Please avoid provocation, casesar010.
As long as they take only miracles as religion, there is no point in discussing religion here.. I am out..
Printable View
Please avoid provocation, casesar010.
As long as they take only miracles as religion, there is no point in discussing religion here.. I am out..
There is a difference between religion and faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Faith is believing in something you know cannot be true.
Religion is paying money to do so. ~D
Everyone here please just read Oolon Coluphid's brilliant trilogy; Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who Is This God Person Anyway?
It really clarifies a lot.
Interesting perspective. It may be a little off-topic but we can analyse this step for step.Quote:
If there is purpose is one single thing, then there is purpose in everything.
The purpose of nerve endings is to feel. Therefore there is a God.
The implication you have postulated suffers of course from a lack of plausibility. Why should it be so? Further, is it not neessarily false? If it were true would that not require that there are no things that have no purpuse? What about waste? Obsolete designs? Etc.? Should you mean "everything" in sensu composito, it is even more obvious: the purpose of something must lie outside itself, but nothing lies outside everything, thus everything cannot have a purpose.
Your premise is right if unprecies. Nerve endings cannot be said to feel. They contain or carry receptors which react to certain stimuli by causing a nervous impuls. These impulses are used in the brain to generate feelings. This vagueness leads to a problem with the term "purpose". Is it the purpose of nerve endings to feel, or to transmit electric impulses, to let humans function, to optimize gene reproduction success? Which of these? "Purpose" is a man-made concept, it has no precies analogue in the real world. Nerve endings exist and do what they do because of causation, not because of purpose.
Because of these problems, your conclusion must remain in doubt.
I think the problem with this thread is that, once again, it has returned to using scientific tools to observe a being who exists outside of the measurable universe (the metaphysics getting muddied with science).
I understand that an atheist (of which there are quite a few here) has no other context in which to discuss theology, but it just confuses things for everyone.
People who want to discuss theology should discuss theology. People who want to convince everyone that there is no God should maybe just avoid threads like this. I don't mean that maliciously at all, it's just that I think the original point of the thread may have fallen by the wayside...
This wasn't directed specifically at you, Saturnus...
I would be glad to talk about theology, but this thread is too simplistic for that. Look at the question, it's ridiculous. How else can you get reliable info on god other then religious writing? I mean the answer is obvious. So I think most of us got bored and started bad mouthing religion.
You use the adjective "ridiculous" a dozen times a week to describe threads, man... ~;)
Rather than argue semantics ("How can a matter of faith be reliable, ie scientifically measurable?"), why not just go with the general nature of what the original poster intended to get our input on?
Additionally, it isn't compulsory to post in every thread. If it's boring, why not just find another thread? This board doesn't mean to cater to your specs.
What I mean is:
It could have been a good thread.
We could have been discussing the mysticism (see poll option) of Sufism, and it's contrast to the scripture-focused faiths of Judaism and evangelical Christianity.
We could have talked about differing approaches to the common human purpose of "exploring the Divine".
It only got boring to me personally because a whole bunch of people, with nothing to add, decided to add a whole lot of nothing.
Don't mind me, I'm just having a whinge because I'm actually interested in this stuff.
Right on, Roark
ichi :bow:
No one said anything interesting nor did the original poster provide any links to something in particular we could talk about like Gawain and countless others do. You can't start conversations with generalized topics.
Ok example: You guys know where I can get info on milk?
- Yes just go to a website that talks about it.
~D
This thread could never go in the right direction, it had no direction. The only interesting I saw was JAG saying "I am God" and then other saying what they thought about it. ~:)
When you start hanging around the backroom you'll understand that people here need direction or else it just won't be taken seriously.
Well BP, threads certainly don't benefit from your little tirades about how boring, uninteresting or irrelevent they are. (I've been hanging around the back room long enough to notice the frequency with which that happens). It's almost like you're lobbying for people to abandon the thread.
Anyway, 'nuff said on my part. I would simply encourage you to resist poopoo-ing something just because you personally don't find it interesting. :book:
Reliable information about a mythical being? Make it up that's what everyone else does. Then if you find it's not quite what you want you just change it to suit.
