FaceFaceFace said:
Yes, very much so. It'd be much more reassuring to not be an atheist. As someone else already said, I'd rather be in Hell than be nonexistent.
As a fellow atheist, I gotta say that I can't agree with you. That is a false dichotomy. Hell or nonexistence? Not a fair choice. Who says you will be nonexistent? Your body doesn't really go anywhere, does it? I see consciousness as just another element to an explainable reality.
Certainly the capacity for matter to be "aware" as we are is either an emergent property or a fundamental one. We all experience the phenomenon of being conscious, of being aware of ourselves. Is it created out of the processes of the brain? Does it arise out of some electro-chemical system? If so, what is the mechanism? Do other animals have this capacity? Moving along along the evolutionary track, what about "lesser" organisms? Plants, fungi, single cells... all of which are merely chemical systems linking in organized ways.
What if the organization of a crystal or a rock also manifests itself in a way similar to the way consciousness emerges from the human system? Do we have the right to not call a rock "conscious?" Certainly this is merely a label we ascribe to things that meet certain criteria, but what of our criteria? Are we not biased toward it? Does it not merit investigation? Critical analysis?
Emergent properties emerge because of fundamental properties of the universe. Perhaps there IS a fundamental property of the universe that allows for something like consciousness to exist. And perhaps it is totally bland and not initially interesting, but in a way, allows for all the organized energy in the universe to exhibit conscious properties. Perhaps we have already discovered that mechanism in the strange properties of quantum theory. Who knows.
Okay, now that I sound crazy, it's a good time to stop. Basically, I'm trying to explain the conscious experience with science. Probably a stupid thought.