The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[Moonwood the Hare]

I didn't ignore them, I have just not gotten to them yet. Let's deal with it now, though it really won't change anything:.

I really meant the stuff in the last post on the previous page which you may have missed.

I consider "the Laws of Logic" (plural) to be one set of rules we need to accept as in place to establish reality is real.

By the laws of logic do you mean the three principles that go back to Aristotle or do you also include things like the laws of inference. For example would you hold it to be valid a priori that if A then B and B not then A (this would be so much clearer if I could write it in propositional calculus) it is an expression of the error of affirming the consequent.

You have also conceded that incorrigible self evident beliefs like I remember eating a sandwich last week are non-demonstrable and valid. So that's 3 kinds of claims you personally accept as self evident and non-demonstrable.

It is not a knowledge claim as far as I can tell. I can take your word for it, and I can assume it's of such a mundane nature as there'd be little reason for you to lie, but do I know -- for a fact -- that you ate a sandwich last week?

No.

Now-- YOU know it-- because it was demonstrated to your in a real physical way, and the same could be said for anyone else who happened to witness you eating it -- but for anyone who did NOT actually witness you eating it, we simply take it on faith that it's true. But it is NOT a knowledge claim to anyone who did not see you eat it.

No, I agree but my claim that I know that I ate a sandwich last week if I remember doing so is valid. It's a valid calim in the sense that I am saying I know and I have valid grounds for saying I know even though you can't know and don't have valid grounds just because I said so. This to me makes it clear that a claim to know can be justified without being objectively demonstrable. I cannot see why you find this distinction so difficult.

Incorrigible self evident beliefs such as I am seeing green now

Colors have temperature and light wavelenghts; they are demonstrable. If you and I are looking at a rainbow and we point to the lowest color band and say, "That's violet", then we are dmeonstrating that the color exists and we both see it.

Yes but I am talking phenomenelogically. If you do these tests and show the wavelength for green is not present and I say but I still see green, perhaps because of some defect of my eye or brain, then it remains the case that I still see green.

I have a headache

There are tests to indicate that your head might be hurting. Otherwise, I would have to take it on faith that you are actually feeling any pain. It's not a known truth that you are from my perspective. From your own, the physical sensation of the "ache" stands as demonstration that you have a headache.

There are such tests. Pain can also exist in the absence of causes that can be tested for. It is evident to me not to you. As Mitch likes to say there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to knowing.

I have a memory of what happened a week ago

Memory has often been tested and been shown to be reliable, faulty, and utterly imagined. If you and I watch a film of two cars crashing and after it's done I say to you, "How many cars have crashed" and you say "Two" then you've demonstrated that your memory has coincided with what the film has shared. If a memory is not demonstrably corroborated, then it's very possible that it is not valid knowledge.

Again I am talking phenomenologically. My memory may not be realiable; the event may never have happened but it remains the case that I experience the memory and normally this is taken as valid grounds for knowing. Imagine you were on trial for murder and your lawyer asks you if you did it. You reply, 'I don't know.' Your lawyer is puzzled and asks if you are suffering from some kind of blackout or memory loss. You reply no you remeber aiming the gun, pulling the trigger and watching the victim bleed to death but you were alone when this happened so you do not regard this as a valid basis for knowledge. However if a witness comes forward and confirms that this happened you will know if you did it. Will the lawyer say that you had better explain this in court; I doubt it unless he is appealing on the grounds of insanity. Now it is absolutely true that in a trial of the facts we want more than simply testimony and testimonies may disagree but the assumption is that normally memory of an event is valid ground for knowing it to have happened even though you could be mistaken.

[humanguy]

According to the Bible we were meant to be with God. We are designed that way, we cannot be who we really were meant to be until we are reconciled with God as our Lord, King and friend. That I believe is just a fact. And it is also my belief that this fact becomes painfully clear the more successful we become in life. It is my view that the more pleasure we are able to experience the more miserable we become, that is if we are trying to make those pleasures fill the desires we find within ourselves. There is plentiful evidence of this phenomenon available in our world. To add to our desperate situation we are prideful and arrogant. We won't admit we need help and instead continue on on our miserable way even spreading our misery to those around us. The very thing we so desperately need is the very thing we want to avoid admitting that we need, that is Jesus. Thankfully Jesus is able to reach us still, even when we appear to be most unreachable, and because of his atoning sacrifice he has covered our sin and our pride and our arrogance and enables us to shed that suffocating life and to find a new life in Him, a fulfilled life, the life that we were designed to have. The life that we so desperately were after, but could never attain.

Sounds quite dreary, all this misery and desperate pride and arrogance and more misery. Is that really how you view humanity?

[mitchellmckain]

There are such tests. Pain can also exist in the absence of causes that can be tested for. It is evident to me not to you. As Mitch likes to say there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to knowing.

