I came across another description of having experienced the presence of the deity. It is nothing like the Atheists’ scornful “talking with sky-daddy”. It is not even a two-way communication of ideas in discrete human time clicks. And it is much more than a sudden realization or epiphany. There is one aspect of it that this new description provides: the experience includes what might be described as new knowledge and even a new knowledge type.
Knowledge of the existence of a mystery beyond myself and beyond Materialism; or rather, the actual existence of something which remains mysterious to us: this is another view of having had an experience of the existence of the deity, an experience which is personal, non-replicable, non-tangible, yet as real as the experiences reached through neural transmission of sensory inputs. It is only a portion of the experience, but a necessary element of it. I repeat, it is only a portion of the experience.
I am made completely aware that the mysterious element exists, that the element is actual. I am endowed with new knowledge which is inescapable, not a personal conclusion which is revocable.
Atheism is a denial of the existence of that mystery. There can be no mysterious element in the Atheist worldview. Their evidence for that is merely denial and denigration of the Other; there is and can be no actual physical, replicable evidence to support their denial. The Atheist denial is a personal conclusion, without evidence for its support, a conclusion which is entirely revocable.
The experience is more than just new knowledge, in the human sense of knowledge. It also appears as a different tool of discernment. As an Atheist I was not open to any analysis of Materialism itself; Materialism was a given, an axiom, a First Principle not to be questioned. This is at least in part because Materialism has no basis for its declaration; it is indefensible yet declared Truth. It is a religious doctrine, which is not to be subjected to the critical analysis so cherished for all other aspects of the universe.
Atheists are content with this viewpoint. What annoys them is the persistence of those of us who have experienced more than that, outside of the restricted paradigm which materialists need to be the whole truth. Anything which threatens Materialism also threatens Atheism and all that goes along with it.
The reason that there are so many uber-aggressive Atheists these days seems to be that the Other is a threat to the presupposed rationality of Atheism via the destruction of Materialism. So the Atheists counter-attack with Ad Hominems, False Dichotomies, Straw Men, and other non-sequiturs which they pretend is logic. The Other, they scream, is anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-women’s health, anti-minority, anti-rational. It is child abuse to suggest an openness to such knowledge to your children. Suggesting that such knowledge exists poisons everything. All wars are due to the belief in such knowledge. Poverty and environmental damage are caused by such knowledge. Such knowledge is nullified by the existence of gravity and the gratuitous extrapolations of evolutionary theory. Only fools and the demented believe in the existence of such knowledge.
But their screams are not themselves based on valid premises and certainly not on any first principles which are logically defensible. Because a blind man has never experienced cobalt blue (one of my favorite colors) does not invalidate the existence of the experiencing of cobalt blue by other humans. Cobalt blue is not a physical actuality because it is actually a reflection of photons acting at a certain wave length. The experience itself as the color, cobalt blue, is internal and personal to each human. So there is no way that I can relate to a blind man what my experience of the color, cobalt blue, is like. There is no comparable internal reference for the blind man to use as a comparison – cobalt blue is like… So the communication between a seeing individual and a blind individual cannot include the experience of seeing cobalt blue.
Is the blind man justified in denying the existence of the color, cobalt blue? Why would he attempt do this irrational mental jump into the abyss? The reason must be other than logic; it is based on wishfulness, a need for the color not to exist, an emotional drive to make it not exist.
So it is with Materialism and Atheism. It is just not possible to make Atheism rational. It is possible, however, to defend it irrationally, loudly, and legally (expensive for the Other, of course). And that is the essence of aggressive Atheism.
43 comments:
This is a missing piece of the puzzle for me.
No personal experience at all. Just a black void, where my voice echoes and no one answers.
It didn't happen right away for me, and I never asked for it. It was actually quite a while after I had completely signed up that it happened, and I don't think it made a difference in the level my "signed up-ness", which as I say was pretty much complete. For me it was an unexpected bonus.
I suspect, without knowing for certain, that it is not available in the same way that miracles are not available: not on demand or command of a human being made on the deity. It cannot be made as a precondition of acceptance, it appears to me.
Maybe it's like an anniversary gift which you don't receive until you've been married for awhile. I never got a cohabition gift... Or maybe not; it's part of the mystery.
Hello, I have a few comments and questions on your post, if I may.
You stated you had an experience which qualifies as "knowledge of the existence of a mystery beyond myself and beyond Materialism; or rather, the actual existence of something which remains mysterious to us: this is another view of having had an experience of the existence of the deity..."
It seems you conflate "a mystery" or "the mysterious" with the existence of a deity. Isn't that an unwarranted leap? What justifies it?
You said, "Atheism is a denial of the existence of that mystery."
Not really. An atheist simply lacks grounds to regard your experience as what you say it is. For one, it is a personal (i.e., specific to you) experience. And two, given the testimony of similar experiences for beings that cannot all exist, your claim is rightly regarded with skepticism.
Perhaps it is authentic, but there are no good reasons (yet) to regard it as such. You could very well be deluded. Joseph Smith claimed to have met Jesus in upstate New York. Was his experience authentic or a delusion?
You said, "This is at least in part because Materialism has no basis for its declaration; it is indefensible yet declared Truth."
Well, we know matter exists. That's not in dispute. What we lack is any good evidence that anything more than that exists. Until a time that such evidence arises - contradictory personal experiences notwithstanding - materialism should be our presumption.
You asked, "Is the blind man justified in denying the existence of the color, cobalt blue?"
Nope. The blind man should respond, "I lack sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of cobalt blue based on your say-so." He would be an "a-cobalt blueist", i.e., lacking a belief in the existence of cobalt blue.
If someone came to you and said they experienced a dragon, what would be your response?
You said, "The reason must be other than logic; it is based on wishfulness, a need for the color not to exist, an emotional drive to make it not exist...So it is with Materialism and Atheism."
Atheists "need" for god not to exist? Hmm..ok.
This post I think is key. I recall that when I was a teenager, the subject of relgion would come up, and it would be followed up by a whole mess of talk about beliefs. This was strange to me. For me, thinking and willing was entirely ancillary. The essence of religion is experience; witness to the numinous.
Now, don't get me wrong. I can't say that I ever had the clouds part for me or have heard voices on the wind- I've been pretty mystically flat-footed. Nevertheless, I'm comfortable with what I call the testimony of gnosis- direct unmediated insight (non-discursive knowledge) of higher orders of reality.
I contend that the experience of qualities and humanity's intellectual, moral, and esthetic nature are reflections or intimations of those "levels" of reality.
For those who poo poo all such talk as mystical claptrap and brain farts, well then I'd say, "Be scientific, do the experiment. Except, in this case, the laboratory is one's own mind. Why should metaphysical knowledge be easy?"
Hello Robert,
”It seems you conflate "a mystery" or "the mysterious" with the existence of a deity. Isn't that an unwarranted leap? What justifies it?”
Your need for a justification is exactly the point: I report what happened, you look for reasons to deny it. But of course you cannot disprove that it happened. So you will conflate it with delusion:
”Not really. An atheist simply lacks grounds to regard your experience as what you say it is. For one, it is a personal (i.e., specific to you) experience. And two, given the testimony of similar experiences for beings that cannot all exist, your claim is rightly regarded with skepticism.
Perhaps it is authentic, but there are no good reasons (yet) to regard it as such. You could very well be deluded. Joseph Smith claimed to have met Jesus in upstate New York. Was his experience authentic or a delusion?”
There it is. There certainly are delusions. One is that there is a solid reason to reject the existence of [!Q], as was argued above. And it is delusional to equate all experiences not had personally with delusion. This is solipsism, and it is the refuge of those who wish to defend the existence of only a material reality, but one which cannot be shared due to the lack of common neural paths: my experience is real: yours is delusional because I don’t experience it directly. Because I cannot share your experience there is no reason to think that it is not delusional.
”Well, we know matter exists. That's not in dispute. What we lack is any good evidence that anything more than that exists. Until a time that such evidence arises - contradictory personal experiences notwithstanding - materialism should be our presumption.”
This is the standard category error: we must have material evidence for any non-material existence. Personal experiences are delusional by definition – the materialist definition, that is.
The Atheo-Materialist sees only one category: physical. All evidence then must be available physically in order to satisfy this precondition, a precondition which is not itself provable using materialist, physical techniques. Because it cannot satisfy its own demands for evidential purity, then Atheo-Materialism fails its own conditions for validity.
The need to actually prove, materially, the non-existence of either the related experience or the non-existence of the non-material realm is not accepted by the materialist. The Atheo-Materialist feels free to provide, not evidence, but empty accusations without evidence. Only the others need to prove their position, not the Atheo-Materialist.