I couldn´t help but chuckle at this ~:)Quote:
the metaphysics getting muddied with science
Well, Roark, it may be that we understand the purpose of this thread differently. As I said above, I don´t see this so much as a discussion about God but about reliable information. I never said scientifical measures have to be used, but the question is how information can be reliable. The assumption I have for this topic is that "reliable information on x" has some specific characteristics that are independent of what x is. If you do not share this assumption, I´m not certain discours is even possible.
BP, thank you for your adjudgement. I will try and do better next time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I do not think that religious writings are so reliable. If you look at the Bible, the you see the experience people had with life and God. It is very subjective. And often politically motivated. Further more there are some discrepancies there. I do not say that there is not truth in the Bible or that you cannot find it, but it may not be as obvious as you say.
If the people then had the chance to get more or less dirctly in touch with God, why can't we? Or how can we? That was my question.
About the Koran, well, I do not know enough about it (although I bought one 20 years ago).
I think observations and visions are good sources too. Unfortunatelly noone mentioned how he uses them.
If the proovable informations are so poor then most of our believe is - just believe. That is alright! But why then is everybody so upset if someone says it is untrue or makes jokes about it? Comparing Mohammed with Copperfield for example.
By the way! I do know that there is a God. He send me (another) evidence last night: 54 cm / 3,360g. But do not ask me who or what he is.
Congratulations, mate. :balloon2:
Well I don't think I said that the *truth* is obvious in religious writings. I said it's the most *reliable* way to get information on a said religion, because, along with some comments by other religious philsophers(St.Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas), it's the *only* information there is to ever get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Of course it's all that; politcally motivated, full of discrepencies, cotradictory, and even convolsive. But this is why it's so easy to bash as well, so it's all good. ~D
I find the last few posts in this thread quite an upgrade from earlier posts and I think we have reached the core of this word toss. It is clear that human opinion on a matter is seldom reliable. This is even truer with metaphysics. Whether a ball is red or not can be argued, but the ball’s metaphysics is examinable. God’s isn’t. The hosts of metaphysical claims about God should indicate that the sources are not reliable. That is, some claim the ball is red others green and yet another pink. Some say the ball is square which brings us all into hysterical merriment. That the ball is really not there, it is invisible raises our brows and we think; what’s the purpose of a ball that nobody can play with? It’s illogical. Yet the opinions, because that is all they are, continue and we now have a globe with nearly as many opinions as there are people.
What would be reliable?
The answer is simple; it would be direct revelation of a supreme being declaring its identity as God.
Later what seemed simple would no longer be simple because the philosophers of the world would discredit this revelation and explain it as tricks of the mind or they can prove it wrong because of x and y. See there is no match, x and y are two different letters, it is all a hoax.
Well the ball appeared and it is red, says the prophets and it is currently residing in the temple of Solomon. The philosophers laugh and parry with; there is no temple of Solomon and hence you are wrong. Besides, the ball is invisible and has always been so, and further the ball is an enemy of matter because matter is evil. Therefore, the ball can not even be here in this physical world. Go away liars!
BTW: Congratualtions on the newborn Franconius.
Congrats, Franc ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Finally something nice to read after having to go through some nasty threads ~:)
Thank you all! :baby:
Ser, can my daughter get membership here or is there a limitation about age?
(of course I will not allow her to go to the backroom. :bigcry: )
I am not aware of any "official" age limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
"Junior" member (in the literal sense of the word) are always welcome here - the youngest patrons I have seen around here were 10 or 11 years old - how old is your daughter?
I remember one thread started by a (seemingly) little girl who was asking for advice on how to beat her dad in M:TW ~:)
Ooohh, I remember that one! Something like 'help me beat my dad'. It was the cutest thing I've read here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
:love: :sunny:
Her father - who was it again? - came in for a sneak peak too.
She's 29 (hours) ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
:laugh4: I thought you were referring to your other child(ren?)
At her age I would suggest that she starts with froggy's game guides to learn the ropes of TW ... then you can show her around the Backroom as an example how a "good girl" should not behave ~:)
My other daughter is 19 months. Guess too old for these childish backroom posts. ~:handball:
If you're lucky, at some point God will reveal himself to you. If you are really lucky, it won't be an hallucination.