Just as a point of order, let me rephrase that last sentence.

To use Mitch's terminology, there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to knowing.

What I typically like to say is that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality itself. That certainly implies the above and so I agree with it of course.

Again I am talking phenomenologically. My memory may not be reliable; the event may never have happened but it remains the case that I experience the memory and normally this is taken as valid grounds for knowing. Imagine you were on trial for murder and your lawyer asks you if you did it. You reply, 'I don't know.' Your lawyer is puzzled and asks if you are suffering from some kind of blackout or memory loss. You reply no you remeber aiming the gun, pulling the trigger and watching the victim bleed to death but you were alone when this happened so you do not regard this as a valid basis for knowledge. However if a witness comes forward and confirms that this happened you will know if you did it. Will the lawyer say that you had better explain this in court; I doubt it unless he is appealing on the grounds of insanity. Now it is absolutely true that in a trial of the facts we want more than simply testimony and testimonies may disagree but the assumption is that normally memory of an event is valid ground for knowing it to have happened even though you could be mistaken.

LOL love it!

[Aaron]

According to the Bible we were meant to be with God. We are designed that way, we cannot be who we really were meant to be until we are reconciled with God as our Lord, King and friend. That I believe is just a fact. And it is also my belief that this fact becomes painfully clear the more successful we become in life. It is my view that the more pleasure we are able to experience the more miserable we become, that is if we are trying to make those pleasures fill the desires we find within ourselves. There is plentiful evidence of this phenomenon available in our world. To add to our desperate situation we are prideful and arrogant. We won't admit we need help and instead continue on on our miserable way even spreading our misery to those around us. The very thing we so desperately need is the very thing we want to avoid admitting that we need, that is Jesus. Thankfully Jesus is able to reach us still, even when we appear to be most unreachable, and because of his atoning sacrifice he has covered our sin and our pride and our arrogance and enables us to shed that suffocating life and to find a new life in Him, a fulfilled life, the life that we were designed to have. The life that we so desperately were after, but could never attain.

Sounds quite dreary, all this misery and desperate pride and arrogance and more misery. Is that really how you view humanity?

Hmm you're right I suppose I shouldn't be so presumptive. I know for a fact that's how I was, and I've heard many other people say the same thing, but I shouldn't assume that is how it is for everybody. And you're right it is quite dreary. But I think what would be even more dreary would be for me to still be in the dark and trying to make my life seem better than it was instead of facing the music and letting the light of Christ expose me completely. What is freeing is finally admitting that my life is dreary and that I need help. That is anything but dreary!

By the way I still don't know what toys you were referring to a while back????

[humanguy]

I still don't know what toys you were referring to a while back????

It's referring to God, Jesus, the Bible, sin, heaven, all the toys that Christians play with. But it's really a disrespectful thing to say, and I apologize for saying it.

My life has been dreary many times, and I know what it is to be desperate. It's at times like that that you find strength in your humanity, the old insistence on surviving. I will survive this and then I'll move on. It works! Life isn't easy, but that isn't a deal-killer. Your struggles, your battles, your striving, those are the things that make you who you are. Even if you never come out ahead, you're still alive, and that's what counts. We're made to survive, us humans.

Christianity paints humanity as a wretched lot, full of pride and arrogance, miserable and spreading misery to others. I reject that completely.

[cleve]

I still don't know what toys you were referring to a while back????

It's referring to God, Jesus, the Bible, sin, heaven, all the toys that Christians play with. But it's really a disrespectful thing to say, and I apologize for saying it.

My life has been dreary many times, and I know what it is to be desperate. It's at times like that that you find strength in your humanity, the old insistence on surviving. I will survive this and then I'll move on. It works! Life isn't easy, but that isn't a deal-killer. Your struggles, your battles, your striving, those are the things that make you who you are. Even if you never come out ahead, you're still alive, and that's what counts. We're made to survive, us humans.

Christianity paints humanity as a wretched lot, full of pride and arrogance, miserable and spreading misery to others. I reject that completely.

Humanguy,
So then, it sounds like you're saying that Christians tend to convey a negative impression of humanity and life because of their superficial responses to situations. Is that what you mean? Instead, it sounds like you prefer that a more realistic perspective be taken towards life. The more unrealistic way that most Christians have chosen to interpret and apply their experiences in life - through the ways that they interpret and apply what is communicated in the Bible - conveys to you that they seem to be "toying" with the Bible and other terms and concepts that pertain to their religion.
Life has a broader and truer perspective than the superficial outlook conveyed by Christians. Christians need to flex into a broader foundation of understanding, especially when it comes to what life is trying to offer us. Some areas that this pertains to include suffering, struggles, battles, and learning experiences. Life also functions in cycles - cycles that work to help us grow stronger as we endure and survive through the seasons of life. Merely talking about matters such as pride, arrogance, and misery is superficial when it comes to searching for the truth.