Declaring that materialism should be our presumption is a moral statement, not a statement of fact. In fact, there is no reason to make any presupposition a moral value, least of which would be limitations on thought processes. Making it a moral value creates a special pleading for an unprovable, anti-intellectual position.
”He would be an "a-cobalt blueist", i.e., lacking a belief in the existence of cobalt blue.”
This is an example of the current Atheist dodge, wherein they deny that they deny an existence, despite their having denied it. The issue is whether it is rational to deny the existence of something claimed by the experience of another, merely because one has not experienced it. Atheists do NOT lack a belief, they have a specific belief: there exists no deity. When they deny that they have this belief, they shed their cloak of intellectual respectability by virtue of the disingenuousness of that denial. Atheists are not A-gnostic, despite their attempts to redefine and obscure their belief system.
Hi Stan, you wrote,
I report what happened, you look for reasons to deny it. But of course you cannot disprove that it happened. So you will conflate it with delusion:
Goodness, not at all! I didn't characterize your experience as a delusion, though you must grant that it's a possibility. I merely wondered how you justify your experience with "the mysterious" as an experience of a deity. That seems to me rather hasty, an unwarranted leap.
And it is delusional to equate all experiences not had personally with delusion.
Agreed, but that's not what I did.
So, again I ask, was Joseph Smith's experience authentic or a delusion?
What is your response to someone who said they experienced a dragon?
This is the standard category error: we must have material evidence for any non-material existence.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll notice I never claimed that we must have material evidence for non-material existence.
Personal experiences are delusional by definition – the materialist definition, that is.
Actually, what I stated is that personal experiences tend to conflict with one another, thus providing reasonable grounds to regard them with skepticism.
Declaring that materialism should be our presumption is a moral statement, not a statement of fact.
I'm not clear how such a presumption has anything to do with morality. Presumptions are not assumed as facts, but are regarded as such until disproven.
Atheists do NOT lack a belief, they have a specific belief: there exists no deity...When they deny that they have this belief, they shed their cloak of intellectual respectability by virtue of the disingenuousness of that denial.
So, you're telling atheists what they believe, and when they don't conform to your definition, you call them disingenious.
It's always easier to attack strawmen.
Robert,
Allow me to make a few comments. I am non-theist as well, but I also have some sympathy for Stan's point of view.
As for the definition of atheism, I tend to side with Stan on this one. Atheists claim to just "lack belief," but every time I corner them with logic, it quickly becomes apparent that they DO in fact have the positive belief that God does not exist.
"God exists" is a proposition, and is thus either true or false. Thus, there are only two ways to go on it. The third option is to withhold judgment. So when atheists say they lack theism, that means the ONLY possible positions they could be are "don't know yet" or "false." Most of the ones I talk to are very clear that God is imaginary, a magic sky daddy, etc. They make it clear they don't think God exists, yet at the same time they claim they only lack belief. I agree with Stan that there is a deep (and perhaps subconscious) dishonesty about this.
As for personal experience, consider some Eastern religions, who brush with solipsism: the view that only your own mind is what exists. When they look around at what you think is the external world, they see the delusion in their own minds, or an extension of their consciousness, or whatever. So even with the personal experience of reality all around you there is disagreement as to what it is. You would, of course, feel confident that they are wrong and you are right.
Same goes for theists like Stan vs Joseph Smith: he is confident that Joseph Smith is deluded in the same way, but quite confident of his own experience.
Ultimately, of course, there is no way to resolve this for an outsider. But that's not the intent...
”Goodness, not at all! I didn't characterize your experience as a delusion, though you must grant that it's a possibility. I merely wondered how you justify your experience with "the mysterious" as an experience of a deity. That seems to me rather hasty, an unwarranted leap.”
Try not to think of me as an ignoramus. You most certainly did equate my experience to a delusion, complete with a moral justification for it. And here you go:
”So, again I ask, was Joseph Smith's experience authentic or a delusion?
What is your response to someone who said they experienced a dragon?”
This is precisely an attempt to denote my experience as a delusion by association. Your position with Smith apparently is that you cannot know so you must consider it to be a delusion. This is heavily implied, but not so cleverly not stated. Your position with the dragon is that you know, somehow, apparently inductively, that there are no dragons, and so you must consider it to be a delusion. You position is then carried over as a “Guilt by Association Fallacy” to my experience, which you also must consider to be a delusion.
”And it is delusional to equate all experiences not had personally with delusion.
Agreed, but that's not what I did.
Again that is exactly what you did. Moreover, your personal value of skepticism is of no value whatsoever in evaluating my eyewitness testimony. It makes no difference to me or anyone else how skeptical you are. Skepticism is your personal attack on things you don’t know. I am not bound by your skepticism, nor is anyone else.
Is it possible that it is a delusion as you insist that I must admit? It is possible that you are a brain-in-a-vat; there is no possible way for you to prove otherwise. So for you, the skeptic, all reality must be considered a possible delusion. For the rest of us, there are signatures that reality gives us individually, including coherence, which ultimately combine to suffice as non-material evidence. This would not be sufficient for the determined radical skeptic, however.
The problem for the skeptic is where to draw the line on his skepticism: is he a Pyrrhic brain-in-a-vat? Is all of his experiential input delusional? He cannot prove otherwise, but not many will take the unprovability of the reality he experiences as a presupposition requiring disbelief of all of reality. And so he must then redraw the line of acceptable/unacceptable input of which to be skeptical – and it becomes a sliding scale of disbelief based on personal proclivity, not on rational judgment. That’s why skepticism is of no importance to anyone but the individual skeptic. Forced into a corner, skeptics become either radically skeptical or more generous with their acceptance of non-provable evidence.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
”I'm not clear how such a presumption has anything to do with morality. Presumptions are not assumed as facts, but are regarded as such until disproven.”
Every “should” statement is a moral value, with a twist of coercion. You “should” do [X]. Presumptions are rarely actual First Principles and are usually opinions that are generated to make the opinionator comfortable in declaring his opinions to be fact. Presuppositions are always questioned in logic. Only First Principles are accepted as axiomatic; if other non-axiomatic presuppositions are claimed as “fact” despite their unprovability, then they are also considered political or ideological opinions by logicians. Basing propositional, syllogistic logical statements on unprovable presuppositions (especially moral statements) removes all truth value from the arguments.
” So, you're telling atheists what they believe, and when they don't conform to your definition, you call them disingenious.”
When they lie, I tell them so, yes. But, it is not my definition, it is a tiny taste of logic, to wit:
If a person has not heard of the deity theory, then he has no belief one way or the other.
If a person has heard of the deity theory, then the following obtain:
a) he rejects it (Atheist);
or,
b) he accepts it (Deist/Theist);
or,
c) he can’t decide (Agnostic);
or,
d) he forgets it entirely, without considering it (happily ignorant of the issue).
Only d) involves not having a deity theory; And d) does not apply to Atheists who come here with arguments for rejecting it. For them to claim that they have no deity theory suggests that they have no respect either for logic, or for anyone else’s ability to see through such primitive logic twisting. So they either believe their own fallacy, or they are lying. I give them the benefit of enough intelligence not to actually believe their own prefabricated fallacy, so that leaves lying.
Hi Martin, thank you for your comments. You wrote,
[Atheists] make it clear they don't think God exists, yet at the same time they claim they only lack belief. I agree with Stan that there is a deep (and perhaps subconscious) dishonesty about this.
It seems to me there's a missing element in your construction here. That is, the atheist's acknowledgement that it's possible a god could exist. Most atheists I know don't completely rule one out, but take the position that the evidence thus far doesn't support the god-claim. In general, they don't say, "I deny any god exists" (as Stan thinks they should, if they're truly atheists). This seems to me consistent with a lack of belief.
Same goes for theists like Stan vs Joseph Smith: he is confident that Joseph Smith is deluded in the same way, but quite confident of his own experience.
What I'm trying to understand is why Stan is confident Joseph Smith is deluded, while at the same time roundly denouncing any outsider's suggestion that his experience could be anything but authentic.
My own view is that Stan could have an authentic experience of a deity, as he claims, but there are little grounds to regard it as such and many grounds to doubt it. I'm also struck by his positive equation of "the mysterious" with a deity, which seems hasty.
Try not to think of me as an ignoramus. You most certainly did equate my experience to a delusion, complete with a moral justification for it. And here you go:
Not knowing my view on Smith's experience or the existence of dragons, it seems to me you are again making unwarranted leaps.
You say you had an experience with "the mysterious". Then you confidently claim this experience is of a deity. I think this is a hasty conclusion and wondered how you arrived at it. You've said nothing to clarify, instead becoming defensive.