IMHO, the whole thing is a mystery. It is meant to be a mystery. God, or the Creator, or the Supreme Being, or the Heavenly Father, or whatever, has intentionally made it so that there is no known reason for this world - it is unknown to us, perhaps unknowable.
Thus, anybody, or any book, that comes along purporting to explain it all has the same chance of being wrong as being right (actually prolly greater likelihood it is BS). Anything that you may believe is simply based on faith. It wouldn't take much faith to believe in God if there was a proven, real evidence of God, now would it?
So, to answer the question, reliable evidence about God is a lot like God. It is nowhere, yet everywhere. It is not in a book, or a vision, or in the words of prophets. It is all around you, in the sun, and sky, and people, in the world itself. Look closely at a butterfly, or listen closely to a child's laughter, and you'll get a tiny glimpse of God.
ichi :bow:
the question about revelation, pertinent to this thread, is how reliable is it? how do you judge the reliability of a direct message from a supposed metaphysical source?
revelation seems to take a couple of distinct forms. an active sense of literally conversing with the metaphysical and a passive form of simply receiving a vision, feeling, word, or something else. "miracles" generally seem to be a specific type of the latter.
just plainly assuming that the metaphysical exists and that communication between the two realms is possible, how can a person know that any given experience they are having/have had is indeed revelation? certainly, many reported revelation sound like a documented and reproducible physiological phenomenon, hallucination.
let's say i see a glowing, ethereal jesus eating the tomatos in my garden, i'm like, "dude!?", and he vanishes. what have i experienced? should there any question to me, the experiencer? what if it were a glowing baby rhino that sung a japanese pop song. would there be any less question as to whether i experienced a miracle or a hallucination?
so what imbues genuine miracles with reliability that hallucinations do not have? i'm open to the idea that, given all the necessary assumptions, a metaphysical source can provide a certain type of information that validates itself, needing no external check or reasoning. but, it seems like that's inventing a lot of extra machinery; not that occam's razor is anything to lose sleep over.
Hasn't stopped you from reading our childish backroom posts meticulously. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Maybe God is a manifestation of energy, and as such has no boduly form, and as such has no gender (if i was written with a HE, then God dam well isn't a she)
In all my time in the Backroom, I don't know if I have ever seen words as wise as that. If everybody in the world did it that way, think of all the pain that would be avoided...Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
:idea2:
God appearing meant he is physical and you should be able to whip out your camera or camcorder to record the phenomenon.
Metaphysical God ----> Physical universe ---> can be detected Physical Human being (yes, according to religion).
Metaphysical God ----> Physical universe---> cannot be detected by Physical Science. (no, :dizzy2: according to the same religion).
If you are going to say God is sending messages to Physical Human Beings then you can't exclude Physical Science out of it. Because both use the exact, same Physical Universe!
I ask GWB. If hes not available I ask Nav. ~;)
There may be a coexistance of physics and methaphysics. Human beings could be both, part of them is physical part of them is mp. Your soul, for example. Then God could communicate with your mp part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Another possibility is that physics is just the part of the world that we know. And metaphysics is the part we know + all the rest.
I refered to my own posts of course. I will show my children yours to give them a decent education :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
There need to be a verification schema to such experiences, something that touches our physical realm. In the case of Jesus in the garden one only have to stroll down and look for missing or half-eaten tomatoes. If you saw someone eating tomatoes, there should be tomatoes missing from your garden. This will verify your claim to having seen the apparition. If there is none missing, what happened there? Did you see a prophetic vision of something that is to come or was it only a hallucination?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
But you felt the apparition right?, as a burning sensation in your core being; the Holy Ghost testifying of its truthfulness.
Of course the Holy Ghost will touch the souls of those who listen to your tale to verify your claim…
That would be all you can expect from the divine; a feeling.
Anything else would take away the faith necessary for salvation.
Remember, this is all a test to see if you deserve a spot in heaven.
Where in the universe is this heaven?
What is the physical resurrection?
What is the correlation between this physical resurrection and the non-physical heaven?
What is there to do in the eons?
What are the metaphysics of God?
What is the purpose of it all?
Oh, the philosophers did a good job of removing deity from the physical realm in the revival of Christianity back in the old days. That was their escape from the terrible questions that they could never answer.
