If you wanted to convert an atheist who wanted to believe....

wolfsbane · 21-04-2009 09:51PM

Wicknight wrote: »

How could you possibly determine that?

What would a mistaken revelation from a god be like?

Or to put it another way, how do you know you didn't have a mini-stroke. What method are you using to verify that your perception of this revelation is accurate?

It would have to be an on-going mini-stroke, for all that I have experienced since of His interventions on my behalf confirm the revelation of God I then received.

postcynical · 21-04-2009 10:50PM

Morbert wrote: »

How do you know that the laws of inference to which you adhere are valid?
They might simply be instinctive tools that allow us to make sense of the world.

Truth just is. It isn't derived from anything else.
And that is exactly why we cannot say we know the truth, as our opinions and conclusions are derived.

We nearly agree, I would say that we cannot know the truth by rational argument alone. A machine cannot know the truth for instance. But a human can.

Would you say that we can sense the truth, as I would maintain that we can know the truth, just that we cannot reduce it to a finite set of axioms. Do you believe in a concept of truth? Would you use the word 'true' to distinguish between a valid form of reasoning and a false one. How would you communicate the idea of truth to somebody who did not understand it/sense it/believe in it?

Morbert wrote: »

The best we can hope for is to make sense of the world, and to understand it on some level that's coherent and meaningful to us. It's why I have a passion for science.

That's why I think the sciences are good. They can lead to a personal encounter with truth. Would you agree that the different sciences are pretty much equivalent from your perspective? (by sciences I mean any fact-based branch of human knowledge)

MrPudding · 22-04-2009 08:58AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would have to be an on-going mini-stroke, for all that I have experienced since of His interventions on my behalf confirm the revelation of God I then received.

Not all the damage caused by a mini stroke would necessarily repair itself, there would not have to be an ongoing stroke, the damage would have been done, so to speak. I am not saying to are brain damaged, or that you need to be in order to have the beliefs you do, by the way.

MrP

Zombrex · 22-04-2009 02:13PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would have to be an on-going mini-stroke, for all that I have experienced since of His interventions on my behalf confirm the revelation of God I then received.

Of course it has, that is the point. When you accepted the axiom (I received a revelation from God) you would view everything from that point within the context of that being true.

You can see that in the Creationist thread. There has never been a single piece of evidence presented that has ever made you break stride, because you have already accepted that nothing can contradict or demonstrate false the Bible. You know the Bible is true, everything else must be false.

I imagine you apply such logic in everything you do, so saying that life since your revelation has "confirmed" it for you is a bit meaningless. One would expect nothing less.

Fiona500 · 22-04-2009 07:59PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the caveat.

I assumed it would be taken for granted that I would not be obliged to follow abolished regulations, but perhaps some posters might not know there are such in the Bible.

I was not speaking about out dated laws. I was wondering if you are a creationist?

The condescension was unnecessary, but of course you are following in the great religious tradition of thinking that you are superior to non-believers. How very "Christian" of you.

Fanny Cradock · 22-04-2009 08:21PM

Fiona500 wrote: »

I was not speaking about out dated laws. I was wondering if you are a creationist?

The condescension was unnecessary, but of course you are following in the great religious tradition of thinking that you are superior to non-believers. How very "Christian" of you.

Mercy! Where are you getting this from? No one was being condescending and no one suggested that they were superior.

Morbert · 23-04-2009 02:22PM

postcynical wrote: »

We nearly agree, I would say that we cannot know the truth by rational argument alone. A machine cannot know the truth for instance. But a human can.

What would be different between a sophisticated machine determining what is true and a human determining what is true? In order for us to know the truth about reality, there would have to be some non-algorithmic component to our thought process. This might be the case, but there isn't any evidence for it. We are constrained by the limitations of logic, just as any A.I. would be.

Now that isn't to say that what we believe isn't true. You presumably believe God exists, and God might very well exist. But we don't have a way of 'knowing' God exists.

Would you say that we can sense the truth, as I would maintain that we can know the truth, just that we cannot reduce it to a finite set of axioms. Do you believe in a concept of truth? Would you use the word 'true' to distinguish between a valid form of reasoning and a false one. How would you communicate the idea of truth to somebody who did not understand it/sense it/believe in it?

The most rigorously true statements that I have come across are those that stem from a set of axioms and inference rules. Analytical truths are knowable. I, for example, know that the statement '1+1 = 2' holds for the real numbers. It is consistent, and follows from the axioms of the real number system.

But the kind of truth relevant to this discussion is truth that is independent of any system of axioms. I would agree that this kind of truth exists, but, because we are human, and rely on axioms, we don't have any means of knowing this kind of truth.

That's why I think the sciences are good. They can lead to a personal encounter with truth. Would you agree that the different sciences are pretty much equivalent from your perspective? (by sciences I mean any fact-based branch of human knowledge)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if I, for example, trust the results of chemists as much as I trust the results of physicists?

RossFixxxed · 23-04-2009 05:53PM

Hi OP,

If you wanted to convert someone as you described all you can do is give them a bible, and maybe some other, intelligent and modern, Christian literature. It is at the end of the day up to him/her to make up their own mind.