Now that you've tipped your hand and we know you regard Joseph Smith's experience as a delusion, I ask on what grounds do you do so? It seems I can quote you in defense of Smith's experience. Perhaps he had "what might be described as new knowledge and even a new knowledge type". Your skepticism is simply an "attack on things you don't know", and for individuals like Smith, "there are signatures that reality gives [them] individually, including coherence, which ultimately combine to suffice as non-material evidence."
Your attack on skepticism seems hypocritical in light of your denial of the authenticity of Smith's experience (or the claims of those who have an experience with dragons).
Every “should” statement is a moral value, with a twist of coercion.
"Should" statements can be made for a number reasons, not all of which are concerned with moral questions.
"I should take the bus today instead of walk."
"Why?"
"Because the forecast today calls for rain, and I'd rather not get wet."
If a person has heard of the deity theory, then the following obtain:
There's another option:
e) he sets the theory aside until further information or data become available
In any case, what do you call the person who falls under your d) scenario?
Most atheists I know don't completely rule one out, but take the position that the evidence thus far doesn't support the god-claim. That is, the atheist's acknowledgement that it's possible a god could exist.
Levels of justification will always be imperfect. It isn't 100% true, 100% false, or exactly 50/50. I waver back and forth over the middle line myself some days, while still remaining firmly in the 50/50 camp.
Most atheists I talk to are quite materialist: when you die you die, there is no reality beyond particles and energy, etc. But they "lack belief" in theism. Nonsense. If you are materialist, then by definition you positively believe that theism is false (even if not 100%), you don't lack belief.
What I'm trying to understand is why Stan is confident Joseph Smith is deluded, while at the same time roundly denouncing any outsider's suggestion that his experience could be anything but authentic.
Consider the case of the external world I mentioned. The solipsist might say that your belief in the external world violate Occam, and that you have no good arguments or evidence for it. And he would be right, technically speaking.
But I can confidentally say that the solipsist is wrong, even though I can't say why exactly. It just feels wrong.
In other words, we are all having subjective experience, and we all think ours are correct and other people's are wrong if they differ from it.
Stan can be confident in the reality of his theism, and confident in the delusion of Joseph Smith, in exactly the same way that you can be confident that the solipsist is deluded and you are correct about the external world.
Most atheists I talk to are quite materialist: when you die you die, there is no reality beyond particles and energy, etc. But they "lack belief" in theism. Nonsense. If you are materialist, then by definition you positively believe that theism is false (even if not 100%), you don't lack belief.
While such a view of death is compatible with materialism, it doesn't necessarily mark the person as a materialist. Materialism is the theory that "physical matter is the only fundamental reality". If you hold to such a theory, then I agree, you positively deny there are no gods and you would reject an afterlife.
However, you could hold the view that when you die, that's it, not because you assert materialism, but because you lack any reasonable evidence to believe anything else happens.
Stan can be confident in the reality of his theism, and confident in the delusion of Joseph Smith, in exactly the same way that you can be confident that the solipsist is deluded and you are correct about the external world.
So Stan can be confident in the reality of theism because he believes it to be so? Would it thus be impossible for Stan to be mistaken or delusional?
The curious thing though is that I don't see Stan confining himself to his belief, but attacking those who do not automatically assent to it. This seems to suggest Stan believes there is a reality outside the confines of his mind, which others have access to.
Robert 050111
”What I'm trying to understand is why Stan is confident Joseph Smith is deluded, while at the same time roundly denouncing any outsider's suggestion that his experience could be anything but authentic.”
Of course this is false, I said no such thing, the evidence is above for all to see.
”Not knowing my view on Smith's experience or the existence of dragons, it seems to me you are again making unwarranted leaps.”
It is quite clear what your view is, and that you are here to play word games.
”You've said nothing to clarify, instead becoming defensive.”
I do not intend to clarify, because this experience is outside your ability to understand, and my ability to explain. You are obviously a Materialist and there is no material evidence which can be made available to you.
And I did not defend Smith in any way; what I defend is your inability to make any determination at all other than what you choose to believe about it. I have the same inability. You choose to make your inability to have concrete knowledge into a denial, as is the habit of contemporary skeptics; I pointed out possible extenuating circumstances that you might consider first.
However, the fact remains that your tactic is merely the Guilt By Association Fallacy. What happened or did not happen in other cases has no bearing on what happened in my case. You cannot play probability justification games by using independent and unrelated data in your calculations – not that you made or make any calculations. Nor can you make deductions or inferences from such unrelated events.
Moreover my attack on skepticism, blind skepticism based on fallacies as yours is, has a coherence that your argument does not. I shall repeat: you may be as skeptical as you wish, based on whatever you wish, and still your conclusions will not be based on any fact(s) or proofs, especially not empirical grade evidence. You have no evidence either way; what you choose to do with that is of no concern to me, because it is no more than a personal decision without any basis other than your opinion.
“Should” does not substitute for “would be wise to…” or “will” or “shall”, as you suggest. “Should” is the past tense for “shall”, and it refers to a “command” when used in the context of your statement. This is known as Hume’s Law: you cannot deduce an “ought” from an “is”. ”Poincare’s Law” expands on Hume’s Law to state that “You can’t deduce an imperative from an ‘is’: If B is a consistent non-evaluative statement and A is a simple contingent action, then B doesn’t entail the imperative, ‘Do act A’.” It is even less possible to deduce an imperative from a lack of evidence. A lack of material evidence produces only a lack of knowledge of material objects; a lack of material evidence has no bearing on knowledge of non-material entities, including logic, math, and existences outside the material universe.
Your option (e) is already contained in the option (c) : Agnostic. Interestingly, most avowed agnostics I have encountered seem to seek legitimate truth, while Atheists seek to force their fallacies on others with attacks on the meanings of words, etc.
I don’t know of a philosophical or theological referent for(d).
(continued below)
(Continued from above)
”So Stan can be confident in the reality of theism because he believes it to be so? Would it thus be impossible for Stan to be mistaken or delusional?
The curious thing though is that I don't see Stan confining himself to his belief, but attacking those who do not automatically assent to it. This seems to suggest Stan believes there is a reality outside the confines of his mind, which others have access to.”
There are certain aspects of reality that are necessary truths, as logician Paul Tomassi calls them. These are unprovable and are always true [within our universe – my caveat]. One of these is the group of principles called the ”Three Laws of Thought” by logicians Irving M. Copi, Gensler, and as “Laws of Logic” by Tomassi, who says that, “Certainly, these formulas [Laws] require no premises, but that does not mean that they follow from nothing. Rather, the mere form of such a formula is sufficient to guarantee its truth.” For which he gives the example of the Law of Identity [Tautology]. The First Principles of Logic, along with valid argumentation forms, is sufficient to guarantee a "rational" conclusion. The idea that rational conclusions require material evidence is false, and it is a perversion of Logic that would prevent math and science from concluding anything at all, when it is tested with Reductio Ad Absurdem (as is shown by both Tomassi and Gensler). Materialism involves the destruction of axioms which support math, science, logic and rationality.
The presupposed "rationality" of Materialism is false. Even Godel showed that.
There are also necessary truths philosophically speaking. There are First Principles that are the axiomatic basis for science (Cause and Effect; the necessity of time which must be measured secondarily as sequences, and cannot be observed directly; the presupposition that the universe is consistent across both time and space and that it will continue thus, making experiments have value).
I point out these things because you seem convinced that skepticism is some sort of universal law of nature, which “must” be adhered to in order for rationality to be preserved. That is not the case.
There are other more practical necessary truths, such as that I know my mother’s face, although I have no pictures of her and she is dead. Your skepticism of that issue is without any value to me or anyone else because I know what it is that I know, and you do not.
”The curious thing though is that I don't see Stan confining himself to his belief, but attacking those who do not automatically assent to it. This seems to suggest Stan believes there is a reality outside the confines of his mind, which others have access to.”
The attacker here is not myself, of course, it is you. Your attempts to devalue that which you can not experience yourself, nor have a shred of evidence by which to devalue it, is an attack. It is an attack without merit, and if pointing to the lack of merit of your argument is perceived as an attack on you personally (as in Ad Hominem), that is your misperception.
And yes, I think that there is adequate evidence to point to a reality that is not bounded by artificial Idealist rules such as Philosophical Materialism seeks to impose. The rules of material-existence-only cannot be verified with material evidence, thereby destroying any ability of Materialists to justify their own Materialism using their own rules: this is a logical non-coherence and therefore Materialism is a logical failure.
There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable non-material existence with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based. If you choose to be skeptical, that is an opinion-based decision. If you choose to attack my position, you have no evidence other than your opinion with which to work.