If God communicates with your soul, the same question remains how your soul (something metaphysical) can interact with your brain (physical). If the physical brain is able to sense the metaphysical, artificial devices that can do the same must be possible. Conclusion: if the metaphysical can interact with the physical, it is only another part of the physical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
the question is how does a person distinguish between the proposed genuine experience and hallucination? any of that sensation could easily be hallucination. i guess if you want to invent a soul, you can just suppose some sort of verification system as part of it's definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
well.. not always, certainly.. i've heard lots of people ramble about their divine experiences. i just nod and smile. :yes:Quote:
Of course the Holy Ghost will touch the souls of those who listen to your tale to verify your claim…
:no:
I think that is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
If there is a Divine commuique that is supposed to qualify as knowledge and the person is held accountable for that knowledge then the Divine must communicate in such a way that the creature knows without doubt it is the Creator. This could follow an intuitive schema. Intuitive epistemic models are direct. They do not make appeal to any inference or other explanatory device.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
If the Soul is physical, then it should have physical properties and it should obey the laws of physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
But this cannot exclude beta mistakes (wrong positive). Wether or not the Creator can identify itself to a creature, mental states are conceivable in which the creature erroneously "knows without doubt" anything. In fact, having no doubt is a diagnostic criterium of delusion. The problem is that "knowing the truth" cannot be a state of mind. We only know information, and that information may or may not be congruent to reality. With other words, it is impossible for god to proof me that I´m not insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
So an ID caller on your phone would be enough ? ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Further more, the writing on stones etc should be in actual hand writing, since using Word for example would be to easy to forge ? ~:grouphug:
To say the same thing differently:
http://muchos.co.uk/members/A.Saturn...56_7029807.jpg
I think you're conflating mediate and immediate systems. Immediate knowledge may be pre-discursive and unarticulated and yet inform both discursive and articulated statements: Socratic ignorance for example. Such may also avoid the standard correspondence dilemmas by moving the whole rubric into a coherence schema. This may have with ontic overtones: here one could think of the standard Platonic sense of knowledge or Neo-platonic metaphysics. The same might be said of a non-allegorical Christian notion that one is a child of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
1 and 4.
To get reliable information about god, you must look everywhere. The bible is a good place to start, though I would not believe everything that I saw in it, because, some of the stories in there I believe where put there so man could try to make sence of certain concepts we have. But I do believe a good portion of what is in the Bible is valid and truthfull. But it's not all there, you need to talk to others about it and make your own enterpitations about it. No one can tell you everything you know about god. As in the matrix, "I can only show you the door, you are the one who has to open it.". Just use your logic and try to see what it all means.
Everyone should bear in mind I only looked at the first couple of entries, so anything else said I didn't really check through.
Sorry, I think there are just too many philosophical buzz-words in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
There cannot be a discourse unless we assume that reason itself is flawless and anything derived from reason is certain, but anything that is not derived from reason alone, must be open for doubt. Thus, any information you possess that is not deduced by yourself from reason is uncertain, whether you call it mediate or immediate. That is, unless you DO use a coherence schema. But I reject the coherence theory of truth on the basis that it is ridiculously strong.
Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
People can and do make mistakes during discourse all the time. Rational perfection is not required to have discourse. I do agree that discourse makes appeal to a rational standard. It doesn't follow from this that non-rational appeals must be open to doubt. It may be they cannot be communicated, but this does not necessarily impact any possible veracity.Quote:
There cannot be a discourse unless we assume that reason itself is flawless and anything derived from reason is certain, but anything that is not derived from reason alone, must be open for doubt.
Sure, mistakes happen, I mean we assume that rationality is in principle flawless. If reason is followed corretly, certainty is achieved. But why should non-rational appeals not be open to doubt? Claiming standards that are not necessary for the discourse is intellectually dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
If rationality is handled properly the conclusion is valid. Validity reflects the necessity of the conclusion given the premises. This does not mean it has anything to do with reality or truth. We assume reality is amenable to reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Non-rational appeals can be open to doubt: must implies a different standard. If one questions a Zen Master about the nature of Enlightenment and he replies: "I point to the Moon and you focus on my finger". The questioner might conclude that the Master is a loon or he might conclude that Enlightenment is not subject to rational inquiry. This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Good enough for me, let´s leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That´s a different situation. If someone enters a discourse, he has to abide to the rules of discourse. Among which it stands that he may not make assumptions the other does not make. Something that is not rationally justified is only an opinion, not knowledge.Quote:
Non-rational appeals can be open to doubt: must implies a different standard. If one questions a Zen Master about the nature of Enlightenment and he replies: "I point to the Moon and you focus on my finger". The questioner might conclude that the Master is a loon or he might conclude that Enlightenment is not subject to rational inquiry. This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.