In my case it just doesn't click with me. I cannot and do not believe it for a number of reasons (not relevant to this thread) and reading further has not changed that for me. I appreciate the morals of Jesus, and would see him as a philosopher like Buddha and such. I see his 'I am the son of God' being a more 'we are ALL, like me, sons of God'. Now I do not believe in God, but I respect what the guy thought. I feel the bible waters some of it down, or convulutes the point. I'm sure there's books that take the morals etc, and collect them together.

However, you cannot MAKE anyone believe. I am an atheist, and I am not going to fight over it. There's so many of 'us' that don't believe that feel the need to shove our opinions down people's throats... whist complaing that religions are trying to brainwash people sigh!

I actually have read a lot on Buddhism (the versions with no 'supernatural' elements) and fight it to be very profound, it just clicks. And after a trip to nepal i've seen it in action and it can be remarkable. But that's just me, you could well read it and think it's total crap, and that's up to you...

I would be wary of someone who 'wants' to belive, it suggests they are trying to fill a void, and are sometimes the people who massively overreact after a while... It may not work for them, or provide some magical solution they expect and then they become the most anti religious zelots out there.

Anyway, good discussion.

Ross

postcynical · 23-04-2009 07:44PM

Morbert wrote: »

What would be different between a sophisticated machine determining what is true and a human determining what is true? In order for us to know the truth about reality, there would have to be some non-algorithmic component to our thought process. This might be the case, but there isn't any evidence for it. We are constrained by the limitations of logic, just as any A.I. would be.

I don't want to go too far off topic, although I'm interested in your perspective. I see two distinct cases where we would not use pure logic to know reality. The first is like a good chess player, who knows the right move, without systematically thinking it through (which requires huge intelligence). The second is closer to the type of knowledge under discussion here, how do you know that you are real? At some point all our logically verified knowledge is based on common sense and intuition. These starting points are to some extent arbitrary, especially in the absence of an objective truth.

Now that isn't to say that what we believe isn't true. You presumably believe God exists, and God might very well exist. But we don't have a way of 'knowing' God exists.

I agree, I think. I'd probably say that I know God exists but that I cannot demonstrate it in a formal manner. My intuition tells me that this would be a foolish enterprise to undertake, to try and prove what I know.

The most rigorously true statements that I have come across are those that stem from a set of axioms and inference rules. Analytical truths are knowable. I, for example, know that the statement '1+1 = 2' holds for the real numbers. It is consistent, and follows from the axioms of the real number system.

But the kind of truth relevant to this discussion is truth that is independent of any system of axioms. I would agree that this kind of truth exists, but, because we are human, and rely on axioms, we don't have any means of knowing this kind of truth.

Sorry for waving my hands here, but I was told on authority that it is logically very difficult (perhaps impossible, I haven't considered it for a while) to prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Yet everyone 'knows' this is true. I know Bertrand Russell and others can show how instinct is very fallible, but logic is sometimes like ploughing a field with a spoon. A good tool but the wrong tool for the job in hand.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if I, for example, trust the results of chemists as much as I trust the results of physicists?

Not quite, you expressed your passion for science as a means to making sense of the world around you. Others make sense of the world around them through art or history or economics or soap operas(!) Do you think that studying nuclear physics offers a person a better insight into the world than studying the geography of 19th century Sligo?

Morbert · 24-04-2009 10:52AM

postcynical wrote: »

I don't want to go too far off topic, although I'm interested in your perspective. I see two distinct cases where we would not use pure logic to know reality. The first is like a good chess player, who knows the right move, without systematically thinking it through (which requires huge intelligence). The second is closer to the type of knowledge under discussion here, how do you know that you are real? At some point all our logically verified knowledge is based on common sense and intuition. These starting points are to some extent arbitrary, especially in the absence of an objective truth.

Much of our verified knowledge is based on common sense and intuition, and that is the reason why our verified knowledge often turns out to be wrong in the long run. The intuition of a good chess player, like the intuition and common sense of anyone, still depends on the strength of neural network connections, even if they are not aware of the actual neuron firings.

The best case for a non-computational mind that I know of is related to the big question in neuroscience. What induces 'awareness'? Does consciousness imply some not alogirthmic component to the brain (a soul?), or does it emerge naturally from information processes?

Sorry for waving my hands here, but I was told on authority that it is logically very difficult (perhaps impossible, I haven't considered it for a while) to prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Yet everyone 'knows' this is true. I know Bertrand Russell and others can show how instinct is very fallible, but logic is sometimes like ploughing a field with a spoon. A good tool but the wrong tool for the job in hand.

This is actually a good example of where our intuition can fail us. It turns out that, despite our intuition, it isn't necessarily true that the shortest distance between two paths is a straight line. It is only true if we adopt certain assumptions. In spacetime (the arena of Einstein's relativity), for example, a straight line is actually the longest distance between two points. Einstein's great suggestion was that the geometry that we 'know' (i.e. a line being the shortest distance, the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 etc.) is actually just the geometry that we experience, and not necessarily the fundamental geometry of space and time.

So even though we often feel that we know things intuitively, we are still drawing from very subtle assumptions, and these assumptions can turn out to be incorrect.

Not quite, you expressed your passion for science as a means to making sense of the world around you. Others make sense of the world around them through art or history or economics or soap operas(!) Do you think that studying nuclear physics offers a person a better insight into the world than studying the geography of 19th century Sligo?