I will say one more thing: It is possible that I am mistaken. But your are not in a position to judge. It is possible that I am mistaken in the same sense that it is possible that I am a brain-in-a-vat, or that you are. Here are your problems in attempting to deny this issue: You have no evidence; you have nothing upon which to make probability calculations; you have only your opinion. Your opinion cannot be taken as rational unless you can base it on First Principles and valid logical formatting. Go ahead, I'll listen.
I think the accepted definition of knowledge is "justified true belief".
But, what is adequate justification?
When a mother cries to her sucking babe, "Come, O son, I am thy mother!"
Does the child answer, "O mother, show a proof that I shall find comfort in taking thy milk."
Stan wrote,
Of course this is false, I said no such thing, the evidence is above for all to see.
If you don't believe Smith's (or a dragon witness's) experience was a delusion, then on what do you base your charge that I'm painting your own experience as a delusion? As I already pointed out, I've not disclosed any judgement on Smith's experience (even if I did, my questions remain relevant). I've merely asked you how you regard his experience, as well as the experience of a dragon witness. It's telling, I think, that you refuse to answer. Nor have you answered how you've come to equate an experience with "the myterious" with that of a deity. If it was a deity, then it's not so mysterious any more, is it?
So, once again I ask, was Joseph Smith's experience (in update New York) authentic or a delusion?
What is your response to someone who said they experienced a dragon?
It is quite clear what your view is, and that you are here to play word games.
Pot, meet kettle. It's clear you're manufacturing strawmen to chase in order to avoid supporting your very own claims. Your contortions have even confused at least one other here who thought you believe Joseph Smith was deluded. Your reluctance ("petulence" might be a better description) is very curious in light of your previous confident assertions.
...and still your conclusions will not be based on any fact(s) or proofs, especially not empirical grade evidence.
What, precisely, do you understand to be my conclusions?
Your accusation is supremely ironic. I suppose your "new knowledge" qualifies as "empirical grade evidence"?
“Should” does not substitute...
Yes, it does, as any English speaker would easily attest. But if it makes you happy, I'll re-word my original statement thusly:
"Until a time that such evidence arises - contradictory personal experiences notwithstanding - it would be wise to employ materialism as our presumption."
Your option (e) is already contained in the option (c) : Agnostic.
Not necessarily. "Can't decide" because it's impossible to would be the agnostic position. "Can't decide" because the data are insufficiently clear is another distinct position, one most atheists hold.
I don’t know of a philosophical or theological referent for(d).
Atheist, of course. That individual is without a belief in god(s).
(continued...)
Stan wrote,
Your skepticism of that issue is without any value to me or anyone else because I know what it is that I know, and you do not.
Curious you say that, and then just a post later say this:
It is possible that I am mistaken.
If it's possible you're mistaken, then how do you confidently claim you know what it is that you know?
The attacker here is not myself, of course, it is you.
A straw man attacker, more like. Easier to battle it then answer for your own claims.
And yes, I think that there is adequate evidence to point to a reality that is not bounded by artificial Idealist rules ...
Where might I find this evidence? Is it, you know, of the "empirical grade" kind? Or does it exist only in your mind?
There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable non-material existence with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based.
I see. Evidence-less assertions about "other sources of knowledge" can only be denied with evidence. Makes perfect sense!
"There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable existence of multiverses with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based."
Funny how that works. I like it!
(BTW, why the inclusion of the word "probable"? The bulk of your post was about the alleged impossibility of materialism; wouldn't that make a non-material existence of some kind not a probability, but a certainty?)
Here are your problems in attempting to deny this issue: You have no evidence; you have nothing upon which to make probability calculations; you have only your opinion.
What if I told I had an experience best described as a new knowledge and even a new knowledge type that revealed to me that this universe is alive?
Robert 050211
Robert says,
”I've merely asked you how you regard his experience, as well as the experience of a dragon witness. It's telling, I think, that you refuse to answer. Nor have you answered how you've come to equate an experience with "the myterious" with that of a deity. If it was a deity, then it's not so mysterious any more, is it?”
I see that I must be more explicit with you. I will make these comments more direct.
1.) I have answered your Smith question; you refuse to accept it. Here it is in plain English, simply stated:
1. a) I regard the Smith issue which you continue to raise to be completely outside the subject at hand.
1. b) I regard your insistence upon raising the Smith issue as a poor attempt to pursue a fallacy which you intend to apply to the subject at hand.
2.) You are playing word games, from which you have nothing to gain. If you think the experience would remove all mystery, or if you choose to try to dictate such, then you are just wrong and you have no recourse to prove differently.
”Pot, meet kettle. It's clear you're manufacturing strawmen to chase in order to avoid supporting your very own claims. Your contortions have even confused at least one other here who thought you believe Joseph Smith was deluded. Your reluctance ("petulence" might be a better description) is very curious in light of your previous confident assertions.”
Name a strawman that I created. Accusations without substance will be challenged, so point to the fallacy you accuse me of.
Your Ad Hominem notwithstanding, I have described my experience to the best of my ability, as I stated previously. Your refusal to accept that is not my problem. What your refusal and accusations do show, however, is that your attacks on this issue lack any substance other than fallacious word games. You have no evidence with which to disprove, so your only available choice is to devalue using fallacy to imply error which you cannot prove exists.
”"Until a time that such evidence arises - contradictory personal experiences notwithstanding - it would be wise to employ materialism as our presumption."”
That is an acceptable definition of a faulty worldview, providing that the evidence you mean is material evidence. It is an opinion. My opinion differs from yours, based on a rejection of the arbitrary Materialist limitation on the rationality of evidential types to merely matter-based evidence. Two opinions. Pick and choose.
”Your option (e) is already contained in the option (c) : Agnostic.
Not necessarily. "Can't decide" because it's impossible to would be the agnostic position. "Can't decide" because the data are insufficiently clear is another distinct position, one most atheists hold.”
A perfect example of the word games that Atheists play. I suggest that you have no data to prove that most Atheists believe this. I also suggest that this position looks too silly to be the actual case. I finally suggest that this is a poorly implemented dodge to avoid the appearance of believing something you cannot prove, while still wearing the cherished mantle of Atheist (the presumption of eliteness).
It is of primary importance for Atheists to deny that they have a specific belief, because they know that they cannot prove it, thereby admitting that it is religious in nature rather than rational.
The new bumper sticker that Atheists would have us believe, that they have no position on the God question, places a cloud of absurdity over the entire Atheist community. No one other than defensive Atheists buys this dodge.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
”I don’t know of a philosophical or theological referent for(d).
Atheist, of course. That individual is without a belief in god(s).”
OK, I fell for the “rocks and trees and space dust is all Atheist", dodge. I should have seen that word game coming, shame on me. Regardless, that doesn't describe Atheists out seeking to promote Atheism. It denotes ignorance. If you choose to promote ignorance as your worldview, just go for it.
”It is possible that I am mistaken.
If it's possible you're mistaken, then how do you confidently claim you know what it is that you know?”
Do you not read what is written, or do you think I’m so obtuse as to allow you to misrepresent what I say… time and time again? Re-read it. If you truly do not comprehend it, say so, and I will rewrite it more simply.
”And yes, I think that there is adequate evidence to point to a reality that is not bounded by artificial Idealist rules ...
"Where might I find this evidence? Is it, you know, of the "empirical grade" kind? Or does it exist only in your mind?”
I hesitate to answer this because of your determination to twist and distort, because of your mental lock down on materialism which is obvious by your attitude, because of your refusal to address the fallacies you put forth, and because of your refusal to address the fallacy of Materialism. I have discussed the limitations of “empirical grade” knowledge, which even many Atheist philosophers admit, and yet you take no notice. So what should I expect after answering? More snark without evidence to back it up, while demanding evidence of “empirical grade”? Obviously that is the expectation of your undifferentiable attacks, attacks with no “empirical grade” evidence backing themselves up, attacks that are inferential yet illogical.
If you really wish to know, let me know, I’ll try to answer honestly. But I doubt you want to do anything other than to make more attacks with no substance to back them up.
(continued)
(continued from above)
” There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable non-material existence with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based.
I see. Evidence-less assertions about "other sources of knowledge" can only be denied with evidence. Makes perfect sense!”
You wish to be let free from your own worldview demands on others. This is a typical Atheist position, in fact it is a reason for playing the word games: there is no substance to Atheism, so it must be defended from false positions. Atheists think they are free to demand "empirical quality" evidence and yet are exempt from doing so themselves. The internal contradictions of Atheism are boundless, because it contains no truth value; without truth value, only non-coherence can result.
”"There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable existence of multiverses with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based."
Funny how that works. I like it!”
Then you agree? My my.
”(BTW, why the inclusion of the word "probable"? The bulk of your post was about the alleged impossibility of materialism; wouldn't that make a non-material existence of some kind not a probability, but a certainty?)”