I'm not sure I understood your post. Mystical appeals, which seem to operate under an intuitive epistemic, do not to attempt to communicate or replicate that experience through discourse. In fact, the view appears to be that is not possible any more than one can describe salt to one who has not tasted it. They may note the experience occurred, express that it was meaningful, or attempt some conclusion because of it etc. but the content of the experience itself remains closed to the participant.Quote:
Non-rational appeals can be open to doubt: must implies a different standard. If one questions a Zen Master about the nature of Enlightenment and he replies: "I point to the Moon and you focus on my finger". The questioner might conclude that the Master is a loon or he might conclude that Enlightenment is not subject to rational inquiry. This has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I think you can maintain a view that rejects all knowledge claims that are outside of direct rational scrutiny, but the position seems more definitional than substantial. It's interesting that all major religious traditions have mystical components that predate the rise of reason (insofar as the religions themselves are older) and have continued on through to the present irrespective of reason.
Well, ok, I agree to that, but what we were originally discussing is the question how you can exclude the possibility that a certain experience is psychotic in nature. The point I was trying to make is, if you consider the possibility of being insane, you can still not doubt the fact of your own thinking or the flawlessness of reason. But anything else you can doubt. Whatever experience you have, you cannot know for sure that it was no the result of a mental disorder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Can tasting salt be a mental disorder? I'm not sure mystical/intuitive appeals are reducible to simple psychological states. The logic of immediacy and the larger literature would suggest not.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I thought insanity was dependant on an inability to function in society, not by simple held beliefs.
Sometimes that is the same thing..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Well, knowing is a psychological state. The experience of tasting salt itself cannot be a mental disorder. It is part of the phenomenological world and therefore simply what it is. But the same certainty is not there for the noumenale world. The experience of tasting salt can be the result of exposure to the chemical substance sodium chlorid or be the product of a mental disorder, thus a hallucination. The same is true for divine revelations. The experience of a mystical encounter is phenomenological. It cannot be parted from the experiencing mind and therefore, due to delusion of that mind, may be deceiving about its source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Inability to function is often a characteristic of insanity, but not a necessarily a defining criterium. Simple held beliefs may, if obviously counterfactual and persistent, be enough to diagnose a delusion or other disorders. Hallucinations are among the major diagnostic criteria of psychosis (but not sufficient). But insanity should only serve as an example. Not all hallucinations are pathologic. But they are, by definition, counterfactual.Quote:
I thought insanity was dependant on an inability to function in society, not by simple held beliefs.
Please note also that some psychotic patients do not realize that they are socially disfunctional.
How do you define psychological state? Is it simply synapse firing or the reflective, pondering, mental component of people interacting with their environment? If it is the former would this include those with brain lesions where some brain activity is demonstrable, even if confined to lower levels?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Is hallucination used to refer to feelings? If a person in a hot room says they feel cold is this a hallucination? Is it correct to say: no, you don't.
Now you mention the experience of tasting salt cannot be a mental order. You tie it to the phenomenal realm. Phenomena simply means able to experience. Now if the Divine can be experienced it would be ipso facto phenomenal. Now if the base experience of salt is "what it is" why couldn't the experience of the Spirit of the Divine be the same?
If a person sincerely believes he is a Jedi, but in every other way performs normally. Is he nuts?Quote:
Inability to function is often a characteristic of insanity, but not a necessarily a defining criterium. Simple held beliefs may, if obviously counterfactual and persistent, be enough to diagnose a delusion or other disorders. Hallucinations are among the major diagnostic criteria of psychosis (but not sufficient). But insanity should only serve as an example. Not all hallucinations are pathologic. But they are, by definition, counterfactual.
Please note also that some psychotic patients do not realize that they are socially disfunctional.