If you think Christianity/Christiandom might be "riding" with a "free bus ticket" to go though "Babylon," I am afraid you're probably right. Such seems to be part of the human experience of learning. It isn't necessary to pity those who are not afraid to take risks at learning.

[Dr Mundo]

I'm only on page 9 so far, and I have to say extremely frustrated with the conversations so far. first rain you do seem bigoted with your views.
Two, how have you guys not pressed moon wood about how he knows what he knows about god much harder. Moonwood I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or if you can't help it, but I feel like everyone is letting you get away with too much. Be clear as to what you mean and answer the fucking questions with honesty and integrity.
I hope later on add I read through this you give a good account for your justification regarding what you know about your god.

[Dr Mundo]

"Those myths I don't believe in? Those are myths. This myth I do believe in? That's the truth."

The majority of humans, even reasonists, tend to think in this way.

A good reasonist would believe based on reasoned evidence. I'm my opinion at least.

[Dr Mundo]

Is there a Christian on this forum who can answer oh fuck it. Cleve, go on playing with your toys. Aaron...you go on playing with your toys too. Go on playing with your little bloody toys.

Here's a question: does being a Christian make a person stupid? Discuss...

No. but you have to start somewhere.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I'm only on page 9 so far, and I have to say extremely frustrated with the conversations so far. first rain you do seem bigoted with your views.
Two, how have you guys not pressed moon wood about how he knows what he knows about god much harder. Moonwood I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or if you can't help it, but I feel like everyone is letting you get away with too much. Be clear as to what you mean and answer the fucking questions with honesty and integrity.
I hope later on add I read through this you give a good account for your justification regarding what you know about your god.

I'm inclined to agree. It's not that I don't have answers to some at least of the further questions that could be asked but I don't want to say something and then say but it could be objected and then answer an objection which no one is actually raising. Humanguy makes a really good challenge and I fluff answering him by being too brief and avoiding the thrust of his question. Rian seemed to think I should give him descriptions of my personal experiences and I was willing to do that but would do it knowing that he or Keep the Reason or someone would say, 'But that doesn't demonstrate there is a God.' and of course it does not. I have always made it clear that I do not regard my experiences as evidence for someone else.

Rationalists tend to assume that in order to validly know something I need to know how I know and the justification of a knowledge claim is found in the arguments that show it is justified. I believe and think I can demonstrate that many of our most fundamental knowledge claims are justified without argument although we may use argument to show they are justified. So I can be justified in believing that I know even if I do not know how I know. Wittgenstein puts this wittily by saying that to say I have to know how I know before I can know anything is like saying I have to be able to spell the word spelling before I can spell any other word. I think that is a core difference between me and you reasonist guys who are rationalists in some ways but it's a philosophical point that did not fully emerge until the mid twentieth century although I think it was implicit in some medieval thinking. Anyway I always feel you guys have not taken this kind of thing on board. I actually think this is what people mean when they say Richard Dawkins is very nineteenth century and he has some totally fanciful idea of what they must mean.

On the other hand Keep the Reason has persistently avoided my challenges to him and I don't know if that is deliberate or because he does not understand what I am saying. He does not seem to see any problem in saying 'All valid truth claims must be demonstrated' and I am weary of pointing out the problems with that. I also find it exhausting having to spend ages arguing points that have been widely accepted as proved for the last few centuries or even the last couple of millennia. I don't have a problem with his challenging received ideas but he does not seem to be aware that these ideas ever have been discussed or how the discussion went. Unless he is using some very subtle Socratic technique and is only feigning ignorance.

Anyway DrM I'm taking a break from all this arguing for a while so I will probably not engage with you on this which is a pity; even now I feel the impulse to get stuck in. Some people feel the same way about street fighting that I feel about philosophical debate. I'm not sure any of it is healthy. Anyway DrM I enjoyed reading your paper and hope my comments were helpful.

[Rian]

first rain you do seem bigoted with your views.

I'm taking a break from the discussion part of the forum but I'll make an exception for you, Dr. M. I'd be very interested to hear why you think I seem bigoted (based on what I actually said).

[mitchellmckain]

first rain you do seem bigoted with your views.

I'm taking a break from the discussion part of the forum but I'll make an exception for you, Dr. M. I'd be very interested to hear why you think I seem bigoted (based on what I actually said).

I guess it is how some people decide to define "bigotted" to suit themselves. When they say that you are brain damaged or mentally ill for daring to believe in things that they don't want to believe in, then suggesting that such an attitude is bigotted mean that you upardonably rude, ill mannered, unlikeable, etc.... etc... BUT if you say anything that they think they can label as casting apsersions on them in any way whatsoever (i.e. say something they don't like) then THAT means that you are biggotted. LOL The hypocrisy and my-side bias is so thick you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw.