You are right, I wrote that poorly. Let me rewrite more clearly:
"There are other sources of knowledge, and they[may be construed to] point to a [mathematically possible, a la string theory] existence of multiverses with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based."
To simplify, you might choose to deny this using Materialism as your basis, but you would not succeed without the material evidence which Materialism demands.
As an instance, mathematics is a non-material source of knowledge; is it a certainty? Under the rules of materialism, no. Mathematics would exist as valid even with zero material mass/energy, because it has an undeniable truth value although it is not verifiable (re: Godel's theorems). Without mathematics as an undeniable entity, empiricism is not possible beyond basic observations.
If that is not clear, I’ll try again.
”Here are your problems in attempting to deny this issue: You have no evidence; you have nothing upon which to make probability calculations; you have only your opinion.
"What if I told I had an experience best described as a new knowledge and even a new knowledge type that revealed to me that this universe is alive?”
I would suggest that your attempts to create false information in order to falsify mine is a failure, because it has no bearing on mine, other than via your need to discount mine by false association. It is the same quality argument as the FSM and orbiting teapot, where a deliberate falsehood is created as if it somehow falsifies other types of knowledge by use of the Fallacy of False Association. Without actual evidence, Atheists are forced into such fallacious reasoning.
Stan wrote,
I see that I must be more explicit with you. I will make these comments more direct.
Thank you for (finally) addressing this question, instead of falsely associating it with an attempt to denigrate your experience via "guilt by association" with other alleged delusional experiences (straw man #1). Now I see I must be more explicit with you in why I was insistent on asking it.
As you know (or surely must know, unless you're completely obtuse), your reported experience is in most respects not unique. Many individuals have expressed similar experiences with a vast array of gods, demi-gods, and other beings too numerous to mention. Practically all are equally earnest in their insistence on the authenticity of the experience, as well as their interpretation of it. Unfortunately, whenever those experiences have been testable (i.e., when they involve a prediction or revelation of information which can be verified), none have passed. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, these experiences conflict with other; they can't all be true, but they can all be wrong. Therefore, whenever someone reports an experience similar to yours, we're justified in reacting to it with skepticism and doubt.
Notice that I did not say with summary denial, which you accused me of, and in fact I never did (straw man #2). I was quite clear on that:
"Actually, what I stated is that personal experiences tend to conflict with one another, thus providing reasonable grounds to regard them with skepticism."
"My own view is that Stan could have an authentic experience of a deity, as he claims, but there are little grounds to regard it as such and many grounds to doubt it."
So now we come to the basis of my questions.
First, I wondered how you concluded your experience with "the mysterious" was that of a deity. If you knew the source of the experience, then it's not really a mystery. If it was a mystery, then your equation of it with a deity seems pre-mature (perhaps it was a demi-god playing tricks on you?). You've studiously avoided answering this.
Second, I was curious how you answer the equivalent experiences of others that may or may not conflict with your own. You confidently proclaimed the reality of your experience with "the mysterious"/"a deity", with nothing more than your say-so, and then launched into a diatribe how atheism couldn't possibly deny it. Well, lots of people, like Joseph Smith, have been equally earnest in the reality of their experiences and offered nothing more than their say-so as well. So do you thereby accept their say-so as true, as you would have us accept yours? If so, there seem to be almost no limits to what you'll accept as true. If not, then on what grounds? As I showed, your defense of your own experience can readily be employed to defend theirs.
Note this also: nothing in my questions presumes materialism (straw man #3). They're appropriate from anyone, up to and including other theists, who also make similar experiential claims, at least some of which are not compatible with your own.
In sum, you've provided nothing to overcome the justified doubt anyone (not just so-called atheo-materialists) would have about your say-so claims on "new knowledge types" and a "mysterious element" you've somehow equated with a deity (which deity is it, you do not say). Now, to be abundantly clear, this is not a denial that your claim could be true; it is, rather, the reasonable view there are virtually no grounds to regard it as true. Your only defense is an attack on atheism and materialism, which constitutes nothing more than a risibly irrelevant sideshow, and justifiably ignored.
(continued...)
Regardless, that doesn't describe Atheists out seeking to promote Atheism.
So it does describe Atheists who are not out seeking to promote Atheism? Well, guess what those people are called? Yep, you guessed it -
Atheists
I asked, "Where might I find this evidence? Is it, you know, of the "empirical grade" kind? Or does it exist only in your mind?”
Stan wrote,
I have discussed the limitations of “empirical grade” knowledge, which even many Atheist philosophers admit, and yet you take no notice...If you really wish to know, let me know, I’ll try to answer honestly.
Er, "empirical grade evidence" is what you predicted any conclusions of mine will lack, remember?
I shall repeat: you may be as skeptical as you wish, based on whatever you wish, and still your conclusions will not be based on any fact(s) or proofs, especially not empirical grade evidence.
It is you who established a standard, so naturally I'm asking whether your claim about "a reality that is not bounded by artificial idealist rules..." can meet your own standard.
Or does this alleged reality only need to meet some other standard?
You wish to be let free from your own worldview demands on others. This is a typical Atheist position, in fact it is a reason for playing the word games: there is no substance to Atheism, so it must be defended from false positions.
Perhaps one day you'll realize an attack on atheism and materialism does not constitute a defense of your claims. The latter rise and fall on their own merits.
Then you agree? My my.
As much as I agree with this:
"There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable existence of unicorns, talking snakes, and giants with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based."
Do you agree with that too?
I would suggest that your attempts to create false information in order to falsify mine is a failure, because it has no bearing on mine, other than via your need to discount mine by false association.
1) It does have a bearing because it potentially falsifies your own experience.
2) "Your attempts to devalue that which you can not experience yourself, nor have a shred of evidence by which to devalue it, is an attack. It is an attack without merit." "You have no evidence either way; what you choose to do with that is of no concern to me, because it is no more than a personal decision without any basis other than your opinion."
I would suggest that your attempts to create false information about "new knowledge types", a "mysterious element", and "a deity" in order to falsify atheism and/or materialism is a failure, because it has no bearing on them, other than via your need to discount them by false association.
Gotta love it when someone's own words can be employed as a defeater.
Robert 060311
”So it does describe Atheists who are not out seeking to promote Atheism? Well, guess what those people are called? Yep, you guessed it -
Atheists”
Why, under your new definition of all-inclusion, of course – along with rocks, trees, and cosmic dust and all ignorant entities: a useless category. Your persistence in including such things just goes to demonstrate the lengths to which you will stretch your own credulity in order to prevent logical dialog.
”Er, "empirical grade evidence" is what you predicted any conclusions of mine will lack, remember?”
Certainly. And?
”I shall repeat: you may be as skeptical as you wish, based on whatever you wish, and still your conclusions will not be based on any fact(s) or proofs, especially not empirical grade evidence.”
It is you who established a standard, so naturally I'm asking whether your claim about "a reality that is not bounded by artificial idealist rules..." can meet your own standard.
Or does this alleged reality only need to meet some other standard?”
You still do not tumble to the personal, subjective aspect, one which cannot be adequately shared, much less held to an objective standard. Nonetheless, I know what I know and you do not know what I know. So you must attack my credibility, which you also cannot know nor can you prove, but you will attempt to smear, regardless.
”Perhaps one day you'll realize an attack on atheism and materialism does not constitute a defense of your claims. The latter rise and fall on their own merits.”
This site is about the sea of intellectual irresponsibility and logical fallacy that underlie Atheism and Materialism. These two intellectually hollow worldviews produce exactly the thought process you are pursuing: requiring a material defense of the non-material. This is a blatant category error. So your demands are without merit. It is exactly Atheism and Materialism that are on the line here.
”Then you agree? My my.
As much as I agree with this:
"There are other sources of knowledge, and they point to a probable existence of unicorns, talking snakes, and giants with no violation of rational principles. If you choose to deny this, it is an opinion-based denial, not evidence-based."
Do you agree with that too?”
You are highly repetitive. Merely making up another fabricated story for implementing the Fallacy by Association does not constitute an argument. Are you unable to put together direct rebuttals using, say, empirical facts? Standard logical arguments, with provable premises? BTW, you have not pointed to the straw man of which you accused me; like so much of this conversation, you ignore anything other than your agenda, which you repeat over and over.
”I would suggest that your attempts to create false information in order to falsify mine is a failure, because it has no bearing on mine, other than via your need to discount mine by false association.
1) It does have a bearing because it potentially falsifies your own experience.”
No statement can be falsified by the Fallacy of Association: none.
(continued)
(continued)
”2) "Your attempts to devalue that which you can not experience yourself, nor have a shred of evidence by which to devalue it, is an attack. It is an attack without merit." "You have no evidence either way; what you choose to do with that is of no concern to me, because it is no more than a personal decision without any basis other than your opinion."