I consider history and economics (among other subjects) to be reputable means of investigating aspects of our world (but I would hesitate placing art in the same category).

antiskeptic · 24-04-2009 12:11PM

Sorry for the delay in responding WN.

Not. Because my top-of-the-heap perception knew that lower-rung perceptions had been altered by a drug.

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. You know that there are times when your mind is tricking you into thinking something is there when it isn't, or that you are experiencing something when you aren't.

Did you take note of how it is that I know that? I'm the judge of whether I'm being tricked.

If I don't trust the top-of-the-heap perception absolutely then I'm in no position to know whether I'm actually being tricked by a lower-rung perception or not. By top-of-the-heap perception I mean my own sense of existance not any of the 5 senses

Trusting that my top-rung perception is accurate is based on the assumption that it is accurate - there is no way to test for it anymore than theres a way to test for our being brains in jars. You do the same as me - we all do.

So the idea that we can only trust our perceptions and this is what we should go on is clearly flawed. Our perceptions can be tricked by our brain. Determining when this is happening and when it isn't is important.

Dealt with in the above.

Yes but the "top-of-the-heap" is the easiest to fool. Your mind can be tricked and mislead at all levels from the lower functions such as sight, hearing, balance, right up to the higher cognitive functions such as memory and rationality.

Dealt with in the above. In order to trust the findings of science (for example), your top-of-the-heap perception has to trust it is correctly perceiving what science says and that how science works puts it in a position to convey truths about certain things.

Clearly you can't use the finding of science to confirm to you that the findings of science convey truth. That would be circular reasoning. What you start with instead is an assumption: "top-of-the-heap perception perceives accurately". The buck stops there.

Saying that God comes in at the "top" so that is ok is just silly.

Er... that's not an argument.

Yes, what you call the "highest perception" (ie the mental map of the world we form in our own heads) is far easier to get wrong or be mislead than something streaming in from the visual cortex.

No actually it isn't. Our visual cortex, the one that forms the image that is then sent to the brain for assessment, is instinctive. It is difficult to alter it based on emotions or desires.

The issue was that something decides whether the part of the brain which assesses visual cortex information is accurately assessing or not. In the case of excessive drink taken, that something can decide that visual cortex part of the brain isn't assessing correctly. In which case it can instruct other parts of the brain that they had better have the body pull the car over to the side of the road and go for a snooze.

Clearly this something has to be considered to be more trustworthy than the part of the brain which assesses visual cortex information. Which is why there is no benefit in God appearing before you - your visual cortex isn't the highest court of appeal: the part of you which assesses the visual cortex part of your brain is.

Which is why, I say, it is sensible that God sidestep the visual cortex and go straight to the top.

Contrast that with the higher map formed in the higher reaches of the brain, which is heavily influenced by emotion and mental state. If I am nervous or don't want to be some where (giving a presentation say) the visual image of the room full of people is not altered, but the mental map of the room I build in my head is altered significantly. I associate the room with feelings of nervousness and dread, though the actual room itself, what I see, is the same.

I don't know where you go the idea that the "highest perception" is safe from emotional and mental bias, the exact opposite is true. And if that is what you are basing your faith in God on then you have a problem.

Emotions and desires - although part of my experience of God just as much as they are part of the experience of anything - aren't the seat of my knowledge of Gods existance. They are similar rank to the visual cortex: things that something assesses and monitors and decides upon. My emotions can loose the rag and fly into a fit of road rage. But that's a thing that something decides to permit. Let's call the something, I am.

Well yes that is the point. You guys are far too trusting of your own perceptions. Based on what you have said above I understand better why you, you seem to think that your higher mental map of the world where you figured out God exists is ultimately quite reliable.

I know I'm not a brain in a jar. But that doesn't mean I'm not. I assume my knowing is reliable in this case because it's pointless to ponder otherwise. You do the same thing. You are as trusting of your own perception in this regard as us guys.

We shouldn't forget that my knowing God exists isn't a function of a methodology but is a function of him ensuring that I know.

That is a baseless statement. Even if that were true you wouldn't be able to determine that.

An inanimate object is at my mercy. I know of it because I choose to know of it

An animate object like a bird is less at my mercy. I can apply birdwatching techniques and increase my chances that I come to know of it. But my choice isn't the only will in play.

An animate object like a human is even less at my mercy. I can use all my abilitities but if the person really doesn't want to be known my chances of know of them are slim.

An absolute object like God is not at my mercy at all. Unless he chooses to reveal himself to me then there is no chance at all that I will come to know of Him.

That's what I mean when I say that my knowing him needs no methodology - allied to the fact that there's no way to test for the accuracy of the highest perception (which we are calling "I am"). In which case; no way to test for the accuracy of the highest perception recognising that "He is too"

Which is not to say the knowledge should be doubted: there are plenty of things you can't test for (your own thoughts being your own for instance) without that causing us a moments worry.

Yes but we do not embrace everything that we cannot test.

I'm not saying that we should but that we do embrace some areas of knowledge which we can't test and don't lose a moment sleep over it. Rational empiricism is a philosophy that doesn't actually stack up in practice: there is no need to adhere to it tenets.

