|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2005 : 16:48:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, I think we've gone about as far on this point as we can. I think we can agree that practicality is an important component to reason when evaluating beliefs about external reality. Our disagreement hinges upon the fact that you consider god's reality to be somehow subjective, and thus not subject to reason.
What I don't get is how stating "God exists" necessarily means more than "I have faith that God exists." You've already agreed that "strawberry is the best flavor ever" is not talking about objective reality, and I don't see any methodical application with which to decide between the two, since "my favorite flavor is strawberry" is a part of reality while I'm alive, and can influence reality long after I'm dead (were I to start a strawberry-flavoring company which is wildly successful, sort of like Hershey's).
In other words, your position is that "God exists" can be nothing but a statement about objective reality, and I just don't see how you're applying an objective/subjective "filter" appropriately in all possible cases. I mean, doesn't it matter what the person who makes a statement means by that statement in how one should analyze it? "China is in the heart" would only be interpreted objectively by a fool, yet the same sort of sentiment is what many people intend when they say "I have felt God."quote:
You seem to be claiming that things can exist which exhibit none of the properties of existence.
Again, the existence or non-existence of a thing is irrelevant to whether a belief that the thing exists conflicts with reason. If I put $50 in my wallet on Monday night, and go to the store Tuesday morning with the intent to buy a $45 item without checking to make sure my wife didn't make an "unscheduled withdrawal," does my belief that I've got $50 conflict with reason even though it could very well be existentially incorrect?
In other words, it's perfectly clear to me (at least) that what is true in my own subjective reality may not match objective reality without necessarily creating an intellectual conflict, until such a time as I discover the discrepancies. And at that point, there would only be a lasting conflict if I refused to change my subjective view to synch back up with reality.
But, since the basic "God concept" is constructed in such a way that the discovery of discrepancies won't occur until death (and not even then if God doesn't exist), I don't see where a conflict can arise at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 20:00:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What I don't get is how stating "God exists" necessarily means more than "I have faith that God exists." You've already agreed that "strawberry is the best flavor ever" is not talking about objective reality, and I don't see any methodical application with which to decide between the two, since "my favorite flavor is strawberry" is a part of reality while I'm alive, and can influence reality long after I'm dead (were I to start a strawberry-flavoring company which is wildly successful, sort of like Hershey's).
Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you seriously see no difference between the things I've been saying? External. External reality. That's where your love of ice cream does not exist. Yes, it can influence things in external reality, but it cannot exist by itself in external reality apart from yourself. That's why it can never be a claim, that's why it's "subjective," because the thing you're claiming can never be apart from you. We have two things: "My love of ice cream" and "god's existence." Which one of those is not completely dependent upon my existence?
The biggest difference between them is that is it possible to know one. You can know what your favorite flavor of ice cream is without further inquiry. It is an inherent property of yourself. It is part of you. (Subjective). It isn't possible to know whether or not god exists, because it is not a part of you. (Objective). That to me disguishes a personal preference contained within yourself vs. a personal belief about external reality. One is a statement about logs, the other a statement about how you feel about logs. To me they are not equivalent.
quote:
In other words, your position is that "God exists" can be nothing but a statement about objective reality, and I just don't see how you're applying an objective/subjective "filter" appropriately in all possible cases. I mean, doesn't it matter what the person who makes a statement means by that statement in how one should analyze it? "China is in the heart" would only be interpreted objectively by a fool, yet the same sort of sentiment is what many people intend when they say "I have felt God."
Taking that statement literally would be foolish. Taking it objectively only means that thinking about China produces certain emotions in some individuals. You can take it subjectively however you choose. You were the one who said people use such feelings as evidence to support their belief, which means on some level they are making a claim. "I have felt God" can only mean that they are claiming there is a god to feel in the same way there is a "China" to live in your heart. Something real which has an affect upon you.
quote:
Again, the existence or non-existence of a thing is irrelevant to whether a belief that the thing exists conflicts with reason. If I put $50 in my wallet on Monday night, and go to the store Tuesday morning with the intent to buy a $45 item without checking to make sure my wife didn't make an "unscheduled withdrawal," does my belief that I've got $50 conflict with reason even though it could very well be existentially incorrect?