I would suggest that your attempts to create false information about "new knowledge types", a "mysterious element", and "a deity" in order to falsify atheism and/or materialism is a failure, because it has no bearing on them, other than via your need to discount them by false association.”
What a twist. You have no proof to substantiate the “false information” claim, yet you claim that if they did exist, they would have no bearing on Atheism / materialism. But that is explicitly false: if such things do exist, they directly falsify both Atheism and Materialism. If it were not so, you would not be so desperately trying to negate them.
So, to simplify: Error #1: you have no ability to substantiate the claim, no proof or evidence is offered.
Error #2: The claim that the existence of the information would not relate to Atheism / Materialism is blatantly false: the existence of the information would falsify both.
This is a standard logical principle: if A is true, then !A cannot be true; therefore the use of !A will produce false products.
Robert, your comments are becoming tediously mal-considered, as if in your desperation you are completely ignoring standard logical processes. I challenged you before to use standard logical processes, including premises that can be proven true, either empirically or by tracing back to First Principles. Like the request to back up your claim of “straw man” and your persistent use of the same fallacy over and over ad nauseum, you ignore your errors completely.
”Gotta love it when someone's own words can be employed as a defeater.”
Quite a premature judgment on your part. I hope your arm recovers from your patting yourself on the back.
Robert,
Your comment’s first part was placed into the SPAM folder, where I just found it. My response is out of order, but here is my response to the first part:
” Therefore, whenever someone reports an experience similar to yours, we're justified in reacting to it with skepticism and doubt.”
As I said before, you can justify whatever belief you wish. You cannot however, prove anything because you have no evidence. Your claim of not wishing to compare my experience with the others is exactly falsified by your own admission, above, where you insist on using other instances to determine the presumed validity of mine: the exact same fallacy over and over. And I repeat, what you choose to believe is of no consequence to me, and it is of no evidentiary value to anyone else, either. You will make your judgment without either empirical evidence or logical process.
” First, I wondered how you concluded your experience with "the mysterious" was that of a deity. If you knew the source of the experience, then it's not really a mystery. If it was a mystery, then your equation of it with a deity seems pre-mature (perhaps it was a demi-god playing tricks on you?). You've studiously avoided answering this.”
Actually I have answered this several times, and you choose to ignore the answer in your pursuit of falsifying that which you cannot know nor understand.
” If so, there seem to be almost no limits to what you'll accept as true. If not, then on what grounds? As I showed, your defense of your own experience can readily be employed to defend theirs.”
One more time, slowly for you: I have no intent of “defending” my experience from those who play games of fallacy like the one you just repeated: "Other’s experiences are false: yours must be too". You would not be here repeating yourself over and over if this is not the case. I related everything that I can relate, you may take it or leave it. But you likely will not, most likely you will deny your errors and continue to make false accusations with no evidence whatsoever.
Straw Man #1 is demolished by your own persistence.
Straw Man #2 is false, because you are persisting in your attempt to condemn by association, which is in fact a denial.
” Second, I was curious how you answer the equivalent experiences of others that may or may not conflict with your own.”
There is no need for me to answer that direct use of the fallacy by association. But I will: I have no idea of the validity of anyone else’s experiences. Neither do you. But the command to answer them is a continued use of fallacy by association. You just have nothing else, so you just hammer the same thing over and over.
” Note this also: nothing in my questions presumes materialism (straw man #3). They're appropriate from anyone, up to and including other theists, who also make similar experiential claims, at least some of which are not compatible with your own.
In fact, as has been pointed out to you over and over, your questions are broached from a materialist standpoint, and your questions are designed using a blatant fallacy. The truth value of my experience is in no way dependent upon any one else's experiences. Your questions are increasingly obtusely repetitive and without merit. Your intent is to use your fallacy to justify your personal judgmental opinion. Pure and simple, and embarrasingly transparent.
(continued below)
” In sum, you've provided nothing to overcome the justified doubt anyone (not just so-called atheo-materialists) would have about your say-so claims on "new knowledge types" and a "mysterious element" you've somehow equated with a deity (which deity is it, you do not say).”
Once again, you may pass whatever judgment you choose. You may call it justified doubt or you may call it Fred, it makes no difference to me. I have not asked for your acceptance and I do not need it, nor do I care what you think. Your judgment is destined to be made with no shred of evidence in its support, plus it is destined to be based on a fallacy. So your continued rehashing of the same argument over and over is without value.
It is wasting my time though.
” Now, to be abundantly clear, this is not a denial that your claim could be true; it is, rather, the reasonable view there are virtually no grounds to regard it as true. Your only defense is an attack on atheism and materialism, which constitutes nothing more than a risibly irrelevant sideshow, and justifiably ignored.”
Merely more word games to cover the false grounds of your argument. Of course you are pushing for a denial, it is disigenuous to claim otherwise. Either my experience is true or it is false. You claim to doubt that it is true, so you suspect that it is false. But if there is even a chance that it is true, and that chance happens to actually be the case (which you have absolutely no way of knowing), then it directly and summarily defeats both Atheism and Materialism. And soundly so. So I doubt the sincerity of your claim not to be making a denial attempt. Rather I think you are lying about your motives, to be blunt, especially in light of your continuing use of the same fallacy over and over while denying that you are doing it: that is dishonest. Regardless, your charge does not stand up to logical scrutiny.
You do not think through the logic implications of your charges. It is just one fallacy after another.
If you cannot come up with evidence or at least an argument that is based on valid premises traceable to First Principles, then I think there is no use in wasting more time on this. Your judgment of true or false is your call, your opinion; it is not based on any knowledge or evidence which you personally have to support it. And it has no bearing on any actuality of the situation, nor is of any truth value.
Your choices seem obvious:
You may accept it;
you may reject it;
you may remain undecided about it;
you may try to disprove it;
or you may merely try to piss all over it.
How about you choose one, and then defend it using either legitimate empirical discovery or standard logical processes and valid premises traceable to the First Principles?
Or if not that, then this last choice: give it up. You cannot win. Whatever choice you make is of no value to anyone but you, since you have nothing concrete to offer in its defence. So what you are doing is to take the cheap approach of pissing all over it, and that still without any tangible justification in the way of evidence. Unable to convince with evidence, you merely choose to attempt to annoy.
It would appear that there are (and have always been) criticisms that can
be leveled at the naturalist and supernaturalist positions.
Nevertheless, doesn't empiricism/positivism/naturalism load the dice? Worse yet, doesn't philosophical materialism preclude the freedom to answer the question?
Stan wrote,
You cannot however, prove anything because you have no evidence.
You seem to have a habit of accusing others of your own failings. Where is your evidence? You make the same assertions over and over yet support them with nothing. It's not for me or anyone else to prove you wrong, but for you to prove yourself right. Your statement, "You...make your judgment without either empirical evidence or logical process", is an excellent summary of your position thus far.
Actually I have answered this several times, and you choose to ignore the answer in your pursuit of falsifying that which you cannot know nor understand.
Oh yes, I forgot. You "know what you know". You eliminated all rival possibilities in making a conclusive link between your mysterious experience with that of a deity.
If I may engage in the same sort of pop psychology you seem fond of, then I'd wager your experience is based on wishfulness, an emotional drive for a deity to exist. Prove me wrong, with evidence.
One more time, slowly for you: I have no intent of “defending” my experience from those who play games of fallacy like the one you just repeated: "Other’s experiences are false: yours must be too".
It's clear by now you cannot rationally defend your experience at all, except by putting up smokescreens. If your experience is denigrated by association with the delusional, it's only because you have put yourself in that camp. There's nothing to distinguish it from anything but a delusion. If your experience really does constitute a "new knowledge type," by all means, spell that out. What can we learn from your "new knowledge type" that our conventional knowledge types are unable to teach us?
Of course, this claim of a "new knowledge type" is wholly bogus for the simple reason it's impossible for you to make that determination. How do you know your alleged deity didn't also impart this "new knowledge type" to someone else now or in the past?
In fact, as has been pointed out to you over and over, your questions are broached from a materialist standpoint, and your questions are designed using a blatant fallacy.
What was the materialist standpoint in this question: "What if I told I had an experience best described as a new knowledge and even a new knowledge type that revealed to me that this universe is alive?"
The truth value of my experience is in no way dependent upon any one else's experiences.
Necessary implicit in the assertion of the truth value of your experience is the falsification of others' incompatible, yet sincerely held, mysterious experiences, such as those of the pantheist. In essence, you're asserting they're delusional and false.
So, on what "valid premises traceable to First Principles" have you rejected their experiences?
(continued...)