We embrace only those areas of our imagination that bring us comfort. That should tell us something.

Tell that to the depressed, the guilty, the bereaved, the jobless.

Morbert · 24-04-2009 12:40PM

antiskeptic, I have a feeling that your use of the word 'know' is different to wicknight's (and my) use of the word. The distinction I make between know and assume is subtle but important. I know, for example, that the statement '1+1=2' follows from the real number axioms. I assume, on the other hand, that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, because I assume that quantities in reality can be described using the real number system, and that they add linearly.

So on to my point: You say you know you are not a brain in a jar. Is this equivalent to saying that you assume you are not a brain in a jar? If not, then I'll ask for the distinction between "I assume I'm not a brain in a jar." and "I know I'm not a brain in a jar.". If so, then you must also realise that atheists assume there isn't a God, based on the same capacity to perceive and deduce. I still have the feeling that what you call 'top-of-the-heap' perception (i.e. 'knowing' things) is what I call reasoning from assumptions, even if that reasoning is as tautological as "I think therefore I am".

antiskeptic · 24-04-2009 03:06PM

Morbert wrote: »

I don't want to labour over the point, but the statement is making a truth statement. It is claiming that you can never know that it is consistently true. It is an analytical statement, and it does not need to reference any synthetic facts to be true or false. Either way, if you agree that truth about reality cannot be logically derived from our top-of-the heap perception, then there's no need to argue.

Thank God for that. I agree! Which is why I say that the fact I know that God / Reality exists doesn't actually mean He / it does in fact.

But either way, Dawkins agrees that science does not deal in inherent truth as we have defined it. He just finds inherent truth about reality to be meaningless and unknowable (and I agree with him).

When you say unknowable do you suppose that knowing necessarily involves a means/mechanism to arrive at knowledge (eg: via logic). If so then why so? Cannot God install knowledge regarding absolute truth without there being a means to arrive at that knowledge apart from Gods action?

Lets suppose that a knowledge of right and wrong is instilled in you by God. In which case you can be justly held to account for your choices (even if you don't believe in the God who instilled that knowledge). What difference does it make to anything that you couldn't arrive at this truth about right and wrong by this or that method?

Now you say that science is limited, but I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. How does the limitation of science impact on the veracity of religious claims, or the reliability of top-of-the-heap perceptions?

The ability of science to deliver (that which you find valuable) derives from a trust in your top-of-the-heap perception. If you hadn't that trust (eg: the consistancy offered by repeated scientific experiment is indeed consistancy and not variation rendered apparently consistant by a faulty perception) then scientific conclusions would be of no use to you.

The veracity of your perception isn't testable however. It's assumed from the outset because there is nothing else to do and you move on. Likewise with me: there is no testing my perception that God exists (even though there are various arguments and tests that might support if not prove such a conclusion).

This, I believe is the crux of the matter. If the truth itself did appear on the scene to evidence itself to all, then how would we find it to be true? What you call 'knowing', I call faith. And if your top-of-the heap perception tells you that God exists, and mine doesn't, then top-of-the heap perception clearly isn't fool proof.

I'm not sure that a means to know the truth (by way of arriving at it logically for example) is all that relevant. If two persons are truly "burning in the fires of Hell" does it matter that one says they can't arrive at this truth by any means and the other says they can - "it hurts like Hell!"

Your not perceiving God does't impinge in any way on my knowing God exists nor on the reliability of my perception. Perceiving something relies on a persons:

- being equipped with an ability to perceive
- the perceived object being within the detection range of the perception ability

There is no need to assume everyone is equipped nor that God is in detection range were it that they are indeed equipped. Christians (arguably the only ones who are equipped) will frequently tell of times when God appears very distant.

No offence intended, but one persons blindness is not a factor in assessing anothers sight.

My atheism is pragmatic. It is a useful assumption, just like the assumption that Ireland is to the west of England is a useful assumption. It lets me live efficaciously. Can you say the same about Christianity?

I wouldn't have thought of atheism as an assumption. Assuming your atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in God/gods" then it seems to me to be a most rational position. And a default position at that - one in which you couldn't otherwise be (unless God turned up (or there was an airtight argument for his existing))

Efficaciousness is like pragmatism: very much in the eye of the beholder.

How one could live in obedience to God (the definition of efficacious living - assuming God exists and obedience to God is his prime requirement of us) without being a Christian is beyond me (although I'm sure one could figure out an analytical statement to render such a possibility true

)

I do not know of any philosophical framework that can derive true representations of mind-independent reality from any axioms. At best, we can suppose God exists, or imbue the idea of God with some quality of "existence". But that amounts to little more than an academic exercise.

So if by 'confirms God's existence', you mean reveal to you that the synthetic statement "God exists" is true, then I will have to ask how. If, instead, you mean your personal experience has given you great confidence in the claim that God exists, then that's fine, but it does little to support the idea of God reliably revealing himself to top-of-the-heap perception.

Is it not apparent that top-of-the-heap percepton is the thing from which philosophical frameworks and the conclusions drawn from same, derive? And that trust in that perception (let's call it I am for short) must be assumed from the outset. It is not reasonable to suppose that philosophical frameworks deriving from I am can be used to test the veracity-quotient of the I am.

