Your knee alone is not "you" any more than your ear is "you." They are all made of the same parts (atomic / subatomic particles) but none, by itself, contains "you." You are more than the sum of your parts.


Reductionism : a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms

The belief that everything can be reduced to it's smallest constituent (atomic / subatomic particles) and that, in this sense, consciousness and the concept of "self" will be explained by nothing more than physical / chemical reactions dictated by science.





As much as this sounds like BS, I really don't mean for this to degrade into the typical us vs them mindset of this subforum.

Having said that - what is the general stance of non-religious people? Is there a common belief? Or is the notion that science will one day answer the question all that matters?

I only phrase it that way because the answer for the religious crowd should be obvious, but if someone wants to restate it they are more than welcome.

So, are you asking for the position of atheists or of people claiming to be non-religious?

People who are claiming the non-religious label can believe a whole lot of things. In my experience, generally in America the people who claim to be non-religious tend to believe in God and Jesus. They just don't agree with any particular church, so they state that are "spiritual, but not religious". They would typically believe the same as religious people. Now, there are also people who believe in spirits and mysticism and such. They would typically agree with the religious. There are also people who have a religion, but are atheists (Raliens, Scientology, some forms of Buddhism) they may or may not agree with Holism, that I would assume is the generally religious stance.

Now, if you are asking the atheistic position, generally atheists would stand in the reductionist position. Again, this is my experience. However, this is not a requirement. Atheism does not speak to anything other than someone's belief of the god claim. There are atheists who believe all sorts of spiritualism/magic/mysticism and are still atheists due to not believing in a god/gods. There are also atheists who would state that they don't explicitly believe either. They'll state that they don't know and leave it at that. They seem to be in the minority, though.

Unless I misunderstood what you are asking and you want to know what the individual responders believe. If that's the case, I'd have to go with the reductionist point, if I'd have to pick one.

[talisman]

I've read about reductionism, but not holism before. I agree with the first sentence, but not the rest of it. I look at the Earth as one living organism that is constantly evolving. As for Reductionism, it looks like a variation on the Blade Of Grass theory I posted in the Size thread a few threads down before that 4.6 guy started vomiting all over the subforum.

I don't think science has enough time to ever get us any type of meaningful answers, and any answers that science does present, tend to end up providing 25 new questions per answer. I think apathy is the only way to find any true religious experience, because it is simply childish to make any concrete claim about something that no one can ever know.

That being said, I've been going through a conversionary phase in the last year or so and have pretty much decided that the best thing to do is be forthright with the ridiculous hypocritical nature of selecting a religion, and merely decide outright what you think sounds like the version you would like to believe and what sounds beautiful and intriguing, and living by those parameters. So that is basically what I've done. It has been driving my OCD batshit coming to terms with it.

[The King]

@maddhatter
If one is truly non-religious they do not believe in God and Jesus. Simply not being in agreement with the doctrine of any particular church does not in and of itself make one non-religious.

[Maddhattter]

@maddhatter
If one is truly non-religious they do not believe in God and Jesus. Simply not being in agreement with the doctrine of any particular church does not in and of itself make one non-religious.

While I agree with you, the majority of the people I've ever met who state they are non-religious also state they believe in God and Jesus. I was just trying to make it clear that there are people who claim to be a great many things that can, and do believe in vastly different things.

Given that the only way I can determine what they believe is what they claim to believe, I just have to take their word for it even if I disagree with the terminology they are using. After all, they my not act in accordance with their beliefs.

[The King]

Could be that some who claim to be non-religious while claiming to believe in God and Jesus are trying to cover their bases, so to speak.

[racrguy]

While I agree with you, the majority of the people I've ever met who state they are non-religious also state they believe in God and Jesus. I was just trying to make it clear that there are people who claim to be a great many things that can, and do believe in vastly different things.

Given that the only way I can determine what they believe is what they claim to believe, I just have to take their word for it even if I disagree with the terminology they are using. After all, they my not act in accordance with their beliefs.

"It's not religion, it's a relationship with jesus!"

That being said, I don't have an answer, as I don't know enough to form an opinion yet. Let me dig some more and I'll get back.

[jdgregory84]

I would have to say that we're all just carbon based life-forms who's chemicals help dictate our emotions based on experiences from birth to death. The notion of a soul to me is just peoples hope of there being more to life than there is. Just my opinion obviously.

[Strychnine]

Sorry, I've been traveling a shitload lately.

I guess I should word the question differently. It should be pretty obvious that a religious person would believe that they have a "soul" or "being" that they "are" that was by design from their creator.

How do atheists view consciousness? Where does the sense of "self" come from? Why do we have it? Or better yet, where along the evolutionary chain did the switch get flipped?

[racrguy]

I'll explain this in my view, as best I can, because I'm a dumbass when it comes to brain mechanics.

How do atheists view consciousness?

I view it as a fleeting thing that can be taken away with any decent brain trauma or death.

Where does the sense of "self" come from?

What do you mean by self? Like, where do we get our value in life from, or where does one's personality come from?

Why do we have it? Or better yet, where along the evolutionary chain did the switch get flipped?

I don't know, to either of those. I can toss out an uneducated guess on the first one, but I'd more than likely be wrong.

[Strychnine]

What do you mean by self? Like, where do we get our value in life from, or where does one's personality come from?

Not even as specific as value or personality...

"I think therefore I am." The "am" part.

The fact that you can comprehend that you are a sentient being. That you are aware of your needs, emotions, actions, and have the ability to question where your ability to question comes from.

[racrguy]

Not even as specific as value or personality...

"I think therefore I am." The "am" part.

The fact that you can comprehend that you are a sentient being. That you are aware of your needs, emotions, actions, and have the ability to question where your ability to question comes from.

I'm not sure what causes it physically, I can only think that we evolved to have one, as there's no other plausible option.

It's entirely possible, and maybe even probable that I'm wrong on this, as I don't have enough knowledge to say one way or the other where it comes from. These answers are solely my opinion.

[CJ5]

I have used both processes at the same time. Reduction taken to the end shows no foundation sending the process to a kind of wholism where the foundation is the relationships. The relationship can amplify or minimize an "article" depending on it's partner(s). When this becomes a tiring mind game, I let the things be and speak on their own. (Arts background)