Stan wrote,
Once again, you may pass whatever judgment you choose. You may call it justified doubt or you may call it Fred, it makes no difference to me. I have not asked for your acceptance and I do not need it, nor do I care what you think.
Perhaps then a reconsideration of your invitation is in order...
"Ask Any Question!
For a rational answer to difficult issues, ask the question in the comment form on the latest post. All questions are welcome!"
But if there is even a chance that it is true, and that chance happens to actually be the case (which you have absolutely no way of knowing), then it directly and summarily defeats both Atheism and Materialism. And soundly so.
But if there is even a chance that the pantheist's experience is true, and that chance happens to actually be the case (which you have absolutely no way of knowing), then it directly and summarily defeats theism. And soundly so.
The funny thing about this is you're in my shoes vis-a-vis the pantheist, which the exception you're positively denying the truth value of their experiences, despite lacking any logical grounds to do so. Your accusations against me, also apply to you, perhaps doubly so.
Why, under your new definition of all-inclusion, of course – along with rocks, trees, and cosmic dust and all ignorant entities: a useless category.
So, rocks, trees, and cosmic dust (i.e., "ignorant entities") all heard of the deity theory, and then forgot it entirely (your condition "d")? I didn't realize these entities were capable of hearing and forgetting, but it appears I was wrong. The things "new knowledge types" will teach you...
Certainly. And?
Please be so kind as to present empirical grade evidence for your own claims, or simply admit you hold a double-standard.
You still do not tumble to the personal, subjective aspect, one which cannot be adequately shared, much less held to an objective standard. Nonetheless, I know what I know and you do not know what I know.
In other words, everyone else needs empirical grade evidence to support their claims, but you need none. Thank you for admitting your double-standard.
This site is about the sea of intellectual irresponsibility and logical fallacy that underlie Atheism and Materialism.
I gotta admit, your "personal, subjective" experiences that "cannot be adequately shared, much less held to an objective standard" are certainly going a long way to supporting your site's goal.
I challenged you before to use standard logical processes, including premises that can be proven true, either empirically or by tracing back to First Principles.
All, of course, were employed to prove your alleged experience with "the mysterious" was that of "a deity", which constituted a "new knowledge type".
Because they're based on nothing more than say-so, your claims are of no value to anyone but you. They consist of nothing more than hasty conclusions and blatant impossibilities. You decry lack of evidence and logical grounding while offering none of your own. Is there any logical or evidentiary reason to believe your experience is nothing more than a delusion? If there is, you've yet to present one.
Previously, I had asked what constitutes justified true belief.
Presumably, justified means naturalistic. But then we must ask, "What naturalistic grounds are there for the belief that only naturalistic grounds are adequate?"
It is clear that any any justification of the principle that only naturalistic grounds are adequate has to transcend naturalism, because the brute facts of the natural world do not have any justification, if a transcendental realm does not actually exist.
If naturalism is true, the world is just a brute fact, without any cause or meaning, other than a meaning we make up for ourselves, which would be a subjective meaning, not an objevtive one.
So in an atheistic worldview, one must accept naturalism without any grounds, thus violating the principle of giving adequate grounds, or else one must refer to a non-naturalistic justification, in which case naturalism is violated. - A.Roebuck
In either case, I would be inclined to say that this position has problems.
Stan wrote,
”You cannot however, prove anything because you have no evidence.
You seem to have a habit of accusing others of your own failings. Where is your evidence? You make the same assertions over and over yet support them with nothing. It's not for me or anyone else to prove you wrong, but for you to prove yourself right. Your statement, "You...make your judgment without either empirical evidence or logical process", is an excellent summary of your position thus far.
You completely misunderstand the logical process and the methods of argumentation. Your problem is to provide support for your Burden of Rebuttal since you joined this conversation as a rebutter. You have not done so. Your method of attempting to apply the criticisms of your rebuttal to me fail, until you make a completely supported rebuttal within the limits of your own philosophy, meaning to provide evidence which supports your rebuttal. Otherwise your rebuttal fails and must be considered a delusional exercise under your own set of principles. No evidence, therefore delusion.
”Actually I have answered this several times, and you choose to ignore the answer in your pursuit of falsifying that which you cannot know nor understand.
Oh yes, I forgot. You "know what you know". You eliminated all rival possibilities in making a conclusive link between your mysterious experience with that of a deity.
If I may engage in the same sort of pop psychology you seem fond of, then I'd wager your experience is based on wishfulness, an emotional drive for a deity to exist. Prove me wrong, with evidence.”
Your accusation is frivolous and baseless; you still have not proven your rebuttal with actual evidence; you depend upon false association because you have nothing else.
”One more time, slowly for you: I have no intent of “defending” my experience from those who play games of fallacy like the one you just repeated: "Other’s experiences are false: yours must be too".
It's clear by now you cannot rationally defend your experience at all, except by putting up smokescreens. If your experience is denigrated by association with the delusional, it's only because you have put yourself in that camp.”
You are clearly off the deep end here. Your repeated attempts to associate with other things which you consider false are on the record, above, as well as below.
”There's nothing to distinguish it from anything but a delusion. If your experience really does constitute a "new knowledge type," by all means, spell that out. What can we learn from your "new knowledge type" that our conventional knowledge types are unable to teach us?
Of course, this claim of a "new knowledge type" is wholly bogus for the simple reason it's impossible for you to make that determination. How do you know your alleged deity didn't also impart this "new knowledge type" to someone else now or in the past?”
There is no material evidential reason for you to identify it with a delusion, other than your frustration at not being able to disprove it. And I have no knowledge of anyone else’s experiences and neither do you, beyond what they say about them. You are determined to arrogate a judgment without the slightest actual knowledge, material or otherwise.
(continued)
(continued from above)
”In fact, as has been pointed out to you over and over, your questions are broached from a materialist standpoint, and your questions are designed using a blatant fallacy.
What was the materialist standpoint in this question: "What if I told I had an experience best described as a new knowledge and even a new knowledge type that revealed to me that this universe is alive?"”
Actually, many Atheists – pantheists – are under that impression. Ask them. Your lack of having that experience shows in your intent to ridicule that experience. The ridicule comes from your position as a Materialist.
”The truth value of my experience is in no way dependent upon any one else's experiences.
Necessary implicit in the assertion of the truth value of your experience is the falsification of others' incompatible, yet sincerely held, mysterious experiences, such as those of the pantheist. In essence, you're asserting they're delusional and false.”
But what we are discussing here is just my experience, which you have no idea about except that you must reject it, except that you have no material basis to do so. Here you are once again attempting to foist off the Fallacy by Association, undoubtedly because you have no other ammunition in the form of evidence which can be used. You are lost in repetition of a lost cause.
”So, on what "valid premises traceable to First Principles" have you rejected their experiences?
Fallacy by Association, for the Nth time.
You have nothing with which to support your rebuttal. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.
Either give some evidence to support your rebuttal, or this conversation is over.
Chris,
Just so. Thanks for the quote...
Robert,
What do you hope to prove with this continuous use of Fallacy and demand for evidence in an obvious Category Error?
Here are some possibilities.
1) To prove conclusiviely that my experience was false.
2) To try to implicate falseness where you cannot prove falseness.
3) To try to get me to renounce what I know.
4) To merely annoy with repetitive false arguments.
Is there one of these that describes your purpose here? Or is there another purpose? Tell us what it is.
Stan wrote,
Once again, you may pass whatever judgment you choose. You may call it justified doubt or you may call it Fred, it makes no difference to me. I have not asked for your acceptance and I do not need it, nor do I care what you think.
Perhaps then a reconsideration of your invitation is in order...
"Ask Any Question!
”For a rational answer to difficult issues, ask the question in the comment form on the latest post. All questions are welcome!"
But if there is even a chance that it is true, and that chance happens to actually be the case (which you have absolutely no way of knowing), then it directly and summarily defeats both Atheism and Materialism. And soundly so.
But if there is even a chance that the pantheist's experience is true, and that chance happens to actually be the case (which you have absolutely no way of knowing), then it directly and summarily defeats theism. And soundly so.
The funny thing about this is you're in my shoes vis-a-vis the pantheist, which the exception you're positively denying the truth value of their experiences, despite lacking any logical grounds to do so. Your accusations against me, also apply to you, perhaps doubly so.”
There is a major difference. I do not challenge pantheists to provide evidence which they cannot provide because it is a Category Error. What I think about their claims has no truth value; neither does what you think about their claims. You, however, insist on passing judgment without a shred of evidence to present.
”Why, under your new definition of all-inclusion, of course – along with rocks, trees, and cosmic dust and all ignorant entities: a useless category.
So, rocks, trees, and cosmic dust (i.e., "ignorant entities") all heard of the deity theory, and then forgot it entirely (your condition "d")? I didn't realize these entities were capable of hearing and forgetting, but it appears I was wrong. The things "new knowledge types" will teach you...”