But if you never put $50 in your wallet then it damn well would conflict with reason to assume it is there.
Look, there are two main statements inherent in the type of claims I'm saying conflict with reason. 1) I believe something exists in external reality. 2) I have no evidence of it.
It is not possible to reasonably form a belief in the affirmative upon these two premises.
quote:
In other words, it's perfectly clear to me (at least) that what is true in my own subjective reality may not match objective reality without necessarily creating an intellectual conflict, until such a time as I discover the discrepancies. And at that point, there would only be a lasting conflict if I refused to change my subjective view to synch back up with reality.
But, since the basic "God concept" is constructed in such a way that the discovery of discrepancies won't occur until death (and not even then if God doesn't exist), I don't see where a conflict can arise at all.
I hold another view. I think there is an obligation to apply the same rules you've used to determine objective reality thus far to all beliefs concerning future discoveries about objective reality. The conflict isn't between your belief and the evidence, the conflict is between your belief and no evidence. If the basic "God concept" is constructed in such a way that the discovery of confirmatory evidence won't occur until death, then it is constructed in such a way as to prohibit reasonable belief in life.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2005 23:02:48 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 21:19:18 [Permalink]
|
I'm with H.H. on this.
Anything I would add here would more or less be repeating (probably not as well) what H.H. has laid out.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 23:16:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you seriously see no difference between the things I've been saying? External. External reality. That's where you're love of ice cream does not exist. Yes, it can influence things in external reality, but it cannot exist by itself in external reality apart from yourself. That's why it can never be a claim, that's why it's "subjective," because the thing you're claiming can never be apart from you. We have two things: "My love of ice cream" and "god's existence." Which one of those is not completely dependent upon my existence?
And yet, we can probe your love of ice cream from an external viewpoint. When given a choice between ice cream and flan, do you actually choose ice cream more often than flan? Your alleged love of ice cream can be tested by other people, in an objective manner. And thus "H. loved ice cream" or "H. didn't love ice cream" (at the time of the study) can enter into our body of historical, scientific knowledge whether you're alive or dead. Your preference for ice cream would no longer be subjective.quote:
The biggest difference between them is that is it possible to know one. You can know what your favorite flavor of ice cream is without further inquiry. It is an inherent property of yourself. It is part of you. (Subjective). It isn't possible to know whether or not god exists, because it is not a part of you. (Objective).
And yet, some people believe that god is a part of them, and that's how they "know" god exists. Let's move to that part of your post...quote:
Taking that statement literally would be foolish. Taking it objectively only means that thinking about China produces certain emotions in some individuals. You can take it subjectively however you choose. You were the one who said people use such feelings as evidence to support their belief, which means on some level they are making a claim. "I have felt God" can only mean that they are claiming there is a god to feel in the same way there is a "China" to live in your heart. Something real which has an affect upon you.
Why reject the interpretation that the "I have felt God" statement "produces certain emotions in some individuals?" It isn't the geographical, physical China to which "China is in the heart" refers, after all, but the subjective, cultural China. Regardless the existence of god, it'd be very difficult to deny that there is a massive "god culture" on this planet, and thinking about the qualities of the various gods produces emotions in people whether those gods are a part of external reality or not.
So why demand that the word "god" refer to an actual being, instead of just the emotions and culture wrapped up in the "god concept?" 'Cause it's also highly unlikely that the romantic notions people carry regarding their homeland are accurately reflected in reality, yet you don't seem interested in classifying them as "unreasonable."quote:
Look, there are two main statements inherent in the type of claims I'm saying conflict with reason. 1) I believe something exists in external reality. 2) I have no evidence of it.
It is not possible to reasonably form a belief in the affirmative upon these two premises.
So, playing "solipsism's advocate," it is unreasonable to claim "there exists an external reality." Given that all of "external reality" is filtered through my subjective experience, I can't be sure that any of it actually exists. If I say, "I'll assume that it does, without evidence," then I can still do good science...