Trust from the outset doesn't confer reliability. It's just a starting position which needs to be taken in order to get everything going. As mentioned to a previous poster: there was originally I am. Then one day I am realised that He is too.

It was the comparison that I disagree with. But anyway... it's not important. We both hopefully agree that truth cannot be derived from perception.

It would appear that truth cannot be derived - full stop. At least not without assuming our perception is to be trusted. Truth of course, can arrive at us and the question is whether our being unable to derive it matters all that much. Certainly not if we are subject to it rather than it being subject to us.

antiskeptic · 24-04-2009 03:34PM

Morbert wrote: »

antiskeptic, I have a feeling that your use of the word 'know' is different to wicknight's (and my) use of the word. The distinction I make between know and assume is subtle but important. I know, for example, that the statement '1+1=2' follows from the real number axioms. I assume, on the other hand, that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, because I assume that quantities in reality can be described using the real number system, and that they add linearly.

So on to my point: You say you know you are not a brain in a jar. Is this equivalent to saying that you assume you are not a brain in a jar? If not, then I'll ask for the distinction between "I assume I'm not a brain in a jar." and "I know I'm not a brain in a jar.".

Hopefully my last post to you (above) will go some way in indicating my position here. You're knowing about 1+1=2 traces it's roots back to foundational assumptions regarding the nature of reality and your existance in it. Which makes your knowing and your assuming both assumptions at root.

But you are correct in saying we might be using the word know differently. I use it to indicate a level of confidence. I know God exists expresses a higher level of confidence than I believe, or assume, or think ...God exists. Put it this way: if he doesn't exist then neither do I. And I know I exist

If so, then you must also realise that atheists assume there isn't a God, based on the same capacity to perceive and deduce.

I'm assuming both I and God exist based on self-evidency. Atheists hold their position due to a lack of evidence so I don't see the connection.

I still have the feeling that what you call 'top-of-the-heap' perception (i.e. 'knowing' things) is what I call reasoning from assumptions, even if that reasoning is as tautological as "I think therefore I am".

Like I say, assumptions liie at the root of all reasoning (with tautologies probably being the only way to escape them)

"I am therefore I think..." would appear to be a nice way of ridding ourselves of the need to assume - but unfortunately we can't arrive at this. That knowledge must arrive at us - it would appear.

wolfsbane · 24-04-2009 04:08PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it has, that is the point. When you accepted the axiom (I received a revelation from God) you would view everything from that point within the context of that being true.

You can see that in the Creationist thread. There has never been a single piece of evidence presented that has ever made you break stride, because you have already accepted that nothing can contradict or demonstrate false the Bible. You know the Bible is true, everything else must be false.

I imagine you apply such logic in everything you do, so saying that life since your revelation has "confirmed" it for you is a bit meaningless. One would expect nothing less.

There would need to be other credible explanations for the interventions I have experienced. None are anywhere near as credible as mine.

It is one thing to know the truth, but having evidence that appears to support it is something else. If the evidence appeared to deny the truth I know, I would hold on to the truth and admit the evidence seemed to deny it.

Regarding the creation argument, I am quite happy to say there is evidence that seems to deny a young earth, just as there is evidence that seems to suggest it. Both creationists and anti-creationists treat such as as-yet-unexplained problems in their model.

wolfsbane · 24-04-2009 04:20PM

Fiona500 wrote: »

I was not speaking about out dated laws. I was wondering if you are a creationist?

The condescension was unnecessary, but of course you are following in the great religious tradition of thinking that you are superior to non-believers. How very "Christian" of you.

No condescension meant. I assumed most would know about outdated laws, but Fanny reminded me that some not familiar with the Bible might not.

Yes, I am a Creationist. Just like Christ and the apostles, I believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, of Noah and the Flood, etc.

antiskeptic · 24-04-2009 04:38PM

Fiona500 wrote: »

The condescension was unnecessary, but of course you are following in the great religious tradition of thinking that you are superior to non-believers. How very "Christian" of you.

At risk of being taken up wrong:

Chrisitans are superior to non-believers. They have been raised up to the status of sons of God which is about as superior a position to occupy as one could hope to attain to. Apart from being God oneself.

Hopefully any sense of smugness will be dissolved by the fact that

a) God is the one doing the raising so the Christian can't be said to be smug about his being superior

b) God didn't raise the Christian up to this height because the Christian was better than anyone else. Indeed, it can be argued that the reason God raised the Christian up was because the Christian recognised what a piece of dirt he actually was.

c) God presents this offer to all mankind. If one wants to remain inferior for all eternity then that is one's own choice (non-Calvinistically speaking I mean

) so there's little point in moaning about the Christian claiming superiority.

Morbert · 27-04-2009 11:31PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you say unknowable do you suppose that knowing necessarily involves a means/mechanism to arrive at knowledge (eg: via logic). If so then why so? Cannot God install knowledge regarding absolute truth without there being a means to arrive at that knowledge apart from Gods action?

Lets suppose that a knowledge of right and wrong is instilled in you by God. In which case you can be justly held to account for your choices (even if you don't believe in the God who instilled that knowledge). What difference does it make to anything that you couldn't arrive at this truth about right and wrong by this or that method?