And if you ask me wqhat I think-- you'd better be prepared for my truth. Believe in a Rapture until you rupture, but get your crazy-assed fingers away from the Big Red Button. And don't be surprised if, when I select leaders, I say, "Don't elect crazy-assed delusional people to offices where they can press the Big Red Button. they are crazy-assed people."

This isn't bigotted, oh no!!!!

This is what we are to call bigotted:

Personally, I would vote for a kind, thoughtful, intelligent atheist over a nutty Christian, as I think a lot of Christians would, but to complain that atheists as a group are unelectable - well, that's because so many of them are angry and condescending, if not downright rude and insulting, towards Christians. Why would I want to elect someone that hates me and thinks I'm stupid?

go figure!

I suppose what I can point out to Rian is that no matter how bad the group in general appears to Christians because of the nastiness of its most vocal spokesmen, it is no more just to attribute that nastiness to people just because they are atheists than it is to attribute the nastiness of Gay and Jew hating "christians" to other people just because they are Christian. In fact, you should be able to understand that the negative perception you have for their groups is NO DIFFERENT than the negative perception that many atheists have of Christians.

[StillSearching]

"Those myths I don't believe in? Those are myths. This myth I do believe in? That's the truth."

The majority of humans, even reasonists, tend to think in this way.

A good reasonist would believe based on reasoned evidence. I'm my opinion at least.

Yes, but even reasonists are subject to bias. That was my point. Not that reasonists believe in myths too (though I believe that many do), but that we all tend to wrap ourselves in our own worldview, while seeing others' as flawed or outright wrong.

[Keep The Reason]

No, of course it's not bigoted to say I would not vote for any leader who adopts a vision of Armageddon. I would not vote for a Pat Robertson. I REFUSED to vote for Ronald Reagan for this reason alone (though there were others).

I would never vote for a Rick Santorum, strictly on his religious beliefs platform. His religious beliefs informs his actions to the point where he considers education a liability (for others, not for himself), where his sexual values are to be mandated for everyone else, and where the USA would work better as his version of theocracy.

You see, Mitch, it really does depend on how their beliefs informs their actions. I had serious concerns about Obama and his involvement with Rev Wright, but as it happens, Obama is one of those politicians who offers the minimal amount of gesture to religion in order to succeed. And yep, you can have a discussion about the integrity of such maneuvers wherein I'd concede it's not particularly authentic. Necessary to win, perhaps, but cynical. still, my deciding factor in voting for him was, "Either the platitude Christian, or the uncomfortably elderly war hawk who chose a bat shit crazy Christian as his running mate".

And yes, Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy, articulately in her bible-thumping. That's not bigotry, that's a rational conclusion based on her own words and stated beliefs about how the world works, what she believes, and how she'd manage things if in power.

You call this "bigotry" and I call it "Being informed about positions that would effect the well being of the country, if not the world".

And I'll wager you would be no different than I, given similar circumstances in a slightly different direction. I challenge you: would you vote for president a Moslem candidate who actively sought to impose sharia law n the US populace? Would you vote for an atheist who decided to force mechanized eugenics on the US populace?

When you respond, "No", then you'll know exactly how I refuse to vote in Armageddon-believing Christians into office and want their crazy assed fingers as far away from the Big Red Buttn as is imaginable.

[Rian]

I'm only on page 9 so far, and I have to say extremely frustrated with the conversations so far. first rain you do seem bigoted with your views.
Two, how have you guys not pressed moon wood about how he knows what he knows about god much harder. Moonwood I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or if you can't help it, but I feel like everyone is letting you get away with too much. Be clear as to what you mean and answer the fucking questions with honesty and integrity.
I hope later on add I read through this you give a good account for your justification regarding what you know about your god.

I'm inclined to agree. It's not that I don't have answers to some at least of the further questions that could be asked but I don't want to say something and then say but it could be objected and then answer an objection which no one is actually raising. Humanguy makes a really good challenge and I fluff answering him by being too brief and avoiding the thrust of his question. Rian seemed to think I should give him descriptions of my personal experiences and I was willing to do that but would do it knowing that he or Keep the Reason or someone would say, 'But that doesn't demonstrate there is a God.' and of course it does not. I have always made it clear that I do not regard my experiences as evidence for someone else.

I don't think HG was asking in a "prove it!" sense - I think he was just genuinely curious. That was more of the original tone of the forum - a kind of respectful intellectual curiosity. The way it's been lately, I get the feeling that for many posters, questions are just for providing platforms for previously-thought-out positions and diatribes instead of for actually listening to the answer.

Anyway, if you decide to answer, you can always clarify that it's certainly not a proof for anyone but yourself.