...but that's not a restatement of the two premises you've got a problem with. Maybe I am seeing your point, now.quote:
I hold another view. I think there is an obligation to apply the same rules you've used to determine objective reality thus far upon all beliefs concerning future discoveries about objective reality.
But this, I still have issues with (as should be obvious, from the above). I mean, I agree with the obligation whole-heartedly, but I still have problems with the restriction that statements about god are necessarily objective.
On the other hand, I suppose that if determinism is true, then there is no subjective reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 00:41:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And yet, we can probe your love of ice cream from an external viewpoint. When given a choice between ice cream and flan, do you actually choose ice cream more often than flan? Your alleged love of ice cream can be tested by other people, in an objective manner. And thus "H. loved ice cream" or "H. didn't love ice cream" (at the time of the study) can enter into our body of historical, scientific knowledge whether you're alive or dead. Your preference for ice cream would no longer be subjective.
Certainly subjective states can be communicated out into objective reality, but only through the individual they reside in, and only then are they valid when they pertain to that individual. Perhaps another example will further clarify my point.
When someone says "I could feel my mother's love at such and such a moment," they are engaging in a bit of hyperbole, aren't they? I mean, they couldn't really feel their mother's "love," which would be an emotional state experienced only by their mother. They can however reasonably conclude their mother loves them by her words and actions. But there isn't any way to really know, is there? Certainly there have been people who were fooled into thinking there were people loved them who did not. A few old millionaires come to mind. Too many times people confuse their own love for another as recognition of an emotional bonding (and by that I mean only a literal "fusing") which fundamentally never happens. You and your wife might both feel the same way about one another, or you may not. Your emotions are no guide in this matter.
Now, perhaps with brain scans it is possible to determine whether one party is "faking it" or not, but your own internal state offers no clues into another's. Thus, without objective confirmation, there can be no such thing as a subjective "truth" about an external condition. Now, certainly I'm not saying it isn't reasonable to assume one's wife or mother loves them without hooking them up to such a device. As I said, a person's words and actions satisfy reasonable requirements. This example was simply to illustrate the difference between an internal, subjective experience and an external, demonstrable one.
quote:
And yet, some people believe that god is a part of them, and that's how they "know" god exists.
They can't know, so any such beliefs are irrelevant.
quote:
Why reject the interpretation that the "I have felt God" statement "produces certain emotions in some individuals?" It isn't the geographical, physical China to which "China is in the heart" refers, after all, but the subjective, cultural China. Regardless the existence of god, it'd be very difficult to deny that there is a massive "god culture" on this planet, and thinking about the qualities of the various gods produces emotions in people whether those gods are a part of external reality or not.
I am certainly capable of recognizing the "god culture" which exists. The problem is we already have a name for those things which create intense subjective, emotional experiences in people but which never exist in external reality. It's called fiction.
quote:
So why demand that the word "god" refer to an actual being, instead of just the emotions and culture wrapped up in the "god concept?" 'Cause it's also highly unlikely that the romantic notions people carry regarding their homeland are accurately reflected in reality, yet you don't seem interested in classifying them as "unreasonable."
You find a theist willing to classify their belief as fundamentally a fiction and I'll concede the point.
quote:
But this, I still have issues with (as should be obvious, from the above). I mean, I agree with the obligation whole-heartedly, but I still have problems with the restriction that statements about god are necessarily objective.
Hmm. I'm pretty drunk (I apologize if any of the above is unclear because of it), so let me think about this point some more later. I don't currently see a way around it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/18/2005 00:58:07 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 12:26:16 [Permalink]
|
I've been thinking about the "There is a God" statement. Allthough it seems obvious to me that it could be understood in a subjective context (along the lines of, it is better to believe that there is a God than it is to believe that there isn't) it does seem to me that most of the time it is intended as an objective statement.
Assuming that the, "There is a God" statement is intended to be a statement about objective reality I have a question.