I recall being told that loons when interviewed seem to know at some base level something is amuck, but may not know the source or corrective for this sense. Is this wrong?
Depends on the item you are tasting.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Not if his name is George Lucas....Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
In a normal society, use a different identity than your actual is not nuts, just illegal....
I think synapses are irrelevant for the discussion. A psychological state is a possible form of our inner self. A perception, a thought, a feeling, those can be part of a psychological state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
A hallucination of a feeling would be the feeling itself. Like a picture of a picture. If someone says that he´s feeling cold, we should believe him. But the origin of that feeling is important. We do not doubt a schizophrenic that he hears voices, but we doubt that these voices actually are produced by inanimate objects. Though the general experience of temperature is too vague to constitute a hallucination. If someone feels as if he´s touched by flames on spots on his body while nothing of that happens, that would be a hallucination.
The divine could affect our phenomenological world, however, we cannot experience the divine an sich. Just like we cannot experience any Ding an sich. I can see, smell and taste an apple, but the noumenale apple will always be outside my experience. The experiences that I have about the apple are a function of mental categories, past experiences and - possibly - mental disorder. Because of that, the experiences I have about the apple may be deceiving about the real nature of the apple.
Someone who believes he is a Jedi is not necessarily "nuts", no. Just like someone who receives divine revelations is not necessarily "nuts". The point is that he could possibly be "nuts".Quote:
If a person sincerely believes he is a Jedi, but in every other way performs normally. Is he nuts?
I recall being told that loons when interviewed seem to know at some base level something is amuck, but may not know the source or corrective for this sense. Is this wrong?
It is true that most patients of psychopathology notice problems. After all, most forms of psychopathology can inflict a serious amount of distress. But it can happen that this is only because they cannot function in society any longer. It is not unlikely that they attribute the cause of the problems to their environment and not to themselves. For example, I saw an interview with a man who believed that flies were breeding in his skin, no matter what he did. That went so far that he heard them sum, felt their touch and believed that they were conspiring with his mother! To him, that was entirely real and he could not even realize the absurditiy of it. Certainly he felt distress, but for him, the flies were the cause of it, not his mind.
You really should try and rise above the line linner approach to discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
A message doesn't always have to contain fancy words to be distributed and understood. Also I wouldn't want to rock the current balance on this forum...... ~;) :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
OKQuote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I don't think there is anything in mystical literature that makes appeal to a noumenal realm. The whole tenure of the knowledge claim is phenomenal. Further, and perhaps more to the point, the experience is immediate. This may or may not mean the experience could be discursive, but the logic of the event is that phenomena itself necessarily precedes any formulation as the formulation is dependant on the phenomena. For example: if one says 'A is B' the "is" is presupposed.Quote:
A hallucination of a feeling would be the feeling itself. Like a picture of a picture. If someone says that he´s feeling cold, we should believe him. But the origin of that feeling is important. We do not doubt a schizophrenic that he hears voices, but we doubt that these voices actually are produced by inanimate objects. Though the general experience of temperature is too vague to constitute a hallucination. If someone feels as if he´s touched by flames on spots on his body while nothing of that happens, that would be a hallucination.
The divine could affect our phenomenological world, however, we cannot experience the divine an sich. Just like we cannot experience any Ding an sich. I can see, smell and taste an apple, but the noumenale apple will always be outside my experience. The experiences that I have about the apple are a function of mental categories, past experiences and - possibly - mental disorder. Because of that, the experiences I have about the apple may be deceiving about the real nature of the apple.
How is loon status determined?Quote:
Someone who believes he is a Jedi is not necessarily "nuts", no. Just like someone who receives divine revelations is not necessarily "nuts". The point is that he could possibly be "nuts".
Medical science and legal system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
There I go thinking that a "loon" was a type of bird.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/i0070id.html
I´m not sure why you consider the formulation important. 'is' is indeed presupposed because the possibility of an identity relation is an axiom. Logical considerations would hardly be possible without it. But that is not the case for the origin of experiences. It all comes down to the question whether the experiences refer to something outside themselves. If not, there is no problem. If they do, then it should be clear that the experiences may not reflect the real nature of that which they refer to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
First of all, we do not speak of 'loons', normally. Someone has a psychosis or another disorder. Whether this is the case is usually determined by applying the DSM-IV. If someone fulfills the relevant criteria, he or she is considered psychotic or otherwise mentally ill. Delusion is a symptome of several different disorders. We speak of delusion if a person is preoccupied by ideas that are clearly counterfactual and cannot be convinced by any sort of evidence and are not common for the culture the person lives in.Quote:
How is loon status determined?
