Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

That's skating rather close to the edge. Are you implying member is not capable of reasoning?

Please - play the ball not the man!

In the context of the argument it's a genuine question, not an attack. The TL;DR end of this argument is that it all boils down to faith of one sort or another.

I reckon you're right.

Hard indeed to convince someone else that one's particular opinions are the valid ones.

I was always told to play the man not the puck.

Was that your hockey coach?

I guess you don't realize how obnoxiously condescending you come off when you insist everyone who doesn't agree with your perspective is ignorant and uninformed and shouldn't even trust their own mind and observations and instead just accept your opinion as absolute truth despite your nonsensical circular logic and unreasonable, unsubstantiated claims. If I'm wrong and spent eternity in hell, it will still be preferable to spending eternity surrounded by folks who share your attitude. Not that that's a likely outcome, but for how likely it is I'm willing to risk it.

A Propagandhi song, actually. I'm a rare example of a Canuckistani who hasn't played hockey as a youth.

Ah, I always thought you must be further south. Didn't know the song!

I'm a great deal further south - even further south than the Tropic of Capricorn...

Even neuroscience is on the fence about this, it is a question worth pondering.

It’s not ad hom. It’s an epistemological question that applies universally.

ALL human reasoning fails on one ground or another, even if it’s as simple as a circularity. There’s just no way to get around that. It doesn’t mean that, say, evolution is wrong, or that Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong about gravitation, or that Jesus was never God’s Son. It’s logically possible to be right about any of those things. The problem is it is impossible to draw a completely valid conclusion about those things because of circular reasoning. If the conclusions are invalid, then they are unreliable. The only remedy for circular reasoning is omniscience, without which one cannot claim any amount of knowledge.

Faith is required because while one cannot claim to know anything, one may come to trust something or someone apart from their own mind. If you gain some amount of certain knowledge, you can begin to make logical conclusions. So where does your information come from and how can you be certain that it’s reliable? That, basically, is the short answer.

Mate,
I am a big boy.
I am not in the least offended.
Personally, I'd rather have a more open and honest interaction.
Slander, on the other hand, would validate your involvement.

The comment was kiddy stuff.
OOPS!
Was that: "skating rather close to the edge"


I took no offence. <shrug>
Why should I?
I have plenty of self-confidence to spare.
Want some?

As I understand it, Rho, your argument is:

1) you can’t trust your senses
2) given that you can’t trust your senses, knowledge of the world is impossible
3) axiomic knowledge like counting cannot be used to deduce things beyond the direct realm of those axioms. Sure 1+1=2 ultimately leads to complex powers, but it never leads to “Apple”. So axioms are no help with the physical world either.

After that I must admit that I don’t follow you. Is your argument “I read the Bible and felt the presence of God” (in which case, how do you know either your perception of the Bible or the revelation of God were reliable and trustworthy sensory experiences rather than mistakes?) or “because knowledge is impossible, my decision to believe in God is just as valid as your decision not to”, or something else?

Anthropologists have speculated that indications of ancient religions only occurred after the evolutionary development of a certain aspect of the neocortex.

In essence, the brain needed to evolve to a certain level of sophistication to allow for complex intellectual constructs such as religion.
Surely this is axiomatic?


Through metacognition, life experience, dialogue with psychologists and psychiatrists and research.
I have studied psychology for over 40 years.

You form opinions based on your own personal experiences/knowledge/wisdom.
I am no different. <shrug>


I am responding to you presumably in a rational manner.
I believe it is reasonable to assume I have some ability in analysing what you are writing and responding appropriately.


I value objectivity and truthfulness above emotional needs and wishful thinking.
It is a discipline I have developed for over 40 years.
But ignoring this reality, how would you form an opinion?
Are you saying *your* life experience is unreliable?
Are you saying life experience has no worth?

I find your approach a little amusing if you aren't simply playing "Devil's Advocacy".

BTW,
I am not a fan of "Devil's Advocacy".
I prefer sharing information with the intention of mutual growth.


Well, it is mine.
I am not a fan of stamping my foot in frustration /exasperation if we come to an impasse.
I have spoken to many theists over the decades and intimately understand that:
"East is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet."
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."


Yes,
One never stops learning,
Assuming one embraces the desire to do so.