How would you respond to someone who claimed that their knowledge of God's existence was a result of sensory data? For example when you 'see' a chair you generally don't doubt its existence. A person could claim that they have a spiritual 'sense' and became aware of the existence of God through the use of this sense. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 18:00:03 [Permalink]
|
| Well, Matt's "most of the time" just makes me want to say, again, that I concur that for most people, "God exists" is a claim about "external reality," and will, yes, conflict with reason on that basis. I'm just having a difficult time thinking that it must be an objective-reality claim, given the sheer number of different viewpoints there are to take. Also, when "reasonable" is not a binary condition, a precision map of objective reality is hard to find, and solipsism is unfalsifiable (just impractical for "real life"), I find "reasonable" to be very tough to pin down. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 18:59:05 [Permalink]
|
Can you be a good scientist and believe in God? Or how about, can you be a good scientist and believe in man? I mean, man can be sooo unreasonable! If a scientist believes in man, he might have to believe that the objective universe is becoming increasingly unreasonable given the reasonable inference that other planets are also evolving creatures which are becoming intelligent enough to become unreasonable. Could it be the the universe has within itself the seeds of unreasonableness, seeds which come to flower when two human lips come together to kiss (how unreasonable!) or when a religionist starts romantisizing about the Source of material energy and the very personableness he feels unifying his being?
And I haven't even been drinking, except for some Rooibos tea (great stuff).
Perhaps, for this very reason, atheistic scientists who regard themselves as reasonable should tolerate the unreasonable God believing scientist, since the unreasonable scientist may be more prone to make some discoveries into the more unreasonable aspects of the universe?
Just having some fun of course, as you were.
Mark
PS Dave and HH, great dialogue. You guys would make natural theologians. :o
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 19:20:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PS Dave and HH, great dialogue. You guys would make natural theologians. :o
Except here they are talking about something worthwhile.
Just having fun too...enjoying the discussion! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 22:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And yet, we can probe your love of ice cream from an external viewpoint. When given a choice between ice cream and flan, do you actually choose ice cream more often than flan? Your alleged love of ice cream can be tested by other people, in an objective manner. And thus "H. loved ice cream" or "H. didn't love ice cream" (at the time of the study) can enter into our body of historical, scientific knowledge whether you're alive or dead. Your preference for ice cream would no longer be subjective.
quote:
And yet, some people believe that god is a part of them, and that's how they "know" god exists. Let's move to that part of your post...
Well... lets see. I can put a bowl of icecream in front of you. Can you put a bowl of "god" on the table?
quote:
So why demand that the word "god" refer to an actual being, instead of just the emotions and culture wrapped up in the "god concept?" 'Cause it's also highly unlikely that the romantic notions people carry regarding their homeland are accurately reflected in reality, yet you don't seem interested in classifying them as "unreasonable."
Seriously. If you aren't referring to "god" as an actual being, for purposes of this discussion, then you aren't having the same discussion we are. This is about the reasonableness of concluding, without evidence, that the external objective reality we assume exists has been CREATED by this god.
There is no question that the "god concept" is capable of invoking emotional responses in people, but so what? That is a red-herring in this discussion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 23:07:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well... lets see. I can put a bowl of icecream in front of you. Can you put a bowl of "god" on the table?
As it is written, I don't think that this is a fair comparison. Can you put a bowl of 'emotions' or 'ownership' on the table? I think I understand what you are getting at, (that you can demonstrate the existence of ice cream to the satisfacion of any reasonable person) but could you do the same with a non-material subject such as emotions or ownership? I am assuming that you would agree that emotions are real and that ownership is a valid concept.quote:
Seriously. If you aren't referring to "god" as an actual being, for purposes of this discussion, then you aren't having the same discussion we are. This is about the reasonableness of concluding, without evidence, that the external objective reality we assume exists has been CREATED by this god.
I think that the key word here is 'reasonable'. If a theist says, "I believe that God exists because without my belief in God I would be emotionally unstable." is this reasonable? Assuming that the statement is strictly true, then yes it is reasonable since the theist is making a rational choice to maintain their emotional stability. The fact that the choice to believe is reasonable does not make the belief objectively true of course, but it does make it pragmatic. Often pragmatism or other considerations may outweigh objective truth, even among reasonable people. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 09:28:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As it is written, I don't think that this is a fair comparison. Can you put a bowl of 'emotions' or 'ownership' on the table? I think I understand what you are getting at, (that you can demonstrate the existence of ice cream to the satisfacion of any reasonable person) but could you do the same with a non-material subject such as emotions or ownership? I am assuming that you would agree that emotions are real and that ownership is a valid concept.