God could install knowledge regarding absolute truth. The problem arises when we try to relate that information to the absolute truth. It might very well be the case that God has revealed the truth to you, but what happens when you try and show people (namely atheists in the context of this topic) that the information revealed to you is actually the truth. What happens when you try and show even yourself? We can have strong convictions, but strong convictions are not obliged to reflect any true aspect of the world.

The ability of science to deliver (that which you find valuable) derives from a trust in your top-of-the-heap perception. If you hadn't that trust (eg: the consistancy offered by repeated scientific experiment is indeed consistancy and not variation rendered apparently consistant by a faulty perception) then scientific conclusions would be of no use to you.

The veracity of your perception isn't testable however. It's assumed from the outset because there is nothing else to do and you move on. Likewise with me: there is no testing my perception that God exists (even though there are various arguments and tests that might support if not prove such a conclusion).

The thing is I do not believe any scientific theory has been verified. There is no ontological veracity in the scientific theory that mass and energy are coupled to the curvature of spacetime, for example. That is what we mean when we say a scientific theory cannot be 'proven'. It cannot be shown that scientific theories are fundamentally true.

I'm not sure that a means to know the truth (by way of arriving at it logically for example) is all that relevant. If two persons are truly "burning in the fires of Hell" does it matter that one says they can't arrive at this truth by any means and the other says they can - "it hurts like Hell!"

Your not perceiving God does't impinge in any way on my knowing God exists nor on the reliability of my perception. Perceiving something relies on a persons:

- being equipped with an ability to perceive
- the perceived object being within the detection range of the perception ability

My not perceiving God doesn't impinge in any way on your perception of God. But it does raise questions about the reliability of your (and my) perception. Two people, to use your example, might believe they are burning in hell. They might also be under the influence of a sophisticated, hypnotic substance, stimulating the relevant parts of the brain, making them believe they are in Hell. Science (and pragmatic atheism) doesn't make assertions about such scenarios. Science makes statements about the consistency and predictive power/functionality of descriptions of empirical phenomena. Christianity, on the other hand, makes statements about fundamental truths, and so must be held to the proper level of scrutiny. This is why I believe it often fails to establish itself (despite the efforts of theologians like C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath) as a more correct worldview, as there are far too many people who do not perceive God.

There is no need to assume everyone is equipped nor that God is in detection range were it that they are indeed equipped. Christians (arguably the only ones who are equipped) will frequently tell of times when God appears very distant.

You say Christians are arguably the only ones who were equipped to detect God, and therefore detect something fundamentally true. My point is it has not been argued precisely because of our limitations. If I asked you to present an argument to show that Christian beliefs are fundamentally true, you would not be able to, for reasons I have mentioned already.

No offence intended, but one persons blindness is not a factor in assessing anothers sight.

The crux of the matter is the assessing of anothers sight. What, in your opinion, should we factor? If I were to place you next to a Muslim, or an astrologist, or someone who took the
Matrix films too seriously, how should I (or anyone) assess their 'sight'.

I wouldn't have thought of atheism as an assumption. Assuming your atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in God/gods" then it seems to me to be a most rational position. And a default position at that - one in which you couldn't otherwise be (unless God turned up (or there was an airtight argument for his existing))

Occam's razor (which is a major aspect of atheism) is an informal logical guideline, not necessarily a logical rule. It cannot be logically shown that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation unless we assume that simple explanations are more correct than more complicated explanations. This assumption is useful for a number of reasons, but it cannot be proven. So atheism is ultimately an assumption.

Is it not apparent that top-of-the-heap percepton is the thing from which philosophical frameworks and the conclusions drawn from same, derive? And that trust in that perception (let's call it I am for short) must be assumed from the outset. It is not reasonable to suppose that philosophical frameworks deriving from I am can be used to test the veracity-quotient of the I am.

See, I would say that even "I am" is derived from experience. (I think therfore I am).

Truth can arrive at us, but is there any reason to believe that we are any more capable of determining that truth has arrived at us than some arbitrarily sophisticated computer?

Ultimately, my point is that I don't have any issue with the idea of basing your beleif in God on personal experience. But the limitations of our brains/minds mean that personal experience/conviction/confidence will not win over anyone who has had a different personal experience/conviction/confidence, and it will be, for all practicle purposes, impossible to argue that the truth has been revealed to Christians, but no one else.

antiskeptic · 28-04-2009 12:51AM

Morbert wrote: »

God could install knowledge regarding absolute truth. The problem arises when we try to relate that information to the absolute truth. It might very well be the case that God has revealed the truth to you, but what happens when you try and show people (namely atheists in the context of this topic) that the information revealed to you is actually the truth. What happens when you try and show even yourself? We can have strong convictions, but strong convictions are not obliged to reflect any true aspect of the world.

I agree. Which is why I've suggested that my knowing x is the case doesn't necessarily mean it reflects any true aspect of the world. And why your knowing y is the case (however it is you come to know y is the case) doesn't do any differently. It's bootstrap arguments all the way down.