I have postulated previously that it is the emotional component of humanity which distorts/corrupts the perception of reality, (within human capability, of course).

I'm going to have to remember that line.

Not quite. The senses are trustworthy to the extent that they are reliable. My senses cannot immediately determine the position of the Galilean moons at the present moment, although with a telescope and a clear night sky, it's not quite such a challenge. Unassisted, however, and without specific conditions, that's knowledge that remains hidden from me. And even with the telescope, there's the question of whether the telescope itself is reliable--the position of the mirror, correct alignment with celestial north, etc. And then there are limits of knowledge of optics. I have to assume that it "just works." I could consult with experts in optics and with astronomers, but then I'm faced with the limits of THEIR knowledge. I can't know that my telescope is telling me the truth because none of us know everything. I have to ASSUME two things: That my senses are reliable enough, and that their knowledge and expertise is enough that I can make a reasonable conclusion. Notice that involves both circular reasoning AND appeal to authority.


One must ASSUME he can trust his senses. Knowledge of the world IS possible. However, there is a question of where knowledge comes from. If from the senses alone, then it's not knowledge, since possessing knowledge requires omniscience. The issue is what certainty one has to claim "knowledge." We survive by learning X == True 0.yy of the time. Ok, that's great, but what about the 1 - 0.yy that the water you're drinking is tainted? We cope by making the assumption that good things in life are to be expected and then do the best we can to correct errors. Since that comes from the senses, and we owe our survival to our senses, I think it's more important to consider what tells us our senses can be trusted. Is it possible to tap into unlimited knowledge enough to know that our senses can be trusted reasonably well enough to, at a minimum, ensure our survival? Because if it is, the assumption that the senses can be trusted is not based on circular reasoning and hence, is derived from a valid, logical conclusion.



Except axioms are necessary in order for reasonable conclusions to be drawn. The scientific method, as my favorite example, is not itself a conclusion drawn from a non-circularity. It can only be assumed, not proven, that the method offers the most explanatory power in our world. The only way around this is to accept the circularity and proceed. However, if it is revealed that, say, the senses are reliable and the rational mind is sufficient for drawing conclusions, then the effectiveness of the Method is not a matter of circularity, but is established, reliable FACT. It can be revealed to be self-evident and not requiring proof. But the conclusion that "we can't prove it, so we're just gonna say 'it's self-evident'" is not a logical statement because it lacks a means of arguing outside of circular reasoning. Axioms are helpful with the physical world if and only if they are true. How do we know them to be true without falling back on circular reasoning? We have to know everything, first. And since we don't know everything, then either certain knowledge cannot exist, or we need access to an omniscient agent.


It's a good question, isn't it?


To me, that's more of a side-effect of the whole argument. Ideas, concepts, numbers, etc. are transcendental. I can't give you evidence of an "idea." I can't show evidence of the number "1". Those things have no basis in physical reality, but may manifest themselves in some way: One hotdog. A computer operating system. The universe. "One" is realized in terms of how many hotdogs you have. "OS" is an idea realized in code. The universe is something that began to exist, and therefore had to have been caused to exist. Each of those things are evidence of the invisible, the transcendent--they are not the concepts themselves. But not everyone can look at "one hotdog" and get "1," or use an OS and get "idea," or "universe" and get God. In fact, nobody can. Those truths have to be revealed on some level and accepted on faith. One can say "Big Bang," but merely saying "Big Bang" doesn't obligate the other person to accept that the Big Bang happened. One can say "God," but that doesn't obligate the other person to believe in God. One can scream "Evidence, PLEASE!" but what even IS evidence? How are you certain you've drawn the correct conclusion if you don't know everything?

To answer your question more directly, I could claim that my decision to believe in God is just as valid as the opposite, sure. But in the same breath I would also be admitting that NEITHER my conclusion nor the opposite is valid. I don't see my decision as invalid. I see that as something that has been revealed to me with no margin for uncertainty. Arguing/demanding evidence is futile in the same sense arguing with a mathematician as to whether numbers exist is futile. I'm not aware of math teachers losing their jobs because teaching a transcendent subject is inherently religious. However, if transcendent things like math concepts are accepted as real from having been revealed to us, it's logically possible to know of other transcendent things that have also been revealed to us. In fact, I believe that's the only possible way anything at all can make logical sense.