You are having subject-predicate confusion issues. But to answer your question, yes. You can demonstrate the existance of emotions to the "satisfaction of any reasonable person". The same with concepts like property ownership, and even the "god concept". Nobody is questioning that the idea of a god is real. Just as nobody is questioning that the idea of the FSM, IPU, and Hypnotoad are real. But, as with FSM, IPU, and the Hypnotoad, it is unreasonable to conclude that "god exists".
quote:
I think that the key word here is 'reasonable'. If a theist says, "I believe that God exists because without my belief in God I would be emotionally unstable." is this reasonable?
Still having those subject-predicate issues....
But yes. I would find that statement unreasonable anyway. If a belief in an unevidenced fantasy is all that keeps you sane... you belong under medical supervision at the least.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 10:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
But, as with FSM, IPU, and the Hypnotoad, it is unreasonable to conclude that "god exists".
How many have "concluded" that "God exists" (which implies that they went through a logical process), as opposed to just "believing" that "God exists"?
Even if the answer to the above is zero, one can go through a logically sound process and conclude that God exists, if one's premises are incorrect. For example, if one premise is that subjective experiences are often the result of events which occur objectively (which is a necessary premise of determinism), then one might find compelling the idea that religious experiences come from "outside" oneself.
But here's the basic question: if one has no reason to doubt one's premises, is it necessarily the case that a sound (but incorrect) conclusion based on those premises is unreasonable? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 13:11:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You are having subject-predicate confusion issues.
I don't think that I am. Could you point out where? Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was driving at.quote:
But to answer your question, yes. You can demonstrate the existance of emotions to the "satisfaction of any reasonable person". The same with concepts like property ownership, and even the "god concept".
How would you go about demonstrating the existence of 'emotions' rather than just the 'idea of emotions'? Would your demonstration of the existence of emotions rely on a person recognizing that they themselves have emotions? If so then it is not an objective demonstration.
As for ownership, it is a fundamentally pragmatic concept. It is not "true" or "false" in any objective sense. In scientific terms it is a meaningless concept. Therefore if we insist on an entirely objective world view, we have no basis for accepting the concept of ownership.
To be clear, objectively we could accept that the concept of ownership exists as an idea, but we could not make an objectively true statement of ownership. The statement, "I own this car" is meaningless within an objective world view since it is based on a social, legal and pragmatic framework, and not on an objective or scientific framework.quote:
Nobody is questioning that the idea of a god is real. Just as nobody is questioning that the idea of the FSM, IPU, and Hypnotoad are real. But, as with FSM, IPU, and the Hypnotoad, it is unreasonable to conclude that "god exists".
If you 'saw' God would it still be unreasonable to conclude that He exists? Perhaps it's only a hallucination, but perhaps when you 'see' a chair that is also a hallucination. What is it, in this scenario, that makes the conclusion, "god exists" unreasonable while the conclusion "this chair exists" is reasonable?quote:
quote:
I think that the key word here is 'reasonable'. If a theist says, "I believe that God exists because without my belief in God I would be emotionally unstable." is this reasonable?
Still having those subject-predicate issues....
How so?quote:
But yes. I would find that statement unreasonable anyway. If a belief in an unevidenced fantasy is all that keeps you sane... you belong under medical supervision at the least.
This seems like a harsh generalization to me. We all have our "unevidenced fantasies" as you put it. It's a part of being human.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 14:05:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So why demand that the word "god" refer to an actual being, instead of just the emotions and culture wrapped up in the "god concept?" 'Cause it's also highly unlikely that the romantic notions people carry regarding their homeland are accurately reflected in reality, yet you don't seem interested in classifying them as "unreasonable."
You find a theist willing to classify their belief as fundamentally a fiction and I'll concede the point.
Hi, I'm a theist and I see my belief in a higher power to be largely symbolic as a means for self improvement.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