The question of "what is true" doesn't appear to require an ability on our part to determine/demonstrate that it is indeed true. What I'm trying to show atheists isn't necessarily what's true but that they are in the same boat as me: "God indemonstrably exists" is as much a (absolute) truth statement as "the world is demonstrably round"

As mentioned in my last post, if God then the question isn't so much our being able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and demonstate truth to others. It would (in the case of the biblical God in any case) focus on our personal response to the truth. As to you question about showing yourself? You wouldn't have to show it - you'd already know it - if inserted by God.

The thing is I do not believe any scientific theory has been verified. There is no ontological veracity in the scientific theory that mass and energy are coupled to the curvature of spacetime, for example. That is what we mean when we say a scientific theory cannot be 'proven'. It cannot be shown that scientific theories are fundamentally true.

Which brings us back to the stalemated position. We can't demonstrate truth to others. We can decide that we can't demonstrate it to ourselves. In the case of the biblical God, this isn't an issue - we'll respond to his truth one way or the other. It can't be helped.

My not perceiving God doesn't impinge in any way on your perception of God. But it does raise questions about the reliability of your (and my) perception.

I don't see how. 1 other seeing as I do or 10,000 seeing as I do says nothing about the reliability of what I (or they) see. 10,000 wrongs don't make a right.

Two people, to use your example, might believe they are burning in hell. They might also be under the influence of a sophisticated, hypnotic substance, stimulating the relevant parts of the brain, making them believe they are in Hell.

If we conclude that truth isn't something we can arrive at by way of demonstrate then we can't really comment on the truthful cause of the experience (for want of being able to demonstrate it). All we have is the experience of the people themselves and if burning in Hell is the experience then it doesn't really matter what the truth behind the experience is.

Christianity, on the other hand, makes statements about fundamental truths, and so must be held to the proper level of scrutiny. This is why I believe it often fails to establish itself (despite the efforts of theologians like C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath) as a more correct worldview, as there are far too many people who do not perceive God.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that establishing itself as the more correct worldview is the goal of the above luminaries. I would suspect that both men fully accept that not only will such a goal ever be achieved by men, it will never even be come within a thousand miles of being achieved.

In C.S. Lewis' case, delivery of (Gods) truth via the Trojan Horse of apologetics/childrens stories seems to have been the underlying m.o. He doubtlessly would have recognised a basic Christian fundamental: that is is the truth itself which contains freeing power. Not the eloquence of arguments about truth. I'm not sure there's all that much worth in a gospel-less apologetic to be honest (which reminds me: I need to bail out of this gospel-less thread

)

Read Jesus. Proclamation was his m.o. too. "I tell you the truth..."

Long before I was a Christian I read a book called "The easyway to stop smoking" by Allen Carr. It was a slim volume, not particularily well written (verging on the infantile in fact). In it, Allen endlessly repeated the truth he'd discovered about cigarette smoking; why people start smoking, why they continue, why they find it hard to stop, why it's easy to stop etc. I stopped just like that. The truth (about smoking) set me free from the prison of smoking.

It's one possible way to decide you've encountered truth - and the one posited by God of the Bible.

You say Christians are arguably the only ones who were equipped to detect God, and therefore detect something fundamentally true. My point is it has not been argued precisely because of our limitations. If I asked you to present an argument to show that Christian beliefs are fundamentally true, you would not be able to, for reasons I have mentioned already.

I've already said that what I know to be the case need not necessarily be - I'm in agreement with you that what I know to be the case can't be demonstrated, in other words. And what you know to be the case can't be demonstrated either.

Which brings me to any point I might have when it comes to apologetics. Which is to stalemate objections - not to have my view hold sway over yours.

The crux of the matter is the assessing of anothers sight. What, in your opinion, should we factor? If I were to place you next to a Muslim, or an astrologist, or someone who took the Matrix films too seriously, how should I (or anyone) assess their 'sight'.

I've no idea. I know that 10,000 observations reporting the same thing doesn't confer reliability of "sight" either - so you might as well stand empirical experimentation up there along with the rest of us.

I suppose that the worldview the individual decides to plump for will provide a means for subjective assessment but I can't think of way for one means to haul itself to the head of the objective queue.

Occam's razor (which is a major aspect of atheism) is an informal logical guideline, not necessarily a logical rule. It cannot be logically shown that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation unless we assume that simple explanations are more correct than more complicated explanations. This assumption is useful for a number of reasons, but it cannot be proven. So atheism is ultimately an assumption.

I was under the impression that "a lack of evidence for God" formed the basis of atheism (at least that's what atheists say when I suggest that they operate a faith based system (as you indicate above) ). They would argue there to be no need of a rational basis (such as Ockhams Razor) for their position - just a lack of evidence for God.

Wasn't William of Ockham a Christian? And if so, isn't his razor being wielded somewhat own-throat-slittingly by atheists?

As an aside: how does someone come up with the idea that God is excluded by Occams Razor when they have no idea how complex the solution to the universes existance ultimately needs to be? God might well be the simplest solution possible n'est-ce-pas?

It's late Morbert. I'll try to get to the rest of your post later on. Night.

Morbert · 06-06-2009 09:15PM

Sorry about the late reply. I forgot about this thread.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree. Which is why I've suggested that my knowing x is the case doesn't necessarily mean it reflects any true aspect of the world. And why your knowing y is the case (however it is you come to know y is the case) doesn't do any differently. It's bootstrap arguments all the way down.