But of course, the DSM-IV is a tool for the practicioner. Practical considerations are important for it. It does not necessarily hold the truth about insanity. We do not know enough over the ethology of mental disorders to base a classification on it. But obviously, there must be an ethiology for insanity. So if we want to know for sure whether our jedi is really insane, we would need to know the ethiology of his conviction and that of obviously insane ones. Maybe then we could identify "insane" convictions. But we aren´t so far yet.
As I understood your position you were appealing to a kantian formula to critique the epistemic basis of mystical claims. You did this by referencing the nouminal realm and the transcendental. I pointed out that mystical claims do not make nouminal appeal and that irrespective of any formulation (transcendental or otherwise) experience is always already there. Experience has logical priority: such may be mediated, but does not necessarily have to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Whether experience is self-generated or not and whether such properly reflect reality is a separate question. I know you have opted for a correspondence critique, but I don't think that is the proper formulation of the standard mystical appeal. It seems, particularly given the ontic overtones, that a coherence formula is more accurate. Further, should we restrict ourselves to correspondence positions I don't think mystical claims are any more vulnerable to critique than other experience. If one accepts basic empirical appeals as a basis for knowledge claims then mystical experience would fall within those bounds.
If etiology is critical to make a diagnosis and no etiology is forthcoming then it doesn't appear possible to label our Jedi or mystic nuts based on a singular belief or claimed experience.Quote:
First of all, we do not speak of 'loons', normally. Someone has a psychosis or another disorder. Whether this is the case is usually determined by applying the DSM-IV. If someone fulfills the relevant criteria, he or she is considered psychotic or otherwise mentally ill. Delusion is a symptome of several different disorders. We speak of delusion if a person is preoccupied by ideas that are clearly counterfactual and cannot be convinced by any sort of evidence and are not common for the culture the person lives in.
But of course, the DSM-IV is a tool for the practicioner. Practical considerations are important for it. It does not necessarily hold the truth about insanity. We do not know enough over the ethology of mental disorders to base a classification on it. But obviously, there must be an ethiology for insanity. So if we want to know for sure whether our jedi is really insane, we would need to know the ethiology of his conviction and that of obviously insane ones. Maybe then we could identify "insane" convictions. But we aren´t so far yet.
Sorry to barge in at this stage, but here it is:
There is no God!
Any claim to the contrary is either a lie, or uttered by someone who is mislead or delusional.
Any religious experience is either caused by a misunderstanding, trickery or a psychotic incident.
I could elaborate further, but I think that's really all you need to know about God right there! ~:) ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug:
Logically this is an untenable position. It also shifts the focus of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Peru
Why is it logically untenable? Epistemologically denying the existence of God is problematic , but I see no self-contradiction in Paul's statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
To say there is no god as a point of knowledge (which appears to be the view being expressed) is to assert positive knowledge of a negative. This is untenable as it is impossible to prove a negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
I've always been confused by this statement so perhaps you could clarify. I could certainly put forth a valid argument which concludes in the negation of a proposition. I understand "to prove" to mean "to demonstrate a proposition in a given system". If the system is something like propositional calculus it is certainly possible to prove a negation. If the system if epistemological then I think I agree, but I'll withold objection until your reply is forthcoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Proof is a logical term. In logic there are two basic formats: inductive and deductive. Deductive basically means going from big to little for example: Bachelors are unmarried, Bob is a bachelor therefore Bob is unmarried. A conclusion is drawn from a general premise. Inductive means going from little to big for example: Those are swans, the swans are white therefore all swans are white. Now if one takes a deductive standard say: "there is no God" and then derive some conclusion from it. That is fine, but the statement "there is no God" is a premise of a proof, not the proof itself. A premise is an assertion that may or may not be true, but the premise has no qualification and therefore no particular standing unless it is a tautology like my bachelor example. Typically when discussing the inability to prove a negative one is thinking of inductive logic. Given that induction is based on a particular, it is impossible to draw a necessary universal conclusion from that particular as the conclusion is constrained by the particular. If you consider the swan example: a swan or group of swans are cited and a general conclusion is draw from that citation. That conclusion carries no necessity. There is nothing that denies a black swan may exist and in fact should one find a black swan the prior conclusion is completely refuted. This is the dynamic science operates under: data is gathered and conclusions are drawn from that data. Scientists then try and falsify the claim through counterexamples. If a counterexample can be found then the process begins anew. If no counterexample can be found then one feels a little more confident about the conclusion. Regardless the length of time a conclusion may stand, it is always subject to a possible counterexample and revision. We hold to inductive conclusions out of a sense of prudence rather than necessity. Does that make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
Yes it makes sense. The confusion arose because I thought you were including deductive logic in your statement. I think the proper formulation of "a negative cannot be proved" is "the inductive principle cannot be used to prove non-existence".