You will redefine as necessary for the argument at hand; it is the standard ploy of modern Atheists.
“Certainly. And?
Please be so kind as to present empirical grade evidence for your own claims, or simply admit you hold a double-standard.”
This is just closing in on you, isn’t it. Your standard is for you. I do not hold to it.
”You still do not tumble to the personal, subjective aspect, one which cannot be adequately shared, much less held to an objective standard. Nonetheless, I know what I know and you do not know what I know.
In other words, everyone else needs empirical grade evidence to support their claims, but you need none. Thank you for admitting your double-standard.”
Holding you to your own standard is not double. Sorry, major fail, and becoming too tedious to consider continuing with.
”This site is about the sea of intellectual irresponsibility and logical fallacy that underlie Atheism and Materialism.
I gotta admit, your "personal, subjective" experiences that "cannot be adequately shared, much less held to an objective standard" are certainly going a long way to supporting your site's goal.”
And there it is, “objective standard”, which you yourself cannot provide, even though you require it of others. You have provided no argument of a logical syllogistic form, nor any traceability for your material demands. And perhaps it’s related to the illogic of materialism. The rational mind is not dependent upon only material inputs, if it were it would be subject to doubts about its own existence because sensory inputs are known to be faulty. The mind intuits the reasonability of the inputs, based on many factors.
Your demand for material evidence only, places you into the dichotomy of believing in the infallibility of material sensory input, while knowing that it is potentially fallacious. This falls into the same materialist fallacious reasoning you have been putting forth here.
”I challenged you before to use standard logical processes, including premises that can be proven true, either empirically or by tracing back to First Principles.
All, of course, were employed to prove your alleged experience with "the mysterious" was that of "a deity", which constituted a "new knowledge type".”
Ah. I did not prove anything, nor did I intend to. I related an experience. Proof or disproof of that is your obsession. I do not demand that anyone believe it. Your obsession is a demand to renounce it – it is a heresy to your worldview. But your worldview does not provide you any tools of refutation, other than to continually violate logical principles in you cruscade.
”Because they're based on nothing more than say-so, your claims are of no value to anyone but you. They consist of nothing more than hasty conclusions and blatant impossibilities. You decry lack of evidence and logical grounding while offering none of your own. Is there any logical or evidentiary reason to believe your experience is nothing more than a delusion? If there is, you've yet to present one.”
Hmm. And you still claim not to be a Materialist? Your demand for me to exercise the Logical Category Error in order to satisfy your personal need to falsify that of which you have no knowledge is coming to an end here. You have nothing material with which to work, so you deal in fallacies full time.
Your rebuttal has failed; you have no evidence to support it. I will not print any more responses, unless you have evidence of a material nature within the principles of your worldview.
Adios.
Stan wrote,
Your problem is to provide support for your Burden of Rebuttal since you joined this conversation as a rebutter.
I'm sorry you've misconstrued my participation here. I was seeking rational answers to difficult issues. Unfortunately, I've received little more than sophistry and the childish charge that I can't prove you wrong.
Your accusation is frivolous and baseless; you still have not proven your rebuttal with actual evidence; you depend upon false association because you have nothing else.
While your accusation that atheism is "based on wishfulness...an emotional drive" is substantive and grounded on actual evidence.
You are clearly off the deep end here. Your repeated attempts to associate with other things which you consider false are on the record, above, as well as below.
It seems I hit pay dirt. And again, I'm not associating you with other things which you consider false; you've done that yourself. It's unfortunate you cannot see that plainly visible fact.
What do you hope to prove with this continuous use of Fallacy and demand for evidence in an obvious Category Error?
I'm not hoping to prove anything since I need not to. You're the one making the assertions. If there's anyone who needs to prove anything, it's you. I'm merely pointing out that your claims are indistinguishable from the claims of a delusional person. If there's anything that would make your claims distinguishable, you've yet to provide it.
What I think about [the pantheists] claims has no truth value; neither does what you think about their claims. You, however, insist on passing judgment without a shred of evidence to present.
And yet earlier, you confidently dismissed such claims as a "deliberate falsehood". On what evidence did you pass judgement?
(continued...)
You will redefine as necessary for the argument at hand; it is the standard ploy of modern Atheists.
No sir. Once again, you're forgetting your own arguments. You compared atheists who hear the deity theory, then forget it entirely without considering it (happily ignorant of the issue), to "rocks, trees, and cosmic dust". Hearing and forgetting are not capabilities of these entities, therefore, your analogy fails. In any case, it's not hard to understand why you're so insistent on denigrating such atheists; their existence greatly complicates your ability to bash atheism.
And there it is, “objective standard”, which you yourself cannot provide, even though you require it of others.
Er, perhaps you didn't realize, I was quoting your demand for an objective standard from others.
The rational mind is not dependent upon only material inputs, if it were it would be subject to doubts about its own existence because sensory inputs are known to be faulty.
Fortunately, we have deities in the sky beaming down new knowledge types to us, right? New knowledge types which have proven infallible...
Your demand for material evidence only, places you into the dichotomy of believing in the infallibility of material sensory input, while knowing that it is potentially fallacious.
Actually, I demand no such thing, but keep building those strawmen. In fact, it's the very recognition that our minds are not reliable or infallible sensors of reality that justifies skepticism of your claims.
Ah. I did not prove anything, nor did I intend to. I related an experience.
Why so disingenuous? In addition to relating an experience, you made specific claims about it, viz,
a) A new knowledge type
b) Its source is a deity
c) It's "as real as the experiences reached through neural transmission of sensory inputs"
Perhaps your experience was the result of consuming a batch of mildly toxic mushrooms?
”I'm sorry you've misconstrued my participation here. I was seeking rational answers to difficult issues. Unfortunately, I've received little more than sophistry and the childish charge that I can't prove you wrong.”
No, you were not seeking any such thing. You never asked for a more complete description or for deeper analysis. You immediately attacked my position. Your presence here from the start has been only to attack.
I perceive your participation here as being completely within and defensive of logical fallacies from which you cannot turn loose. You perform as an ideological materialist, and within that, a radical skeptic. But you deny any characterization, while continuing to behave within that characterization. Like radical skeptics, you accept no personal witness testimony, and you continue to press the same argument over and over, an argument which is based solely on Category Errors. You have no intention of learning anything; skeptics never add anything to knowledge, they merely attack and ridicule whatever knowledge exists. And they do that, without proof to the contrary.
You have nothing to gain by your presence here, except the skeptic’s satisfaction of having been negative. You cannot prove your assertion that “mildly toxic mushrooms” were involved. But you make the assertion anyway, as an injection of gratuitous negativity.
You persistently insist on evidence, then deny that it must be material. Yet you accept no non-material evidence. This is typical of radical skepticism.
Again what have you contributed here? Have you proven me delusional? Have you provided unquestionable arguments against my position? Have you provided any hard, material evidence for an actual material refutation? You have provided nothing other than your opinion of my position.
Your presence here seems to be more of a psychological need that you have which needs to be filled. This is characterized by negative, unprovable inferences which are made from logical fallacies. And more objectionably, by attempting to force negative meanings into things I say, where those meanings do not exist. In other words, your contribution is not of a positive, seeking nature (despite your claims), it is an opportunity for you to provide negative, non-rational argumentation without the need to support your underlying claim – which is that my experience is false – which you cannot prove.
It would be one thing for you to have said, “I see no reason to believe that you had a valid experience”. And then move on. That would have been an honest assessment. I did not present my position as a necessary belief for anyone but myself. There is no requirement anywhere that person A accept the experience of person B. I described what happened and my assessment of it.
But that is not what you did, and continue to do. You are pressing your fallacies as if they are truth statements from within the processes of logic. That is irrational. One last pair of examples: your final shot is that I made claims about my experience. Yes, that’s how description works. I was describing a non-material, non-empirical, internal experience, and the claims were part of the description. And then you associate me and my experience with hallucinogens, another implication that is false.
Because you do not accept the logical fallacies of your position, there is no need to continue discussing this with you. You have had ample time to vent your negative, irrational, fallacy-based skepticism here.
I will not post any more of this nonsense.
If an atheist says "I have never seen or experienced any good evidence/arguments for the existence of God", there is absolutely nothing to take issue with. The problem is when he asserts "You have never seen or experienced any good evidence/arguments for the existence of God."
Such an assertion is rationally indefensible for all the reasons Stan has patiently given on his blog over the last few years. Yet the assertion is made again and again and again by those who have no idea how indefensible such a statement is, and generally is not properly dealt with by theists who have no idea how rationally indefensible the statement is.
Post a Comment