The question of "what is true" doesn't appear to require an ability on our part to determine/demonstrate that it is indeed true. What I'm trying to show atheists isn't necessarily what's true but that they are in the same boat as me: "God indemonstrably exists" is as much a (absolute) truth statement as "the world is demonstrably round"

As mentioned in my last post, if God then the question isn't so much our being able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and demonstate truth to others. It would (in the case of the biblical God in any case) focus on our personal response to the truth. As to you question about showing yourself? You wouldn't have to show it - you'd already know it - if inserted by God.

Can you say the truth was inserted by God? To 'know' the truth was inserted by God, you must first assume that the truth was inserted by God. Both Christian and atheist are subject to limitations of axioms and theorems about truth. This is why, if a Christian is unable to argue that God exists, or demonstrate that God exists, or reveal to an atheist how they can demonstrate for themselves that God exists, atheists will remain unconvinced.

Which brings us back to the stalemated position. We can't demonstrate truth to others. We can decide that we can't demonstrate it to ourselves. In the case of the biblical God, this isn't an issue - we'll respond to his truth one way or the other. It can't be helped.

But if we work from an inherently different set of assumptions, then what we consider to be 'true' will be different, and we will be responding to different things. It might not be an issue to a God, but it is an issue to us.

I don't see how. 1 other seeing as I do or 10,000 seeing as I do says nothing about the reliability of what I (or they) see. 10,000 wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, but 1 seeing differently to you means either your 'sight' is reliable and theirs is not, their 'sight' is reliable and yours is not, or neither is reliable. The reason I'm raising this is a lot of Christians have a tendency to speak to atheists as if God exists, as opposed to starting from a common ground, and arguing that God exists.

A typical cliché example is:

"God loves you."
"I don't believe in God."
"It doesn't matter, He loves you anyway."

Such an approach may be poignant to a Christian, but it means little to atheists in terms of conversion, because they simply see things differently to you.

If we conclude that truth isn't something we can arrive at by way of demonstrate then we can't really comment on the truthful cause of the experience (for want of being able to demonstrate it). All we have is the experience of the people themselves and if burning in Hell is the experience then it doesn't really matter what the truth behind the experience is.

Exactly! This is essentially phenomenology. Our assumptions are essentially based on our experiences. Even "I think" is an assumption based on the experience of thinking. "God exists" is an assumption you make, based on your experiences, and "God does not exist" is an assumption I make, based on my experiences. Neither of us can say that we are certain God exists, and this is why, when a Christian says "I know God exists", it means little to an atheist.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that establishing itself as the more correct worldview is the goal of the above luminaries. I would suspect that both men fully accept that not only will such a goal ever be achieved by men, it will never even be come within a thousand miles of being achieved.

In C.S. Lewis' case, delivery of (Gods) truth via the Trojan Horse of apologetics/childrens stories seems to have been the underlying m.o. He doubtlessly would have recognised a basic Christian fundamental: that is is the truth itself which contains freeing power. Not the eloquence of arguments about truth. I'm not sure there's all that much worth in a gospel-less apologetic to be honest (which reminds me: I need to bail out of this gospel-less thread )

Read Jesus. Proclamation was his m.o. too. "I tell you the truth..."

Long before I was a Christian I read a book called "The easyway to stop smoking" by Allen Carr. It was a slim volume, not particularily well written (verging on the infantile in fact). In it, Allen endlessly repeated the truth he'd discovered about cigarette smoking; why people start smoking, why they continue, why they find it hard to stop, why it's easy to stop etc. I stopped just like that. The truth (about smoking) set me free from the prison of smoking.

It's one possible way to decide you've encountered truth - and the one posited by God of the Bible.

This brings me back to my point about "demonstrating truth". This, in my opinion, is the only notion of truth that will be effective when converting atheists. You, for example, cannot prove that your knowledge of smoking is true, but it has an efficacy nonetheless; you used it to set you free. This is the notion of truth that we are all familiar with. An atheist can learn about God, they can reach out for a personal God, and if this knowledge is efficacious, it might be accepted as truth. It is the only form of christian apologietics that I accept as valid.

<snipped stuff that we have talked about already>

I was under the impression that "a lack of evidence for God" formed the basis of atheism (at least that's what atheists say when I suggest that they operate a faith based system (as you indicate above) ). They would argue there to be no need of a rational basis (such as Ockhams Razor) for their position - just a lack of evidence for God.

Wasn't William of Ockham a Christian? And if so, isn't his razor being wielded somewhat own-throat-slittingly by atheists?

A lack of evidence for God is the basis for atheism, but we still assume that occam's razor is, at the very least, reliable. Otherwise we would not conclude that, because there is no evidence, we should not believe in God.

As an aside: how does someone come up with the idea that God is excluded by Occams Razor when they have no idea how complex the solution to the universes existance ultimately needs to be? God might well be the simplest solution possible n'est-ce-pas?

I believe the original form of Occam's razor was something along the lines of "things should not be multiplied unnecessarily". So if our universe, despite our agnosticism regarding its precise nature, does not imply God, then we should not suppose a God. Of course, this is why Christians and atheists often spend time arguing whether or not the universe implies God.

If you wanted to convert an atheist who wanted to believe....

Comments