As I said above, I reject a coherence criterium. It is much too powerful.Quote:
Whether experience is self-generated or not and whether such properly reflect reality is a separate question. I know you have opted for a correspondence critique, but I don't think that is the proper formulation of the standard mystical appeal. It seems, particularly given the ontic overtones, that a coherence formula is more accurate. Further, should we restrict ourselves to correspondence positions I don't think mystical claims are any more vulnerable to critique than other experience. If one accepts basic empirical appeals as a basis for knowledge claims then mystical experience would fall within those bounds.
And yes, you´re right, mystical claims are not more vulnerable to critique than other experiences. The same uncertainty I claimed for mystical appeals count as well for any other empirical method. And that is why I said the important point of this discussion is the meaning of "reliable". Since experiences can be deceitful, we require a systematic approach that minimizes the chance of deceit. This systemtic approach sees 'reliable' information as such that plausibility is not achieved by emotional appeal, but by the fulfillment of certain criteria, namely objectivity and statistical considerations. Because of that, a mystical appeal can be reliable if - and only if - it is open for scientific investigation. Just like any other empirical method.
I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I don't think mysticism is science. I think it is a mistake to apply a scientific regimen to a decidedly unscientific arena. There is no standard by which one who claims ineffable knowledge can then make it effable which is what science would require. Still, mystical systems are not completely closed. Zen, Sufi, various Christian mendicant orders etc. all espouse a method whereby one can "know" with the charge: now go and do likewise.Quote:
And yes, you´re right, mystical claims are not more vulnerable to critique than other experiences. The same uncertainty I claimed for mystical appeals count as well for any other empirical method. And that is why I said the important point of this discussion is the meaning of "reliable". Since experiences can be deceitful, we require a systematic approach that minimizes the chance of deceit. This systemtic approach sees 'reliable' information as such that plausibility is not achieved by emotional appeal, but by the fulfillment of certain criteria, namely objectivity and statistical considerations. Because of that, a mystical appeal can be reliable if - and only if - it is open for scientific investigation. Just like any other empirical method.
Do you like being free of the moderator's robes?
Deductive models cannot prove a negative either without first assuming a negative premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
You could say:
Gods are good. They protect their created subjects. Nobody protects us and our world is not good. Therefore there is no God.
Wonderful discussion. You probably lost a lot of people when it got down, or would it be up, to the level of Otto's numen. We'd best hope that no other Friesians wander in here or they'll suffer massive myocardial infarctions. Karl Popper would pop a blood vessel, at the very least. ~D
You're right on both counts, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
As for shifting the focus of the discussion, I kind of apologized for that.
As for the non-existence of God, you're right that I can't prove it. I am aware of this.
So when I want to be clever I describe myself as a "whatheist" (works slightly better in Norwegian)
An atheist says "there is no God", which is strictly an untenable position.
I actually say "Whether there's a what, now? Why should I even consider such a ludicrous proposition?"
The answer to which is "I was taught'n'told", "there must be something" or some similarly unconvincing statement.
That God is of such a nature that a world without God is indistinguishable from a world without God is the one fact that makes it possible to believe in God, for if His followers claimed that He made a difference in anyway, they would be asked to prove it.
As for mystical experiences. Pindar mentions that they are "available" under many contradictory belief systems. Does not this give us some clue?